Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 670 (KAR)

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. PUTTEGOWDA

2002-10-29

B.PADMARAJ

body2002
PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-LAO both on I. A. Nos. I/2002 and II/2002 as well as on the merits of the case in order to ascertain whether it is a fit case for admission. ( 2 ) I. A. NO. I/2002 is an application filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act to condone the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, which is supported by an affidavit. ( 3 ) I. A. NO. II/2002 is an application filed under Section 151 of cpc to condone the delay of 87 days in refiling the appeal, which is also supported by an affidavit. ( 4 ) I have carefully perused the statement of facts made in the affidavits filed in support of I. A. No. I/2002 and II/2002, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and i find that the delay in filing as well as in refiling the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained on behalf of the appellant. Hence, accepting the explanation offered by the appellant - LAO, the delay in filing as well as in refiling the appeal is condoned. I. A. No. I/2002 and I. A. No. II/2002 are accordingly allowed. ( 5 ) THIS is a second appeal filed by the appellant LAO under section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Award made by the First Appellate Court dated 20. 11. 2001 confirming the Judgment and Award made by the Reference Court. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land of the respondent of Rs. 25,000/- per acre by placing reliance upon a similar award in exhibit-P1 and the same has been confirmed in appeal by the first Appellate Court. ( 6 ) THE lands belonging to the respondent measuring 33 guntas in Survey No. 238/2-B and 6 1/2 guntas in Survey No. 328/3 situated at Hundi Village of Mysore Taluk in Mysore District were acquired by the appellant for the purpose of formation and distribution of house sites to the houseless people under a Preliminary Notification dated 2. 11. 1978. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 2,000/- per acre. 11. 1978. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 2,000/- per acre. On reference, the Reference Court, on the basis of the materials placed on record, determined the market value of the acquired land at rs. 25,000/- per acre by its impugned Judgment and Award dated 24. 3. 1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-LAO preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate court, after hearing the submissions on both sides has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Award made by the reference Court. Hence, this second appeal. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the Reference Court as well as the Lower appellate Court determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of a Judgment of a Court awarding compensation for similar land in LAC No. 187/1983 which was placed on record as per exhibit P-1. It is the finding of both Courts below that the land involved in exhibit P-1 was situated within Mysore Rural Hobli and the land in question comes under Verna Hobli. But, then, it was found by both the Courts below that they are situated in the neighbouring Hobli and they possess the same potential. It is the finding of both the Courts below that though the lands involved in exhibit P-1 and the lands in question are situated at some distance, they possess the same fertility and same crop was being raised on both the lands. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below found it just and proper to place reliance on exhibit P-1 and accordingly they placed reliance on exhibit P-1 and accordingly they placed reliance on exhibit P-1 and determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. It is this finding which is now sought to be questioned by the appellant- LAO by preferring this miscellaneous second appeal. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Advocate for the appellant-LAO has vehemently contended before me that the Courts below have grossly erred in taking exhibit P-1 as the basis for fixing the market value of the land in question, in the absence of there being any oral and documentary evidence to show as to the similarity, comparability and proximity of the lands under exhibit P-1 and the land involved in the present appeal. He, therefore, contended that the Courts below could not have determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre on the basis of exhibit p-1. ( 9 ) IT has to be pointed out that this being a second appeal under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal under Section 100 of CPC cannot be raised. The second appeal filed by the appellant-LAO can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of CPC and it is not open to the appellant-LAO to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the Courts below have erred in their view of the evidence in the matter of the determination of the market value of the acquired land. I have carefully perused both the Judgments of the Courts below. I find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the Judgments, the Courts below have assessed the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. It has to be pointed out that a judgment of a Court awarding compensation for similar land can be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question. That is to say, the Judgment of a Court awarding compensation can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. One of the circumstance being that such an Award or Judgment of the Court of law must be a previous Judgment. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Judgment of a Court Exhibit P-1 relied upon by both the Courts below was a previous Judgment. The second circumstance being that the Judgment of a Court, which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land, must in all circumstances be capable of furnishing the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. That is to say, it must be proved by the person relying upon such Judgment by adducing evidence all under that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it would furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. That is to say, it must be proved by the person relying upon such Judgment by adducing evidence all under that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it would furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. In the instant case, as has been discussed by both the Courts below, the evidence on record clearly indicated that the land involved in exhibit p-1 and the lands in question were all similar in nature and they were acquired for the same purpose. The land involved in exhibit p-1 was acquired under a Preliminary Notification dated 26. 10. 1978 where as the land in question was acquired under a subsequent notification dated 2. 11. 1978. Thus, both the Courts below were fully satisfied with the Judgment of a Court exhibit P-1 could form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonable, exorbitant or excessive and warrants interference by this Court. It is needless to point out that it is not at all possible to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guesswork. I do not find that the Judgments under Challenge suffer from any serious illegality so as to call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. The approach of both the Courts below is fair and reasonable and there could be no interference with the decision rendered by the Courts below in the matter of determination of the market value for the acquired lands. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government advocate that the Courts below committed a serious error in placing reliance upon exhibit P-1. As I have already stated, a Judgment of a Court awarding compensation for similar land can be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question. In the instant case, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the land involved in exhibit P-1 was similar to the land in question and that being so, it could have formed a basis to fix the market value of the acquired land. In the instant case, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the land involved in exhibit P-1 was similar to the land in question and that being so, it could have formed a basis to fix the market value of the acquired land. The finding thus recorded by both the Courts below that the land involved in exhibit P-1 is similar to the lands in question on the basis of the material evidence placed on record is a pure question of fact. It being an arena of appreciation of evidence on he factual matrix, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. Therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I find that there could be no interference with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Hence, I find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal filed by the appellant-LAO. ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-LAO is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed without the same being admitted. No costs. --- *** --- .