Keshavadas Shridharao Savakar & Others vs Assistant Commnr. & Land Acquisition Officer & Another

were acquired for Karnataka Housing Board

(hereinafter `the Board'). The Land Acquisition

Officer determined the market value at

Rs.35,000/- per acre and passed an award to that

effect on 5th March, 1994. Assailing the said

quantum, the landowners filed a reference. The

Reference Court on a detailed consideration of

the matter and after examining 22 witnesses and

scrutinizing about 35 documents, which were made

exhibits, fixed the market value of the acquired

land at Rs.14,500/- per gunta, apart from

granting other statutory benefits.

3.The operative portion of the order of the

Reference Court is set out below:

"1. Reference in L.A.C. No. 12/95 to 20/95 are accepted in part.

2 2. Market value in respect of the acquired lands is determined at Rs.14,500/- per gunta.

3. The claimants are entitled to additional market value at 12% p.a. on the market value from the date of preliminary notification to the date of the award of the L. A. O. or the date of dispossession whichever is earlier.

4. The claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% on enhanced market value.

5. The claimants are entitled to the interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of dispossession for a period of one year and further interest at 15% p.a. on the enhanced compensation after expiry of above stated one year till the date of payment.

6. The original Judgment is kept in L.A.C. No. 12/95 and copies are ordered to be kept in L.A.C. No. 13/95 to 20/95.

(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court)

Gadag Dated. 25.01.2000 (B. M. ANGADI) Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadag."

4.In coming to the aforesaid findings, the

Reference Court made it clear that the Land

3 Acquisition Officer had not at all considered the

non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired

land, even though the land was within the

municipal limits. The Reference Court also relied

on a map which was prepared by PW-1 showing the

civil amenities in the vicinity of the acquired

land. The Reference Court also relied on sale

deeds Ext. P-8 to P-17.

5.Being aggrieved by the order of the Reference

Court dated 25.1.2000, the claimants filed a

Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court

under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

High Court framed two questions:

i. Whether the finding of the Reference Court that the fixation of market value by LAO is inadequate, is correct?

ii. Whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.14,500/-

per gunta is erroneous and requires interference?

4 6.After a lengthy discussion, the High Court held

that the determination by the Reference Court on

the basis of sale transactions (Ext. P-8 to P-17)

is based on two premises. According to the High

Court, the two premises were:

i. The auction sales (disclosed by Ex. P 8 to Ex. P 17) reflect the proper market value in the area.

ii. The sites sold under Ex. P 9 to P 17 are in close proximity to the acquired land; that is sites 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 covered by sale deeds (Ex. P 9 to Ex. P 14) are within a distance of 60 mtrs. and sites 1, 9, 12 and 13 covered by sale deeds (Ex. P 8, P 15, P 16 and P 17) are at a distance of about 500 mtrs. from the acquired land.

7.The High Court held both the premises to be

incorrect and did not uphold the decision of the

Reference Court. However, the High Court noted

that the Board, the beneficiary of the

acquisition, had filed an application under Order

XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for

5 leading of further evidence stating therein that

some of the landowners had given consent to

passing of an award at the rate of Rs.73,000/-

per acre. However, those records could not be

produced as they were burnt by fire. Under those

circumstances, the Housing Board sought an

opportunity to let in further evidence. It

appears that the claimants also filed an

application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code

of Civil Procedure for filing further evidence.

In view of such petitions being filed, the High

Court came to an opinion that the ends of justice

require that the parties should be given an

opportunity to let in fresh evidence. The High

Court, thereafter, quashed the judgment under

appeal and remanded the matter to the Reference

Court with a direction to the parties to lead

additional evidence.

8.This Court is rather constrained to observe that

it is difficult to appreciate the reasoning given

6 by the High Court to remand the appeals after

entering into detailed findings running into more

than 50 pages.

9. However, the matter is pending before this Court

since 2002. The acquisition is of the year 1991.

Therefore, about 20 years have elapsed since the

initiation of acquisition proceedings and the

matter has been kept pending in this Court for

about 9 years. In between attempts were made for

settling the controversy on the basis of an offer

made by the landowners. The said offer was

recorded by this Court in its order dated 15th

November, 2007:

"Learned senior counsel for the landowners has made a statement that his clients are prepared to accept a deduction of 70% as was found by the High Court. The Housing board may consider the offer and file an affidavit regarding the price which they are agreeable to pay to the land owners as compensation."

7 10. Again on 29th July, 2010 another offer was made by

the landowners whereby they had agreed to a

reduction of 75% of the market value fixed by the

Reference Court. But that was also not accepted

by the Board. The order dated 29th July, 2010 is

set out:

"After the arguments were heard for some time, the Court again suggested the parties to work out an amicable settlement of the rate on which deduction could be made from the price of the sale transactions (Exhibit 8 to 17) for the purpose of fixation of market value.

Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Karnataka Housing Board very graciously submitted that he will again impress upon the authorities to agree to a deduction of 75% instead of 70% as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants on an earlier occasion.

On the request of the learned senior counsel, the cases are adjourned to 12.08.2010."

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case and the long passage of time that has

intervened, this Court is of the opinion that the

8 ends of justice will not be served if the

impugned order of the High Court of remitting the

controversy to the Reference Court at this stage

is allowed.

12.This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that

the matter should be decided once and for all,

having regard to the peculiar circumstances of

this case and the time that has lapsed between

the initiation of acquisition proceeding in 1991

and non-payment of the compensation to the

landowners till date. Several substitution

applications are on record to show that many of

the original landowners have expired in the

course of these proceedings.

13.Considering all these facts and the increasing

value of the land and the decreasing value of

money, this Court, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution, is of the view that the proposal of

9 the landowners of agreeing to 75% deduction on

the market value fixed by the Reference Court

would meet the ends of justice. This Court,

therefore, disposes of these appeals by directing

the Housing Board to pay to the appellants the

amount of compensation as fixed by the Reference

Court after imposing a deduction of 75%. The

appellants would also be entitled to all the

statutory benefits on the aforesaid amount.

14.Such payment shall be made by the Karnataka

Housing Board within a period of three months

from date, failing which it will have to pay an

additional interest of 9% from the date of expiry

of the period of three months till the date of

actual payment. The appeals are, thus, disposed

of. No costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

1 .......................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi January 28, 2011

1