CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BANGALORE Vs. DODDEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal from the judgment and award dated 9-11-1998 passed in L. A. C. No. 9 of 1997 of the reference Court has arisen out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short), dated 20-5-1987 published on 11-6-1987 pursuant to which award dated 16-4-1997 of R-2, the special Land Acquisition Officer was passed acquiring the land of R-1 (claimant) bearing S. No. 31/1b measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situate at Henjagondanahalli Village in Arasikere Taluk of hassan District, for the purpose of Housing Scheme formulated by the appellant-Karnataka housing Board.

(2.) THE fact situation of this case is same as obtainable in connected M. F. A. No. 1444 of 1999 which has been disposed of by us by a considered judgment dictated and delivered today: therefore, for the reasons stated therein i. e. , M. F. A. No. 1444 of 1999, we hold that the market value of the acquired land in the instant case also should be Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Thus, the market value per acre of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,30,680/- instead of Rs. 2,17,800/- per acre as was determined by the Court below.

(3.) NEXTLY, as pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Umakanth, the reference Court has committed an error in granting the statutory benefit of the market value at 12% under Section 23 (1-A) of the L. A. Act from the date of preliminary notification under section 4 (1) thereof till passing of the award, whichever is earlier, without excluding the period during which the land acquisition proceeding in L. A. C. No. 9 of 1997 which has given rise to this appeal was held up on account of the stay granted by this Court in claimant's Writ Petition no. 2559 of 1989 which was filed by him challenging the acquisition proceedings. Explanation to Section 23 (1-A) of the Act provides for exclusion of the said period in computing the period for which the additional market value at 12% is required to be paid. Admittedly, an interim order staying further acquisition proceedings in this case was obtained by the claimant (R-1) in his writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989 on 22-2-1989 and that, that stay order was in force till 5-8-1996 on which date the said writ petition came to be dismissed. It is also not in dispute that R-2 l. A. O. 's award acquiring the land of the claimant was passed on 16-4-1997 and that the possession of the land was taken by him subsequently on 7-6-1997. Section 23 (1-A) of the Act provides for payment of additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) to the date of the award of the L. A. O. or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier, subject to exclusion of the said period of stay in consequence of the interim order dated 22-2-1996 made in Writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989. The said stay period from 22-2-1989 to 5-8-1996 which was required to be excluded, has not been excluded by the Court below in granting additional market value at 12% per annum under section 23 (1-A ). Therefore, it was in clear error in not doing so in compliance with this legal mandate. The direction of the Court below in this respect will have to be modified accordingly.