Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 747 (KAR)

Asst. Commissioner v. Dilipkumar

2010-06-22

K.GOVINDARAJULU, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The land of the claimant was acquired for the purpose of Sugar Factory. The Land acquisition Officer of Rs. 24,000/-per acre on the basis of the sales statistics. The Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rss.2,00,000/-per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer is in appeal assailing the award of the Reference Court for granting of excess market value. 2. The claimants have filed the cross objection seeking enhancement. 3. The Reference Court has relied upon the sale deeds of the immediate neighboring land marked at Ex.P-2 to P-4. The sale deeds are dated 24.12.2000, 29.03.2001, 2.5.2001 in the said sale deed, a gunta of land is sold for Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court, on the said basis has assessed the market value at Rs.2,00,000/-per acre. 4. In the first place, we are astound by the conduct of the Land Acquisition Officer in filing the appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer is quasi judicial authority, determines the market value in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is evidently acquired for the benefit of respondent No.8, which is a Sugar Factory. The respondent No.8 who has the liability to pay the compensation if aggrieved should file an appeal. We do not see any good reason, as to why Land Acquisition Officer should file an appeal. In fact when the land is acquired for the benefit of third party and that State has no liability to pay compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer or the State will not have any locus to file an appeal against such award, only the aggrieved party who has liability to pay compensation can file an appeal. We find that the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition officer has no legal basis. 5. With regard to the market value, the Reference Court has relied upon the sale deeds which are about 3 4 months prior to the date of preliminary notification. A gunta is sold at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. The land in question is acquired for the purpose of Sugar Factory and the entire land will be used by the Sugar factory without providing any part of the area for civic amenities. The sugar factory will hold the land acquired as a exclusive proprietor. In the circumstances, the question of considering deduction towards development charges would not arise. The land in question is acquired for the purpose of Sugar Factory and the entire land will be used by the Sugar factory without providing any part of the area for civic amenities. The sugar factory will hold the land acquired as a exclusive proprietor. In the circumstances, the question of considering deduction towards development charges would not arise. The Trial Court has rightly granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/-per acre. Considering the value per gunta at Rs.5,000/-per gunta as per the sale deeds. The contention that the land acquired is a large extent, therefore, the value per gunta should not be criteria for assessing market value is an untenable contention. 6. The copies of the sale deeds produced by the appellant is taken on record. The additional evidence sought to be produced does not bear any relevance to the land in question. In the circumstances, the appeal of the State is dismissed. The Cross Objection for enhancement is also dismissed.