GURUMEGOUDA v. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WEST)

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WEST) SOUTHERN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION NO.18, MILLERS ROAD CONTONMENT BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER, SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA (BY SRI CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT AZRA J DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.18.01.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.31/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE C/c SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05TH APRIL, 2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - JUDGMENT The land loser is in appeal challenging the award of the Reference Court which awarded Rs.11,000/- per gunta as the market value of his land bearing Sy.No.466 measuring 3 acres 16.5 guntas situated at Bellur Village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. The appellant claimed Rs.2 lakhs per gunta before the Reference Court and in this appeal, the claim is restricted to Rs.40,000/- per gunta. In terms of the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.11,000/- per gunta modifying the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition officer who awarded Rs.5,507/- per gunta.

2. The admitted factual position is Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894') was published on

01.09.2008 for the formation of railway track from Bengaluru to Mangaluru via Hassan. The final notification was issued on

10.03.2010 under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894. On

10.12.2011, the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined Rs.5,507/- per gunta as the - 4 - market value. In addition, statutory benefits were awarded. The land loser on 21.01.2012 sought reference.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/ appellant would submit that the Reference Court did not take into account a sale deed for the year 2002, two sale deeds for the year 2003, one sale deed for the year 2006, and three sale deeds for the year 2007, marked at Ex.P1 to Ex- P7 respectively. He would also submit that by taking into consideration the appreciation in the value of the land, the average value of the land per gunta would be Rs.68,444/-. However, the appellant is restricting his claim to Rs.40,000/- per gunta as he is unable to pay the court fee for a higher claim.

It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land though a dry land, at the time of acquisition had all the potential for non-agricultural use as it is abutting the National Highway surrounded by colleges and a petrol bank. It is also his submission that Bellur Village was a Panchayat earlier and now it is a Pattana panchayat. He would also refer to Ex.P.8 - the certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat, Bellur which would indicate - 5 - that the Umarnagar Extension area is in the close vicinity of the land acquired. Thus, he would urge that the award passed by the Reference Court is grossly inadequate considering the market value of the land prevailing at the time of acquisition.

Learned advocate for the respondents would justify the award passed by the Reference Court and would submit that all the material factors have been consideration before passing the award. It is also the submission that the sale deeds produced by the claimant are not relevant to determine the correct market value of the acquired land which measured 3 acres and 16.5 guntas. The sale deeds referred to by the claimants are the sale deeds of small residential sites or commercial sites measuring about a gunta or two and the parameters to evaluate such a large extent of the land way different from the parameters to evaluate the land measuring less than two guntas.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 6 -

The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the appellant established that the market value of the land is Rs.40,000/- per gunta. (ii) Whether the Reference Court is justified in arriving at the market value of the land at Rs.11,000/- per gunta without considering the sale deeds produced by the claimants.

As could be noticed from the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment in M.A. (L.A.C.) No.14/2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mandya arising from the award in LAC No.35/2011 to determine the market value of the land in question. The said judgment is marked at Ex.R.2. The survey number of the said land in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013 is 453/4 whereas the survey number of the land acquired in the present case is 466.

The land in M.A.(LAC) No.14/2013 was acquired vide notification dated 18.04.2007. In the case on hand, the land was acquired vide notification dated 01.09.2008. Thus, the land in question is acquired 1 year and 4 months and 14 days after the acquisition of land in LAC No.35/11. - 7 -

The Appellate Court in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013 has taken into account the registered sale deeds dated

07.12.2005 and 12.10.2006. Those sale deeds are of the agricultural lands in Bellur village. Based on the said sale deeds, the Appellate Court has arrived at a market value of Rs.4 lakhs per acre for the land acquired in 2008.

The Reference Court in the present case has decided the market value placing reliance on aforementioned judgment. It is to be noticed that in earlier proceeding, the land was acquired for the formation of a channel. Whereas the land in the present case is acquired for laying the railway track and constructing a railway station.

While fixing the market value, the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award has given a 9% escalation for one year. The time differential is 1 year 4 months and 14 days.

The appellant’s contention that the Reference Court should have taken into account the sale deeds at Ex. P1 to P7 to fix the market value is not acceptable. Those sale deeds pertain a small extent of land measuring 1 or 2 - 8 - guntas. The land in question is a dry land measuring 3 acres and 16.5 guntas. Thus, absolutely there is no comparison.

On the other hand in M.A. (LAC)No.14/2013 the Court has taken into consideration the market value of a larger extent of agricultural land in Bellur village sold in 2005 and 2006, to determine the value of the land acquired in

2008. In the case on hand, the land is acquired after 1 year 4 months, and 21 days. This being the position the Reference Court is justified in basing its valuation on the value determined in M.A. (LAC) No.14/2013. To the said extent, the judgment appears to be sound. Though the Reference Court has not assigned any reasons for ignoring the sale deeds at Ex.P1 to Ex P7, for the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that no fault can be found in not applying the valuation of the small pieces of lands in those sale deeds.

As already noticed, the Reference Court has taken into consideration a 9% escalation for one year for determining the market value. - 9 -

It is a well-settled principle of law that the escalation or de-escalation depends on various factors. The potential for growth in and around the land acquired has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly in this case, the land is acquired for laying the railway track and constructing the railway station. The appellant claims that the railway station is built on his land. He has produced photographs of the railway station asserting that it is built on his land. The respondent has not produced any materials to show in which survey number, the railway station is built. To a specific suggestion in the cross-examination of Rw1- the land acquisition officer, that the railway station is built on the claimant’s land, he pleads ignorance. The beneficiary has not produced any materials to show that the railway station is built on some other land. Rw1 has admitted in the cross- examination that Bellur village is abutting to Umar Nagar and the railway station is about 1 and ½ km from Umar Nagar. It is also admitted that Umar Nagar is within Pattan Panchayat limits and Bellur which is adjacent to Umar Nagar is within gram panchayat limits. - 10 -

If the above factors are taken into consideration, it is evident that the claimant's land is located about 1 and ½ km from Pattan panchayat limits and in his land, the railway station is built. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that 9% escalation is on the lower side. In General Manager Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Vs Rameshbhai Jeevanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, the Apex Court has held that 7.5% escalation per annum would be appropriate for lands acquired in 1987. It is also relevant to note that in the last 2 decades, there has been a sudden appreciation in the land value even in rural areas. The land in question is acquired in 2008. Considering the materials on record, this Court is of the view that 15% per annum escalation is to be applied to determine market value.

The Reference Court has provided only 9% escalation for one year and no escalation is provided for 4 months and 14 days. This Court is of the view that escalation is to be applied for 1 year and 5 months. Thus the market value of the land would be Rs.4,88,750/- per acre. - 11 -