Karnataka High Court
Smt Padmavathiyamma vs The Special Land Acquisition on 30 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30139
MSA No. 46 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2014 (LA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMAVATHIYAMMA,
W/O H.S. SAHANAKARA BHAT,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL HEIR
H.S. RAGURAM BHAT,
S/O H.S. SHANAKAR BHAT,
AGED: 43 YEARS,
R/O MALLESHWARA NAGAR,
SHIMOGA CITY - 577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
Digitally OFFICER, CHAKRA SAVEHAKLU,
signed by VARAHI PROJECT, SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
MALATESH SHIMOGA - 577 201.
KC
Location:
HIGH 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
COURT OF KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
KARNATAKA MASTIKATTE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. T.P. MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1)
THIS MSA IS FILED U/S 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 15.9.2012 PASSED IN M.A.69/2011 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30139
MSA No. 46 of 2014
DATED 01.06.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2002 ON THE FILE
OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Rajendra S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.T.P.Malipatil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. Present second appeal is filed challenging the order passed in MA No.69/2011 dated 15.09.2012 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. Land of the appellant along with residential house, cattle shed, open well and a tree were acquired for the Varahi Project.
3.2. Compensation with regard to the landed property was finalized. Aggrieved by the compensation of Rs.4,46,096.89 paise awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), the appellant herein being the claimant filed a reference -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30139 MSA No. 46 of 2014 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for enhancement of the compensation.
4. Learned Judge in the reference Court, after due enquiry, enhanced the compensation in a sum of Rs.8,54,141/-
as against the amount of compensation fixed by the LAO in a sum of Rs.4,46,096.89 paise.
5. Respondent No.2 being the beneficiary, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court challenging the enhanced compensation against the appellant herein.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, considering the relevant aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration the report given by the Civil Engineer who has assessed the value of the cattle shed as well as the house property, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652, reassessed the compensation as under:
House site Rs.87,000/-
Residential house Rs.4,09,807.76
Cattle shed Rs.13,576.22
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30139
MSA No. 46 of 2014
Well Rs.17,550.91
Tree Rs.65.00
7. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant is before this Court, in this appeal.
8. Sri.Rajendra S., learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to consider the probative value of Ex.P.1 which is estimation report which was prepared by an Civil Engineer who has taken into consideration the nature of construction, material used for construction and the depreciation has given the value of the property that has been made as basis by the reference Court to enhance the compensation in a sum of Rs.4,46,096.89 paise to Rs.8,54,141/- and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court.
10. Sri.T.P.Malipatil, learned AGA also supports the impugned order and it is respondent No.2 who is required to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30139 MSA No. 46 of 2014 pay the enhanced compensation and therefore, suitable orders to be passed.
11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the landed property to the extent of 10 guntas comprising of residential house, tree, cattle shed and open well were acquired for the purpose of Varahi Project. In fact the land of the claimant got sub-merged in view of the said project. Therefore, the compensation awarded insofar as land is concerned, there is no dispute.
13. Learned Judge in the impugned order, has reassessed the compensation as referred to supra.
14. Learned Judge has taken into consideration the value of the house site at Rs.87,000/- which requires no interference by this Court having regard to the fact that said land is not put to any other use as it has been sub-merged. More so land was situated in the mofuussil area.
15. Insofar as value in respect of the residential house is concerned, the learned Judge has taken into consideration -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30139 MSA No. 46 of 2014 the value shown in Ex.P.1 and then reassessed the value in a sum of Rs.4,09,807.76 paise. While so doing, learned Judge has taken into consideration the age of the construction as well as depreciation.
16. No other material is forthcoming on record to substantiate that the property was in fact constructed in the year 2001-2001 and no plan and license are forthcoming, nor assessment register extract is produced to show the value of the building.
17. The construction material bills are not produced by the claimant. So also no witness is examined to establish what exactly is the expenditure that has been spent for construction of the house.
18. Under such circumstances, the value estimated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the impugned order strictly speaking, requires no interference.
19. However, when the house is lost along with the land, necessarily, the claimant has to rehabilitate herself. Original claimant is no more and her legal representatives are pursuing the matter. Appurtenances -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30139 MSA No. 46 of 2014
20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, since the living house is submerged with the appurtenances, if the value of the house is to be reassessed to sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as round figure, as against sum of Rs.4,46,096.89 paise estimated by the LAO, ends of justice would be met.
21. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part as against sum of Rs.5,28,000/- awarded by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by modifying the award passed by the reference Court from Rs.8,54,141/- the compensation is reassessed in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with all statutory benefits.
ii. Office is directed to pass modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63