Karnataka High Court
Mahalingappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
MSA No. 19 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2017 (LA)
BETWEEN:
MAHALINGAPPA,
SON OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KAGGERE VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 117.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
Digitally KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105.
signed by ...RESPONDENTS
MALATESH (BY SRI. T.P. MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
KC
Location: THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF THE
HIGH KARNATAKA LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE
COURT OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN
KARNATAKA RA.NO.129/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IInd ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED;
01.03.2012 PASSED IN LAC.NO.78/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION PRAYING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
MSA No. 19 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.P.Malipatil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the award passed by the reference Court and the First Appellate Court with regard to three coconut trees has preferred this present appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. Land of the appellant in Sy.No.26/2A1 measuring 13 guntas, situated in Chindigere village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk was acquired by the respondent for construction of Hemavathi Canal.
3.2. The acquired land said to have contained ten coconut trees, three fruit yielding mango trees and eight tamarind trees.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29877 MSA No. 19 of 2017
4. Learned Judge in the reference Court, granted compensation which did not satisfy the claimant. Therefore, claimant filed an appeal before the District Court, Tumkur in RA(LAC) No.129/2012.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after reconsidering the rival contentions of the parties, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per gunta in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.26/2A1 of Chindigere village and allowed compensation for three coconut trees at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per coconut tree and sum of Rs.44,100/- in respect of six mango trees and Rs.12,750/- in respect of seven tamarind trees.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court, in this appeal.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the amount of compensation determined by the learned Judge in the reference Court as well as the First Appellate Court in respect of the trees that were situated in the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29877 MSA No. 19 of 2017 acquired land, is on the lower side and sought for enhanced compensation.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the quantum of compensation awarded by the Trial Court.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5709/2015 dated 18.06.2021 in respect of quantum of compensation of coconut trees, wherein this Court has awarded sum of Rs.10,800/- per tree in the acquired land which was situated in vicinity of the land in question in the present appeal.
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, in respect of similarly situated acquired land, this Court in Division Bench ruling as referred to supra, has awarded sum of Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree. Therefore, appellant has made out a case for enhancing the compensation in respect of coconut trees at the rate of Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree in -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29877 MSA No. 19 of 2017 partial modification with the quantum of compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.10,000/- per coconut tree.
12. Insofar as mango trees and tamarind trees, the appellant has not made out any good grounds to enhance the compensation.
13. Accordingly, following:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The quantum of compensation assessed by the First Appellate Court is maintained except for the coconut trees, which has been enhanced to sum of Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree. iii. Office is directed to pass appropriate modified award with consequential benefits.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT: BHK