Case: T.S. Ramachandra Shetty Vs. Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board

We are disposing of Civil Appeal Nos.3332 to 3334 of 2001 by this judgment. The facts of these appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Appeal No.3332 of 2001. Appellants land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Survey No.32/1 at Henjagondanahalli village was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification published onLand Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.17,500/per acre. The Reference Court on appeal enhanced the amount from Rs.17,500/er acre. This amount was calculated at the rate of Rs.5/per square feet. The Karnataka Housing Board aggrieved by the said judgment preferred appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court while taking into consideration all the facts reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.2,17,800/er acre. This amount of compensation has been calculated at the rate of Rs.3/per square feet. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has mentioned that theherein himself had purchased the land in question on 24.3.1986 for Rs.45,000/which is based on calculation at the rate of Rs.1.75 per squarepreliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued a year later i.e. 20.5.1987. The appellant relied on the sale deeds executed subsequently and that too for smaller pieces of lands meant for housing sites being Ex.P.2 and that of 1990. The High Court in the impugned judgment has rightly observed that Ex.P.2 cannot be taken into consideration particularly keeping in view that the sale deed in respect of this very acquired land which was effected only a year ago in 1986 itself was available as a ready basis for determining the market value of theHigh Court in the impugned judgment observed that after giving reasonable deductions towards development charges, the market rate can be safely taken as Rs.3/per square feet since this price was even suggested for the lands in question even by the respondentHousing Board to theThe High Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3/per square feet. The compensation in this case worked out to be Rs.1,30,680/per acre. The High Court also observed that the appellantland owner will also be entitled to other statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions contained under sections 23 and 28 of thefact is that this very land was purchased by the appellant a year ago i.e. on 24.3.1986 for Rs.45,000/and for the same land the High Court gave compensation of Rs.1,30,680/per acre only after a year.

Reasoning: In our considered opinion, the view which has been taken in the impugned judgment is in consonance with the settled legal position. The High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts in granting compensation. The High Court was fully justified in giving due weightage to the fact that the sale deed of 1986 in respect of this very acquired land was available and the same ought to be the basis for determining the market value of theacid test that for determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the data to assess the market value. But exclusion of bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition and to place reliance on the award of some other land is obviouslyin the instant case, only an year ago, the appellant himself purchased this very piece of land for Rs.45,000/and after an year, the State has given compensation ofwhich cannot be said to be inadequate by any stretch of imagination. The Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.There is no basis whatsoever. In our considered opinion, the view which has been taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment is based on settled legal position of law, as indicated in some of the cases noted above. No interference is called for.