LexSECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BAILHONGAL versus QUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 399 SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BAILHONGAL v. QUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236 of 2009) SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] ~ Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation - Land Acquisition· Officer determined compensation amount - Compensation amount enhanced by the reference court - High Court reduced the amount - Judgment of High Court did not contain any facts or reasons A B c • for the decision - On appeal, held: The judgment of High D ..t Court was very short and sketchy and showed non-application of mind while deciding the appeal - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal - Judgment/order . Judgment/Order: Reasoned order - Importance of - Discussed. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.12.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 7903 of 2007 Cl F w MFA No. 2701 of 2007. G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma and Anjana Chandrashekar for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel. 399 G H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. A 2. The lands belonging to the respondent situated at Kittur Shigihalli, measuring 8 acres 7 guntas, were acquired for the benefit of the appellant Market Committee. In regard to the said acquisition initiated under preliminary notification dated 26.03.2002, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the 8 compensation as Rs. 36,000/- per acre. The Reference Court increased it to Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant by the impugned Judgment dated 1.12.2008 reducing the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre. The appellant C challenges the said judgment, not being satisfied by the marginal reduction. 3. We find that the judgment of the High Court is very short and sketchy and does not contain any facts. It contains only a reference to a table of sale statistics relating to nine D transactions given by the sub-Registrar and the following E reasoning: "In the present case the notification is dated 26th March, 2002. The sale of one gunta sold in Sy. No.6 for R.1400 the value of land at that rate would Rs.156, 000. If 33% is deducted towards development charges the compensation would be Rs.3,75,200/- per acre." \ It is not possible to discern either the facts or the reasons ._.. for the decision. There is no refe(~mce to the findings of the F reference court. There are several errors in1the two sentences deciding the appeals. Firstly, the ~eference to 'Sy.No.6' is erroneous. The table of nine sale st~tistics contained in the judgment does not refer to Survey No. 6: Further if one gunta was sold for Rs. 1400/- as assumed by the Hi@h Court, the value G per acre (40 guntas) would be only Rs. 56,000/-. If 33% is deducted therefrom the market value will be Rs. 37 ,520/- and not Rs.3,75,200/-. Even if the price of one acre is taken as Rs; 1,56,000/- as stated by the High Court and if 33% is deducted towards development charges, the market value will be H , Rs.1,04,520/- per acre. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, 401 BAILHONGAL v. QUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA A for calculating the value as Rs.3, 75,200/- as arrived at by the ( + High Court. If the High Court had some other mode of calculation t in mind, that is not indicated in the judgment. This shows non- application of mind while deciding the appeal. r' ...... 4. It is however possible that the High Court was referring 8 to serial no.6 in the Table of sale statistics extracted in the judgment which relates to sale of one gunta of land in Sy. No.83/ 28 of Kittur village for Rs.14000/- under a deed registered on 24.11.2001, which works out to Rs. 560,000/- per acre and if ~ 33% id deducted therefrom towards development charges, c shows a value of Rs.375,200/- per acre. But unfortunately, the judgment does not say so. Further there is no explanation why other sale transactions in the table, particularly Serial No. 5 should be ignored. There is also no finding that the land at Serial No. 6 of the table is comparable to the acquired land o ,. ....4 and have similar development potential. There is also no reasoning as to why the deduction towar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.