Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority Vs Sakamma
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
10184 OF 2010
[Arising out of
O R D E R
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
dated29.3.2001, 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 27.11.2003respectively.
Land Acquisition Officer, by his Award dated4.2.2003, 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 toRs.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 there after at
the rate of 15% per annum.
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.
contentions are urged by the appellants:
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.
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 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/- peracre.
evidence shows that Maragowdanahalli village is far away from Keragalli where the
acquired lands are situated. They are separated by two villages namely Bhogadiand
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 vidence in that behalf).
is no evidence to show that the acquired lands 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 sal etrans
action 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 ofRs.2,50,000/- per acre in Keragalli. But those sale
deeds were not produced.
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 evidence, it is not
possible for us to determine the market value. It would appear that sale
transactions relating to1996-1997-1998 for lands near to acquired lands area vailable
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 landowners 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.
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
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.
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 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.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
( P. SATHASIVAM )
( A.K. PATNAIK )