9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the Appellants in the second batch) are referred to as the 'claimants'. 2. An extent of 19 acres 24 guntas of land within the municipal limits of Gadag-Betageri were acquired for establishing an electric sub-station. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) was issued on 15.9.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 15.11.1996 offering compensation at the rate of ₹ 60,000/- per acre. The Reference Court, by its judgment and award dated 27.2.2001 increased the compensation to ₹ 3,79,260/-per acre. Aggrieved thereby, both the claimants and the Corporation filed appeals which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16.3.2005. The Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-17) and High Court Judgment (Ex.P-18) in regard to acquisition of a land at a distance of about less than one kilometre, under preliminary notification dated 6.9.1979. The said acquisition was for formation of a Road by the Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Council. The compensation awarded was ₹ 30/- per sq.ft. which works out to ₹ 13,06,800/- per acre. 4. The Reference Court excluded the two sale deeds dated 19.9.1991 and 21.10.1991 (Exhibits P-16 and 16A) on the ground that the said sales were not proximate in time and related to the transactions which had taken place about three years prior to acquisition. It rejected Exhibits P-17 and P-18, as they related to an acquisition of the year 1979, more than one and a half decades prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... projected by the said three sale deeds, it arrived at the market value at ₹ 6,79,935/-per acre. 6. The said judgment is under challenge in these appeals. The Corporation is aggrieved by the increase in compensation awarded by the Reference Court and the High Court. It contends that the High Court was not justified in taking into account Exs. P-16 and 16A which related to 1991 sales in respect of far away plots. The claimants contend that the High Court was justified in taking into account the sale deeds dated 19.9.1991 and 21.10.1991. According to them the deduction for development cost ought to have been only 33% and not 50% adopted by the High Court. They also contend that the High Court and the Reference Court committed an erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distance of only half a kilometre and one kilometre from the acquired lands, the Reference Court has recorded a finding that they are at a distance of 3 to 4 km. In towns and urban areas, it is common knowledge that even half a km. to one km. distance would make considerable difference in regard to price of such land, if the relied upon sale deeds relate to lands nearer to the town or city. We are therefore of the considered view that when the sale transaction (Ex.P-5 dated 27.7.1994) relating to a nearby land was available, there was no justification for the High Court to have relied upon sale deeds dated 19.9.1991 and 21.10.1991 relating to far away lands which were more advantageously situated. In fact while the Reference Court gave coge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of ₹ 16,000/- mentioned in the sale deed was less than the actual market value and in the absence of proof of under-valuation or proof that the sale was a distress sale, it is not possible to ignore the sale price mentioned in the sale deed. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants lastly contended that even the deduction of one-third of the value towards development cost was excessive as the land was situated in a developed urban area within the municipal limits though the lands were still agricultural in character. It is an admitted fact that the acquired lands were within the municipal limits of Gadag-Betageri and abutted Sambarpur Road. It is also admitted that the bus stand, the market and educational institutions were at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
