The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs J S S Mahavidyapeeta
2021 Latest Caselaw 1919 Kant

                                 1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

               M.F.A. NO.8623 OF 2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE-570020.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. C. BABU, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     J.S.S. MAHAVIDYAPEETA
       RAMANUJA ROAD
       MYSORE-570020
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
       SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       MYSORE SUB-DIVISION
       MYSORE-570020.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P. ADV., FOR R1
    MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)

                                ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.7.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO.3/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE IV
                              2



ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,           THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

for short) by the claimant against judgment dated

24.07.2017 passed by the Reference Court.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent No.1 was the owner of the

land measuring 0.18 guntas of Sy.No.30 situate at

Belawatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru

District. The aforesaid land was required for connecting

the Mysore Goods Terminal to Hassan Railways.

Therefore, the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act

was issued on 13.07.2009. Thereafter, an award was

passed on 14.06.2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer by

which the market value of the land in question was

assessed at Rs.15,19,855/- per acre. Being dissatisfied

with the amount of compensation, the claimant sought

reference under Section 18 of the Act.

3. The claimant in order to prove his case,

examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited two

documents viz., Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The respondent did

not adduce any evidence. The Reference Court vide

judgment dated 24.07.2017 by placing reliance on the

judgment dated 04.09.1998 passed by the Reference

Court in L.A.C.No.106/2003 and by adding escalation of

10% every year, assessed the market value at

Rs.57,32,932/- per acre along with other statutory

benefits. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the appellant be granted an

opportunity to adduce evidence with regard to market

value and the Reference Court without any cogent

evidence on record has assessed the market value. On

the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant

submitted that he also be granted an opportunity to

adduce evidence with regard to the market value.

5. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. From perusal of the judgment passed by the

Reference Court, we find that the Reference Court has

not assigned any reasons as to how the land involved in

L.A.C.No.106/2003 is similar to the land involved in this

acquisition. It is pertinent to mention here that the land

involved in respect of L.A.C.No.106/2003, different

notification was issued at a prior point of time and the

judgment has been passed on 04.02.1998, whereas, in

this case, the proceedings were initiated by the

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on

13.07.2009. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the

judgment passed in L.A.C.No.106/2003 could not have

been made the basis for determination of the market

value in this case. There is absolutely no material

available on record to enable this court to assess the

market value. In the peculiar facts of the case and the

state of evidence on record, we accede to the prayer

made by the learned counsel for the parties to remit the

matter.

6. The impugned judgment passed by the

Reference Court is therefore, set aside and the matter is

remitted to the Reference Court to afford an opportunity

to the parties to adduce evidence and thereafter, to

determine the issue with regard to market value of the

land in question.

The amount of court fee deposited by the appellant

is refunded to him.

The parties undertake to appear before the

Reference Court along with a copy of this order on

14.06.2021.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

indicated above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss