Rs5k per sqft land acquired for just Rs40 per sqft: HC orders reconsideration

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has ordered land acquired for civic purposes by the Shivamogga City Corporation to be revalued for compensation after it found that the acquisition was at the rate of Rs.40 per sq ft while the prevailing market rate was Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000 per sq ft.

“The right of a person whose immovable property has been acquired by the state authorities under the power of eminent domain, the land loser is entitled for just and fair compensation. If the compensation is meagre or nominal, it would defeat the object of the Act and Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” the division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said in their judgement on an appeal filed by one SB Sridhar Gowda, a resident of Shivamogga.

Gowda owned four guntas of land in Kallahalli village out of which 265 sq metres of land was acquired by the corporation in 2010-11 for the formation of a road.

The Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga held a meeting with the land owners whose lands were acquired and agreed to pass a consent award at the rate of Rs.2,040 per sq ft. However, the subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was at the rate of Rs.40 per sq ft. Gowda approached a local court in Shivamogga seeking fair compensation.

He pointed out that the corporation itself had auctioned some properties at Rs.2,458 per sq ft and therefore demanded a compensation between Rs.4,000 and Rs.5,000 per sq ft.

The reference court however dismissed the petition after which he approached the HC. The HC gave its judgement on the appeal filed in 2018. The HC said that the reference court had erred in its order dismissing the petition.

“On close scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence on record and the reasoning assigned by the reference court, we are of the considered view that the reference court has grossly erred in appreciating the material available on record which resulted in dismissal of the reference petition.”

The HC said that the lower court was too technical in its consideration due to which the land owner did not get justice.

“In our considered view, the Reference Court should not have proceeded on too technical manner in considering the evidence on record more so when the matter relating to payment of compensation to the land loser. When real justice is seen pitted against technical consideration, the courts should always lean to disburse substantial justice,” it said.

The matter was remitted to the reference court for fresh consideration and disposal within four months.

“Interest of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant-claimant and the respondents to argue the matter afresh and thereafter the Reference Court to consider the reference on its merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same,” the HC said disposing the appeal. (MFA 8971/2018)