Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 25373/2012 (LAC). Case: Sangayya Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 25373/2012 (LAC) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.T. Savanur, Advocate and For Respondents: C.S. Patil, Additional Government Advocate |
| Judges | Anand Byrareddy and S. Sujatha, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 18, 4(1) |
| Judgement Date | September 29, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
-
The appellant is said to be the owner of agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 617/1A, measuring 5 acres 18 guntas, of which 4 guntas of land was said to be pot-kharab, Jamkhandi taluk of Bagalkot district. There was also a superstructure existing on the said land. The respondent, namely, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, had notified the land for acquisition for the purpose of a rehabilitation centre for Alagur village in Jamkhandi taluk. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity), was issued on 24.2.2006 and after completion of formalities an award was passed in terms of Section 11 of the Act, on 4.5.2007 and the respondent had awarded the compensation of Rs. 81,030/- per acre and Rs. 2,20,920/- for the construction, standing on the agricultural land.
-
The appellant being dissatisfied, as the compensation awarded was inadequate, received the award amount under protest and filed an application for enhancement in respect of both the land and the structure in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The respondent having referred the said application to the Civil Court, it was numbered as LAC No. 63/2008. The reference Court had conducted an enquiry and passed the judgment and award on 7.8.2012 partly accepting the value of the land as contended by the appellant. The Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,05,750/- per acre in respect of the cultivable land and has rejected the claim for enhancement in respect of 4 guntas of land which was pot-kharab. Further the Court below has enhanced the compensation in respect of one RCC building and one kadpatti building, to 50% over and above the compensation which has been awarded by the respondent and has granted all statutory benefits.
-
So far as the enhanced compensation awarded, by the Court below, at 50% over and above the compensation which has been awarded by the respondent for the superstructure is accepted and that portion of the judgment and award is not challenged. So far as the rejection of the claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of 4 guntas of pot-kharab of land is concerned, that is under challenge and also the partial enhancement for an extent of 5 acres 14 guntas of land in R.S. No. 617/1A, referred to hereinabove, at the rate of Rs. 7,05,750/-, modification which is sought to be made and further enhancement of compensation is prayed for in the present appeal.
-
The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the Court below has proceeded to adopt the value assigned to the neighbouring lands, which were said to have been sold by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in favour of a private person in the year 1996. It is pointed out that the vicinity of the area was not developed and it was mostly agricultural land in the year 1996. It is pointed out, the vicinity of the area was undeveloped agricultural land and therefore the Court below having adopted the value assigned to the lands which was undeveloped agricultural land and attributing escalation of 5% per year from the year 1996 would hardly fetch the accurate compensation, which the appellant would be entitled to. Therefore the method adopted was incorrect and it is pointed out that the land of the appellant was surrounded by other lands, which were all acquired for the formation of a residential layout. The layout had been formed by the year 1998. It transpires, that the layout having been formed, the Karnataka Housing Board which formed the layout has realized that the appellant's land also ought to have been included in the acquisition as layout was developed around the lands of the appellant and thought it fit to notify the appellant's lands as well and it was only in the year 2004 that the land was notified and further acquisition proceedings had been taken.
-
The learned counsel would point out that the surrounding areas being totally developed as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial