Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangavva W/O Hanumantappa ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31 July, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
MSA No. 100125 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100125 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA NADUVINAHALLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591111.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR AND SRI.P. V. SAMBARGI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT III, DHARWAD,
NOW AT SECTOR NO. 60, NAVANAGAR,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT - 587103.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KNNL NAVILUTHREETH NO.2,
DAM SITE, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
YASHAVANT DIST: BELAGAVI - 591126.
NARAYANKAR ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
Location: SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA MSA FILED U/S 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894,
PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.
5,08,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC
NO.270/2011 DTD 03.02.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI AND LAC APPEAL NO.2/2018 DTD
17.09.2022 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COST.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
MSA No. 100125 of 2022
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant is claiming enhanced compensation on the basis of judgment and award passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court arising out of the same notification.
2. With the consent of learned counsels on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. The respondent/Government of Karnataka acquired large extent of land by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The SLAO passed the award determining the market value at Rs.37,325/- per acre with statutory benefits. The appellant sought enhancement of the compensation by seeking reference to the Civil Court. The reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of the market value. The -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 reference Court allowed the reference in part and fixed the market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.1,80,000/- per acre with statutory benefits.
4. The appellant being not satisfied, filed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act before the first appellate Court. There being a delay in filing the appeal, the application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellate Court having dismissed the application filed seeking condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal under Section 54(2) of the Act is filed.
5. It is the case of the appellant that on account of her financial condition, illiteracy and dependency on others, there was delay in filing the appeal before the District Court. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant is peasant and illiterate and that by the belated filing of the appeal, she did not gain anything.
6. It is further submitted that delay being bonafided and for the reasons beyond their control, it is -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 liable to be condoned. It is further submitted that the Court below is unjustified in refusing to condone the delay and has erred in dismissing the appeal, despite the appeal filed by other claimants having been allowed and compensation payable determined at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. Reliance was placed on the common judgment passed in MSA No.100012/2016 with connected matters, decided on 19.07.2016 i.e., for grant of enhanced compensation and also for condonation of delay.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the delay being inordinate, having not been satisfactorily explained and there being negligence and latches on the part of the appellant, the first appellate Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay and consequently, dismissing the appeal. The learned counsel submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that opportunity should be given to the appellant to lead evidence on delay condonation -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 application, the matter be remanded to the appellate Court.
8. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, the points for consideration are:
i. Whether the appellate Court has erred in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal?
ii. Whether the appellant is entitled for payment of enhanced compensation?
9. Re-point No.1: No doubt, there is long delay in filing the appeal before the District Court. However, it is to be seen that the first appellate Court has passed awards in respect of the appeals filed by other claimants involving the lands acquired under the same notification and for the same project. The appellate Court has allowed the appeals and enhanced the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits.
10. In the second appeal preferred by the other claimant, co-ordinate Bench has fixed the market value of -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 the acquired property at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Thus, there being prima facie case for consideration, the appellate Court should have kept in view the fact that the appellant is an agriculturist and could not prefer the appeal within the period allowed under law, should have allowed the appeal taking note of weak financial condition and valuable piece of land held by the appellant, having been acquired, the compensation in accordance with law is required to be paid also keeping in view Article 300-A of the Constitution. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice that almost in similar situation, in the case of Market Committee Hodal V/s Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Apex Court has condoned delay of 3240 days.
11. The appellant being a woman and not well educated and being dependent upon others even to put forth her claim, a lenient approach has to be adopted and she should not be deprived the just compensation for acquisition of her land i.e., the payment of compensation -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 on par with similarly situated land owners. The appellate Court has not adopted a pragmatic approach.
12. In the circumstances, equities can be balanced by denying interest for the period for which she did not approach the District Court. There can be denial of interest for the delay period in preferring the first appeal. The appellate Court ought to have kept in view the principles enunciated by the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay, in the case of Collector (Land Acquisition) V/s Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, which was followed in the case of DDA V/s Bhola Nath Sharma (2011) 2 SCC 54, wherein, the matter related to the land acquisition.
13. Having regard to the above, the appellate Court has committed an error in refusing to condone the delay. The co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Razaqsab M. Kamalsabanavar and Another V/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprapha Project-3, Dharwad and connected matters decided on -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 19.07.2016 has considered the above aspects and condoned the delay in filing the appeal denying the interest for the period of delay.
14. Keeping in view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal filed before the appellate Court stands condoned by denying the interest for the period of delay. It is made clear that there shall be no liability on the respondents to pay interest to the appellant on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act. Point No.1 stands answered accordingly.
15. Re-point No.2: In respect of similar lands acquired for same project, the appellate Court has determined compensation payable at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre and allowed statutory benefits. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Razaqsab (supra), in respect of similar lands acquired for same project following the judgment and award dated 26.08.2013 passed in MFA No.24037/2012 and MFA No.21438/2012 and connected -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022 appeals, the compensation payable was determined at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits. Hence, the appellant being identically placed and the land being of similar nature acquired for the same project, the appellant is entitled to the market value of Rs.5,08,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits and costs, as was determined by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.21438/2012 and connected appeals disposed of on 13.11.2014.
16. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed with cost and the impugned judgments and awards are set aside.
ii) The market value of acquired property of the appellant is fixed at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and costs.
iii) The appellant is not entitled to interest for the delay period in preferring of the first appeal. The enhanced award amount shall be deposited in the reference Court within a period of three months.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797 MSA No. 100125 of 2022
iv) The office is directed to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33