Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal Nos. 1743 of 2006 and 8899-8901 of 2011. Case: 1. Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2. Basappa (D) and by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs 1. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga and Anr. etc. etc.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 4 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1743 of 2006 and 8899-8901 of 2011
CounselFor Appellants: P. P. Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: A. S. Bhasme, Adv.
JudgesJagdish Singh Khehar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
IssueCity Improvement Trust Board Act, 1976 - Section 15(1); Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18(3)
CitationAIR 2012 SC 446, 2012 (90) ALR 5, 2012 (2) AWC 1579 SC, 2012 (4) KarLJ 18, 2012 (3) MahLJ 8 (SC), 2012 (115) RD 302, 2011 (13) SCALE 48, 2012 (1) SCC 390, 2012 (1) UJ 489
Judgement DateNovember 22, 2011
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

  1. Through this common order, we propose to dispose of Civil Appeal No. 1743 of 2006, as also, Civil Appeal Nos. 8899-8901 of 2011. For convenience, the factual position, as has been depicted in Civil Appeal No. 1743 of 2006, has been referred to.

  2. Gulbarga Development Authority, consequent upon its desire to acquire land for raising a residential layout, issued a preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1976 on 13.5.1982. Through the aforesaid notification, it was proposed to acquire 144 acres of land falling in the revenue estate of villages Rajapur (71 acres) and Badepur (73 acres). The matter in respect of the acquisition of land crystallized, when the final notification was issued on 14.12.1989. Thereby the land of the Appellants, measuring 8 acres 4 guntas, situated in survey No. 63 of the revenue estate of village Badepur, came to be acquired. Insofar as Civil Appeal Nos. 8899-8901 of 2011 is concerned, the Appellants' land measuring 7 acres 7 guntas, falling in survey No. 14/2, in the revenue estate of village Rajapur, was acquired.

  3. The Land Acquisition Officer announced his award on 7.7.1990. By the aforesaid award, the market value of the land, falling in the revenue estate of village Badepur, was fixed at the rate of Rs. 4,100/- per acre. For the land falling in the revenue estate of village Rajapur, the Land Acquisition Officer, assessed the market value at Rs. 13,500/- per acre. The landowner, Chandrashekar (whose L.Rs. are the Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1743 of 2006) filed Writ Petition Nos. 15489-496 of 1990 to assail the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Gulbarga Development Authority, by finding fault with the procedure adopted. The High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), while issuing notice, passed an interim order staying dispossession for a period of 3 weeks. By a motion bench order dated 10.8.1990, the interim order passed on 23.7.1990 was continued, "till further orders". Writ Petition Nos. 15489-496 of 1990 came to be dismissed on 12.8.1991. The notification for acquisition of land as also the procedure adopted was held to be in consonance with law.

  4. During the pendency of the writ petition referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the original landowner Chandrashekar, filed a protest petition assailing the quantum of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the aforesaid protest petition dated 24.9.1990, reference was also sought, for enhancement of compensation awarded to the Appellant. Since the protest petition filed by the landowner was not referred for adjudication, the landowner filed an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The aforesaid application was allowed, and the claim raised by the landowner was registered for adjudication.

  5. After adjudicating upon the matter, the Reference Court announced its award on 19.6.1999. The compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs. 4,100/- per acre, was enhanced to Rs. 1,46,000/- per acre. The Gulbarga Development Authority, as also, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred independent appeals before the High Court. By an order dated 3.11.1999, the High Court allowed the appeals, and remitted the matter to the Reference Court for reconsideration, on the issue of deductions to be made from the market value, so as to determine compensation payable to the land losers. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that while determining the compensation payable to the Appellant, the Reference Court had based its assessment on a sale deed dated 30.12.1983. From the market value of land assessed, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the Reference Court had applied a deduction of 33 percent. The High Court having concluded, that the aforesaid deduction was inappropriate, had remanded the matter for re-determination. It is the case of the Appellants before this Court, that the only issue, which the Reference Court was called upon to settle, after the High Court by its order dated 3.11.1999 had remitted the matter to the Reference Court was, the percentage of deductions to be made from the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar sale transaction, so as to determine the fair compensation payable to the landowners for acquisition of their land.

  6. By its order dated 21.12.2002, the Reference Court re-determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre. This determination by the Reference Court was again assailed before the High Court. Whilst the Gulbarga Development Authority and the Land Acquisition Officer filed appeals before the High Court for reducing the quantum of compensation awarded, the landowners preferred cross-objections for enhancement thereof. The appeals filed by the Gulbarga Development Authority and the Land Acquisition Officer were partly allowed, inasmuch as, the High Court reduced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court from Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre to Rs. 65,000/- per acre. The instant order passed by the High Court dated 2.4.2004 has been assailed before this Court through Civil Appeal No. 1743 of 2006, as also, through the connected Civil Appeal nos. 8899-8901 of 2011.

  7. It would be relevant to mention, that while determining the controversy, the High Court was satisfied in deducting 55 percent of the market value assessed on the basis of the exemplar sale deed, towards developmental charges, 5 percent towards waiting period, and 10 percent towards de-escalation. By virtue of the aforesaid deductions, the High Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 67,954/- per acre. Having done so, by applying the rule of averages, the High Court held, that compensation for the acquired land was payable at Rs. 65,000/- per acre.

  8. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellants in both set of appeals contended, that the deduction of 55 percent towards developmental charges, was arbitrary, and without application of mind. It was sought to be asserted, that the High Court did not record any reason(s) for applying the aforesaid deduction. Likewise, it was contended, that deduction of 10 percent by way of de-escalation was also arbitrary. In this behalf, it was sought to be contended, that the Reference Court had determined 3 percent as deduction on account of de-escalation, whereas, the High Court had enhanced the aforesaid deduction to 10 percent, without recording any reason(s).

  9. For the determination of market value of the acquired land, it is apparent that primary reliance has been placed by the Appellants, on the exemplar sale deed dated 30.12.1983 (Exhibit P-18, before the Reference Court). It would also be relevant to mention, that through the aforesaid sale deed, land measuring 2400 square feet (40' x 60') falling in survey No. 63/1, of the revenue estate of Badepur village, was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 12,500/-. It would also be relevant to mention, that the Reference Court on the basis of the aforesaid exemplar sale deed, assessed the value of the land at Rs. 5.20 per square foot. Having applied a deduction of 33 percent towards developmental charges, the Reference Court had arrived at the figure of Rs. 3.47 per square foot. At the aforesaid rate, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 1,51,153.20 per acre. The Reference Court also allowed de-escalation at the rate of 3 percent per annum, as the exemplar sale deed was executed after the issuance of the preliminary notification. Consequent upon the aforesaid deduction, the Reference Court arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,44,552.20 per acre, as compensation payable for the acquired land. The said determination was rounded of to Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre.

  10. According to the Appellants before this Court, the determination rendered by the Reference Court, was in consonance with the law laid down by this Court, and accordingly, the compensation determined by the Reference Court, should be restored to the land losers.

  11. The issue which falls for our consideration in the present appeal falls in a narrow compass. As already noticed hereinabove, through the impugned notifications, the Gulbarga Development Authority had sought acquisition of 144 acres of land, falling in the revenue estates of villages Rajapur (71 acres) and Badepur (73 acres). As compared to the acquired land, the exemplar sale deed dated 30.12.1983 reflects sale of a small piece of land measuring 2400 square feet (40' x 60' = 2400 square feet). The aforesaid sale transaction (dated 29.12.1983) was executed 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the date of the preliminary notification (dated 13.5.1982).

  12. Insofar as the nature of the acquired land of the Appellant measuring 8 acres 4 guntas, in survey...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT