1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A. NO.7455 OF 2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
T.B. JAGADISH
S/O T.B. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT. VINOBANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1
MR. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.04.2011 PASSED ON LAC NO.12/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING
2
THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Reference Court.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is the owner of land measuring 26 guntas situated at Sominakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for Upper Tunga Project. Thereupon proceedings were initiated and a preliminary Notification dated 11.09.1997 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 19.12.1998 and possession of the land was taken on 3 16.10.2000. The appellant was awarded in all a sum of Rs.1,02,106/-.
3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 01.04.2011 has assessed the market value at Rs.2 Lakhs per acre and has awarded various statutory benefits as are admissible under the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue with regard to determination of market value of the land in question is squarely covered by judgment of this court on 13.01.2020 passed in M.F.A.No.3364/2012. It is further submitted that the land of the appellant is also situated in Sominakoppa Village and is similarly situate to the land involved in M.F.A.No.3364/2012. It is also pointed out that land belonging to the appellant is 4 situate adjacent to the residential layouts as well as educational institutions and a commercial complex has been constructed within the vicinity of the land in question and the appellant is therefore, entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.280/- per square feet. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in 'ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. VS. STATEOF J AND K', AIR 2017 SC 1518 while following the decision in 'UNION OF INDIA VS. HARINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS', (2005) 12 SCC 564, held that if the lands are similarly situated and are identical and similar, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners with the matter of grant of compensation. It is pertinent to note that the 5 lands have been acquired under the same Notification and for same purpose i.e., for Upper Tunga Project. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land of the appellant is situated at the same village viz., Sominakoppa Village and has potentiality for non agricultural use. Therefore, we find that the lands of the appellant are similarly situate as that of land involved in M.F.A.No.3364/2012 in the aforesaid judgment, in respect of the lands covered under the same Notification and for the same purpose and has potentiality for urban use. In the aforesaid judgment, we have already determined the market value of land at Rs.150/- per square feet. Therefore, in order to maintain the parity, the market value of the land in question is assessed at the rate of Rs.150/- per square feet. Needless to state that the appellant shall be entitled to solatium as well as statutory benefits, which are admissible to him under the provisions of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the Reference Court is modified. 6
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss