Skip to content


The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore Vs. Piadade Fernandes - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant28; ILR1976KAR320; 1976(1)KarLJ218
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23(1)
AppellantThe Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore
RespondentPiadade Fernandes
Appellant AdvocateN. Venkatachala, Addl. Government Adv. and ;Annadanayya Puranik, Government Pleader
Respondent AdvocateH.G. Hande, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. karnataka value added tax act, 2003 [k.a. no. 30/2005] section 38(1) & karnataka value added tax rules, 2003 rule 48(4):[d.v. shylendra kumar, j] computation of time - assessment order passed by the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes -appeal under section 62 to the appellate authority - computation of period of limitation plea against dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation - held, the last date for presentation of the appeal being a holiday and the appeal presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of section 10 of the mysore general clauses act, 1899. the question of filing an application..........ought to have been awarded as compensation under clause 'fourthly' of section 23(1) of the land acquisition act. the court below has not assessed the damages under the said clause, in accordance with settled legal principles governing such matters. there is no material before us on the basis of which we can assess the damages,3. the principles governing the assessment of damages consequent on severance of a land left out have been laid down by the high court of bombay in government v. century spinning and ., (air 1942 born 105). according to the said decision, the true principle is to see as to what would be the market value of the portion of the land left out both before and after severance. in m. f. a. no. 669 of 1971 (kant), the ratio of the said decision was accepted by a.....
Judgment:

G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.

1. This appeal has come up after the matter was once remanded to the Court below for adjudicating the claim of the claimant for damages for severance of the land after acquisition and the consequent injurious affection to the ea5ztern block of Survey No. 43/6A1B2 of Kankanady village measuring 16 cents containing certain buildings.

2. The Court below, after remand, appointed a Commissioner to value the remaining land with buildings and arbitrarily estimated the quantum of damages at 25% of the market value. In the cross - objections, the claimant contends that 50 % of the market value as estimated by the Commissioner ought to have been awarded as compensation under clause 'fourthly' of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court below has not assessed the damages under the said clause, in accordance with settled legal principles governing such matters. There is no material before us on the basis of which we can assess the damages,

3. The principles governing the assessment of damages consequent on severance of a land left out have been laid down by the High Court of Bombay in Government v. Century Spinning and ., (AIR 1942 Born 105). According to the said decision, the true principle is to see as to what would be the market value of the portion of the land left out both before and after severance. In M. F. A. No. 669 of 1971 (Kant), the ratio of the said decision was accepted by a Division Bench of this Court as laying down the correct law. In the treatise on Valuation and Compensation by R. M. Shah and H. R. Saha, (1975 Edition), the learned Authors have stated at page 221 under the heading 'Measure of Damage' thus:

'The measure of damage caused by the injurious affection is the difference between the market value before the injury and the market value after the injury.'

The relevant date with reference to which such damages has to be assessed is not the date of publication of preliminary Notification under Section 4(1), but the date of taking possession of the acquired land consequent on which the actual severance takes place and the remaining land is injuriously affected. That is clear from the several clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. Therefore, we allow the appeal and the cross- objections, set aside the award and decree of the Court below and remit the matter to the Court below to determine the compensation under clause 'fourthly' of Section 23(1) of the Land ,Acquisition Act in the light of the principles enunciated above.

5. The claimant-respondent is entitled to a certificate for refund of the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of cross-objections.

6. It is ordered accordingly,

7. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //