The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7673 OF 2016 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. Y. PANDURANGA SHENOY S/O SRI Y. KRISHNARAYA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS PANCHAJANYA, VIDYANAGARA POST GURUVAYANAKERE – 574 217. BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR – 574 201 D.K. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION, URVA, MANGALORE – 575 001 D.K. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALORE – 575 001 D.K (BY SMT. RANSA VASANTHI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3; R2 NOTICE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED11.08.2016, PASSED IN LAC NO.1/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFA., BELTHANGADY, D.K. REJECTING THE SUIT FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/land owner has preferred this appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 11.08.2016 passed in LAC No.01/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangadi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’ for short) thereby, dismissing the reference application made for enhancement of compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that the appellant/claimant is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.228/1C3 measuring 0.16 acres and Sy.No.250/1B measuring 0.23 acres situated at Ilanthila village, Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Thus, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 these lands were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of widening the road and possession was taken in the year 1986 and the road was formed by taking possession from the appellant/claimant. However, the respondents published preliminary notification on 14.02.2008 and final notification dated 18.11.2008. 3. Respondent No.1/SLAO passed an award on 14.07.2009 determining compensation at the rate of Rs.840/- per cent, thus awarding compensation of Rs.48,027/-. Being not satisfied with the determination of compensation by the SLAO, the appellant/claimant has preferred application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to refer the case to the Reference Court. However, the Reference Court dismissed the case and thereby has not enhanced the compensation. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Being aggrieved by this, the appellant/claimant, who suffered loss of land has preferred this appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the determination of compensation at only Rs.840/- per cent is not correct and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation. 6. Further, submitted that as per Ex.P-6, which is guideline value of the Sub Registrar for the year 2001, the value was Rs.6,000/- per cent. Therefore, when the possession was taken in the year 1986, by making de- escalation at the rate of 5% per year, the market value as per the guideline rate for the year 1986 would be assessed and accordingly, the appellant/claimant would be entitled compensation. Also submitted that the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of taking possession till the date of realization, as per sub Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants justified the dismissal of the case - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 filed for enhancement. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. It is undisputed fact that the appellant/claimant is owner of the land bearing Sy.No.228/1C3 measuring 00-00-16 cents and Sy.No.250/1B measuring 00-00-23 cents of land situated at Ilanthila village, Belthangadi taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1986, the land of the appellant/claimant was forcibly taken away for the purpose of widening the road. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant/claimant has been parted with the land to the extent of 0.39 cents in the year 1986. However, the respondents/authorities issued a preliminary notification dated 14.02.2008 and a final notification dated 18.11.2008 for the purpose of widening of the road by connecting Ilanthila Village to Tekkaru Village in Beltangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. 9. The acquisition of land by the respondents/authorities is not in dispute. The fact that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 land of the appellant/claimant was forcibly taken away by the respondents in the year 1986 is also not in dispute. The preliminary notification dated 14.02.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2008 are not in dispute. The determination of compensation by the SLAO at Rs.840/- per cent and total extent of land acquired is 0.39 cents is also not in dispute. 10. The Reference Court, upon referring the case under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dismissed the reference application on the reason that the appellant has relied on the temporary valuation fixed in this regard. The reference Court assigned reason that it is agricultural land and therefore, dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, on all these reasons dismissed the reference application. 11. The appellant/claimant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per cent as against Rs.840/- per cent by placing reliance on Ex.P-6, which is the guideline value of the Sub Registrar indicating - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 that in the year 2001 there was rate of Rs.6,000/- per
Legal Reasoning
cent, but for the year 2008, it is contended that there was a rate relevant for consideration. However, the reliance seems to be on potential value escalation to claim Rs.19,000/- per cent. Therefore, prays for awarding compensation by holding Rs.19,000/- per cent and grant compensation accordingly. 12. Ex.P-8 is the registered sale deed dated 04.12.2001, wherein the claimant had sold these lands to his brother’s wife at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per cent to the extent of 0.8 cents. Therefore, as per Ex.P-8-registered sale deed, the land, which is non-agricultural land situated in Ilanthila Village, was sold out by the appellant/claimant herein for Rs.6,000/- per cent. However, the counsel for the appellant places reliance on Ex.P-6, which is the guideline value of the Sub Registrar, Puttur, indicating a potential rate for non-agricultural land. Therefore, prays to award compensation by determining Rs.19,000/- per cent. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 13. Upon considering these documentary evidence, Ex.P-6, though it was the guideline value of the Sub Registrar Puttur Taluk, was not specifically stated regarding Ilanthila Village. It is generally applicable to the entire Puttur Taluk. Whereas, Ex.P-8-registered sale deed shows that the appellant/claimant herein has sold his 0.8 cents of land on 14.02.2001 for Rs.48,000/- which comes to Rs.6,000/- per cent. As per Ex.P-8-sale deed, the land is situated in Ilanthila Village, the same village as the subject matter of this appeal. Therefore, when the appellant/claimant in the year 2001 had sold out his land for Rs.6,000/- per cent that would be taken as the guideline value for making assessment/determination of the compensation. 14. It is undisputed fact that the respondents/authorities took possession of the appellant’s land in the year 1986, but the preliminary notification was issued on 14.02.2008 and final notification issued on 18.11.2008. Therefore, as per the judgment of Hon’ble - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 Supreme Court in the case of RAM KISHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS ETC. V STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4772- 4773 OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS 5544-5545 OF 2023) dated 03.04.2025, 5% per year de-escalation is adopted from the year 2001 to 1986. Therefore, in this regard learned counsel for the appellant filed calculation chart for determining the market value, adopting the rate at Rs.6,000/- and applying 5% de- escalation for every year up to 1986, which comes to Rs.2,779.05 in the year 1986. Therefore, based on this, it is determined that in the year 1986, the market value of Punja land, would be Rs.2,780/- per cent. Accordingly, the market rate is determined at Rs.2,780/- per cent for the year 1986. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled compensation at the rate of Rs.2,780/- per cent along with all the statutory benefits. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 15. Sub Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, reads as follows: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-(1)XXXXX (1A)In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on an from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub Section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Explanation: In computing the period referred to in this sub section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.” 16. As per this, the claimant is entitled to 12% interest on the determined value from the date of the taking possession of the land or from the date of the preliminary notification, whichever is earlier. In the present case, the possession was taken in the year 1986 therefore, the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the year 1986. Since, there is no evidence on which specific date possession was taken, for the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 purpose of calculating interest at the rate 12%, it is reckoned from 01.01.1986. 17. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,08,420/- (Rs.2,780/- x 0.39 cents) along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.01.1986 till realization (as per Sub Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act) along with other statutory benefits such as solatium at 30% and additional market value at the rate of 15% with other statutory benefits. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is liable to be allowed.
Decision
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with cost. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.08.2016 passed in LAC No.01/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangadi, is hereby set aside. iii. The appellant/claimant is entitled compensation at Rs.1,08,420/- along with - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16736 MFA No. 7673 of 2016 interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of 01.01.1986 till realization(as per Sub Section (1A)of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act) along with other statutory benefits and interest. iv. Draw award accordingly. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43