LAO vs Sakamma

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, .......APPELLANT MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Versus

SAKAMMA .....RESPONDENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10184 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.18707/2009]

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard.

2. 221 acres 20 guntas of land in Keragalli village,

Mysore Taluk, including three acres of land belonging to the

respondent in each of these two appeals were acquired for

the Mysore Urban Development Authority for formation of

layout under preliminary notification dated 15.7.1997

(Gazetted on 24.7.1997) and final notification dated

29.3.2001, issued under Sec.17 (1) and 19(1) of Karnataka

Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. After making the

award, possession was taken on 16.8.2003 and 27.11.2003

respectively.

2

3. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his Award dated

4.2.2003, determined the compensation as Rs.1,55,000/- per

acre. On reference, the reference Court, by judgment and

award dated 17.4.2008, increased the compensation to

Rs.13,49,000/- per acre. It also awarded 30% solatium, 12%

additional amount from the date of preliminary notification

to date of award and interest at the rate of 9% per annum

for one year from the date of preliminary notification and

thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed appeals

before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned

judgment dated 21.10.2008, confirmed the award of the

reference Court. The said judgment is challenged in these

appeals by special leave.

5. Two contentions are urged by the appellants:

(i) The award of compensation at Rs.13,49,000/- per acre is excessive, erroneous and not based on any evidence; and

(ii) Interest could be awarded only from the date of taking possession and not from the date of preliminary notification.

6. The reference Court and the High Court have

increased the compensation by relying upon the judgment and

award dated 16.3.2006 of the reference Court (Ex.P-2)in 3

regard to acquisition of certain lands situated at

Maragowdanahalli village under preliminary notification

dated 13.9.1990, wherein compensation was awarded at the

rate of Rs.9,50,000/- per acre. Reference Court and the High

Court have thought fit to give an increase of 7% per annum

for the period between 13.9.1990 to 24.7.1997 to arrive at

the market value of the acquired land as Rs.13,49,000/- per

acre.

7. The evidence shows that Maragowdanahalli village is

far away from Keragalli where the acquired lands are

situated. They are separated by two villages namely Bhogadi

and Hinakall. The distance between the two villages is

stated to be 3 to 5 kilometers. The appellant contends that

the actual distance is around 9 kilometer, but there is no

such evidence on behalf of the appellant. The evidence also

shows that Maragowdanahalli is situated near a railway

station whereas Keragalli does not have facility of a

railway station. Further that Maragowdanahalli is nearer to

Mysore city and far more developed when compared to

Keragalli. (It is also stated that Maragowdanahalli is

within the municipal limits of Mysore whereas Keragalli is

outside the municipal limits, but there is no specific

evidence in that behalf).

8. There is no evidence to show that the acquired lands 4

at Keragalli and Maragowdanahalli are comparable lands with

similar market value. The distance, the extent of

development and the facilities available in the two villages

make it clear that award made by the reference Court with

reference to an acquisition in Maragowdanahalli village

cannot be the basis for determining the market value for the

lands at Keragalli. We are of the view that the reference

Court and the High Court committed a serious error in

relying upon the Judgment (Ex.P-2) relating to

Maragowdanahalli, to determine the market value of lands at

Keragalli. If Ex. P-2 is excluded, we find that there is no

evidence to determine the market value, as the only other

document relied upon by the land owners was a sale

transaction of 2007 which being nearly one decade after the

acquisition, is not of any assistance. We also find that no

evidence has been let in by the appellant in regard to

market value though the award of LAO refers to sale

transactions during 1997-1998 showing a value of

Rs.2,50,000/- per acre in Keragalli. But those sale deeds

were not produced.

9. We are also told that the reference cases in regard

to several other lands under the same acquisition are still

pending before the Reference Court and some cases are

pending in High Court. In the absence of any acceptable 5

evidence, it is not possible for us to determine the market

value. It would appear that sale transactions relating to

1996-1997-1998 for lands near to acquired lands are

available but not produced. Some of them are now produced by

appellant. We cannot obviously rely upon them as they are

produced for the first time in this court and the land

owners did not have an opportunity to have their say in

regard to such transactions by letting evidence. Interests

of justice, therefore, requires that the matter should be

remanded.

10. Insofar as interest is concerned, it is clear

that having regard to the provisions of Section 28 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, interest can be awarded only

from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands and

not from the date of preliminary notification.

11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the

judgment of the High Court and the reference Court and

remand the matter to the reference Court which shall decide

the matter afresh after giving due opportunities to both

parties to produce further evidence regarding market value.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

Mysore Urban Development Authority has already formed a

layout and the plots are ready for allotment and any delay 6

in determining compensation will affect the determination of

allotment price of plots. Therefore, there is some urgency

in the matter. On the facts and circumstances, we request

the reference Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously

preferably within four months from 27.1.2011, on which date

both parties shall appear before the reference court without

further notice.

......................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

......................J. ( P. SATHASIVAM )

......................J. ( A.K. PATNAIK ) New Delhi;

November 30, 2010.