9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of compensation awarded for land acquisition. 2. Validity of reliance on certain sale deeds for determining market value. 3. Potential value of the land for non-agricultural purposes. 4. Liability for payment of court fees by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Adequacy of Compensation Awarded for Land Acquisition: The appellant was dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs. 4,500 per acre awarded by the Civil Judge and sought higher compensation. The appellant argued that the land had potential for building sites, which should have been considered in determining its market value. The court found that the land, situated close to the Inspection Bungalow and within municipal limits, had potential for non-agricultural use. Ultimately, the court concluded that the land's value should be Rs. 15,000 per acre instead of Rs. 4,500 per acre, considering its potential for development. 2. Validity of Reliance on Certain Sale Deeds for Determining Market Value: The appellant contended that the Civil Judge's reliance on Ex.R1, a sale deed dated 4.1.1980, was inappropriate as it was a distress sale. Instead, the appellant suggested that Ex.P-13, a sale deed dated 26.5.1980, should be considered. The court agreed with the appellant, noting that Ex.R-1 was related to a distress sale and thus unreliable. The court used Ex.P-13 to determine the market value, adjusting for the time difference between the sale deed and the preliminary notification. 3. Potential Value of the Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes: The court acknowledged that the land had potential for non-agricultural use, given its location near the Inspection Bungalow and within the municipal limits. The court applied the hypothetical layout method and considered the average increase in land prices to determine a fair market value. The court concluded that the land's value in 1975 would be Rs. 15,000 per acre after accounting for a 40% deduction for the time difference. 4. Liability for Payment of Court Fees by the Appellant: The appellant, who filed the appeal in forma pauperis, argued that she should not be liable for court fees or should pay fees only to the extent she succeeded. The court rejected this argument, citing Rule 11 of Order 33 CPC as amended by Karnataka Act No. 104 of 1976. The court held that the appellant, having succeeded partly in the appeal, was liable to pay the requisite court fees as if she had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. The court calculated the court fee based on the difference between the amount claimed and the amount awarded. Conclusion: - The court awarded Rs. 15,000 per acre as the market value, along with 30% solatium and interest at 9% per annum from the date of possession to the date of payment. - The appellant was entitled to costs proportionate to her success in the appeal. - The appellant was liable to pay court fees on Rs. 1,25,257, which would be recovered from the amount payable under the judgment. Orders: - Market value awarded at Rs. 15,000 per acre. - 30% solatium awarded. - Interest at 9% per annum on the excess amount from the date of possession to the date of payment, with higher interest if delayed beyond one year. - Additional amount under Section 23(1A) payable if the Supreme Court rules favorably in Paripoornan's case. - Proportionate costs awarded to the appellant. - Court fees on Rs. 1,25,257 to be recovered from the payable amount.
|
