Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5635 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

 DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

              M.F.A.NO.23735/2010 (LAC)

BETWEEN :

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GRBCC-3, GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH N.MISALE, ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE SPECIAL LAND
        ACQUISITION OFFICER,
        HIDKAL DAM, TAL : HUKKERI.

2.      SRI SIDDARUDHA
        S/O SADEPPA KAMBALIK
        AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
        R/O MALAGALI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
        DIST: BELGAUM.

3.      SRI BALAPPA
        S/O CHANNAPPA CHANDARGI,
        SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.,

3A.     SRI CHANNAPPA
        S/O BALAPPA CHANDARGI
        AGE : MAJOR,
        OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
                              2




      R/O MALAGALI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELGAUM.

3B.   SRI BASAPPA
      S/O BALAPPA CHANDARGI
      AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
      R/O MALAGALI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELGAUM.

3C.   SRI BELLAPPA
      S/O BALAPPA CHANDARGI,
      SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,

      BEERABAL S/O CHANDRARGI,
      AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
      R/O MALAGALI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELAGAVI.

3D.   SRI SOMAPPA
      S/O BALAPPA CHANDARGI
      AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
      R/O MALAGALI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELGAUM.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY   SMT.SUNANDA P.PATIL, ADV. FOR R.3(B) & (D)
      SRI VIJAY K.NAIK, ADV. FOR R.2 & R.3(A)
      SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.1)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, IN LAC.NO.18/2007, DATED
05.04.2010, BY LIMITING THE ENHANCEMENT OF MARKET
VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND TO 1.25,00/- PER ACRE
INSTEAD OF RS.2,45,000/-.

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION    THIS   DAY,    THE   COURT   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    3




                        : JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission,

with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The appellant-beneficiary is before

this court under Section 54(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 praying to set aside the

impugned judgment and award dated

05.04.2010 passed in LAC.No.18/2017 on the

file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court,

Saundatti ("The Reference Court" for short),

whereunder the market value of the acquired

land was fixed at Rs.2,45,000/- per acre,

praying to fix the market value at the rate of

Rs.1,25,000/- per acre.

3. Brief facts of the case are that,

respondent No.1 being the Special Land

Acquisition Officer acquired 2.30 acres of land in

R.S.No.131 of Malagali village of Saundatti taluk

under Markhandaya Right Bank Canal Project

("MRBC" for short), for irrigating the lands of

Malagali village under preliminary notification

dated 18.09.2003 and passed an award on

15.09.2006 fixing the market value of the land

in question at Rs.38,607/- per acre and paid the

compensation of Rs.1,69,473/- to respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

4. Respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d) are the

legal representatives of the deceased

respondent No.3. It is stated that, respondents

have filed an application seeking reference of

the matter to the Reference Court and sought

for enhancement of compensation to

Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. The reference was

considered by the Reference Court in

LAC.No.18/2007 and the impugned judgment

and award was came to be passed by fixing the

market value at Rs.2,45,000/- per acre with all

statutory benefits for which claimants are

entitled.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment

and award passed by the Reference Court, the

appellant is before this Court.

6. Heard Sri Ramesh N.Misale, learned

counsel for the appellant-beneficiary and Sri

Praveen K.Uppar for respondent No.1-State and

Smt.Sunanda P.Patil for respondent Nos.3(B) &

3(D) and Sri Vijay K.Naik, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and 3(A).

7. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that, acquisition of 2.30 acres of land

in R.S.No.131 of Malagali village for the purpose

laying MRBC under a preliminary notification

dated 18.09.2003 is not in dispute. The Special

Land Acquisition Officer after considering the

value of the land in question passed an award

fixing the market value at Rs.38,607/- per acre.

It was held that the said land was an irrigated

land. The reference Court considered the oral

evidence led by the claimants by examining

respondent Nos.3(A) and also considering

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and Exs.R.1 to R.8 proceeded to

pass the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel submitted that, even

though the Reference Court held that sugarcane

crop was being grown in the land in question

and the yield of the sugarcane was at 35 tons

per acre based on the yield notification

correctly, it has proceeded to take into

consideration the price of the jagarry at

Rs.1,400/- per quintal for the year 2002-03 and

fixed the market value of the land at

Rs.2,45,000/- per acre. The Reference Court

even though adopted capitalization method for

arriving at the market value of the land, it has

not followed the settled principals of law that is

to take three years average price of the product

prior to the date of 4(1) notification for

determining the market value. The Reference

Court erred in not following the principles laid

down in. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs.

Karigouda and others 1.

9. Learned counsel further submitted

that, even as per the price of the sugarcane per

ton quoted by various sugar factories for the

year 2000.01 to 2002-03 the price of the

sugarcane per ton would be Rs.783/- to

Rs.852/-. Even if, the highest average at the

rate of Rs.852/- per ton is to be taken into

consideration, 35 quintals of sugarcane grown in

one acre of land would fetch Rs.29,850/-. Out of

which 50% is to be deducted towards cost of

cultivation. Therefore, the net value would be

Rs.14,910/-. If the same is capitalized, amount

of Rs.1,49,100/- per acre will be a fair,

reasonable and just market value that could be

fixed in the present case.

10. Learned counsel placed reliance on

Hirabai and others Vs. the Land Acquisition

(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 708

Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner 2 to

contend that even if the price of the jaggery is

to be taken as base for determining the market

value, 40% of the said price is to be deducted

towards cost of conversion, overhead,

commission and transportation. From the

remaining amount, 50% is to be deducted

towards cost of cultivation and harvesting, the

Reference Court has not made any such exercise

of deduction towards conversion, cultivation or

harvesting. Even if the value of the jaggery is to

be taken at Rs.1,400/- per quintal after

deduction 40% towards cost of conversion it

would fetch Rs.840/- per quintal and the total

yield at 35 quintals per acre would be

Rs.29,400/- per acre. After deducting cost of

cultivation and capitalizing the same, again the

market value would be Rs.1,47,000/- per acre.

Therefore it is contended by the learned counsel

that the market value per acre could be

(2010) 10 SCC 492

reasonably fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- in the interest

of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the

appeal and to modify the impugned judgment

and award passed by the Reference Court.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.3B & 3D placed reliance on

various decisions rendered by coordinate Bench

of this Court i.e.:-

    1.    MFA    5749/2004                  (LAC)         C/w
          MFA.CROB.220/04.

    2.    MFA.No.435/2005    with  CROB.235/

2005 (LAC) and connected matters.

3. MFA.No.20241/2010 (LAC).

4. MFA.No.22916/2009 (LAC)

5. MFA.No.21045/2010 (LAC)

6. MFA.No.102683/2016 (LAC)

7. MFA.No.100890/2014 (LAC)

The learned counsel contended that, the

coordinate Bench of this court consistently held

that the yield of sugarcane per acre could be 50

tons and fixed the market value at around

Rs.2,35,000-2,86,000/- per acre. Therefore,

basing the said finding given by the coordinate

Bench of this Court the yield of sugarcane per

acre is to be fixed at 50 tons and the market

value is to be determined accordingly.

12. However, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 would contend that the

claimants have not challenged the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Reference

Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal

in the interest of justice.

13. Perused the materials on record.

14. In the light of rival contentions of the

parties, the point that would arise for

consideration of this Court is as follows:

"Whether the impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2010 passed in LAC.No.18/2007 by the Reference Court calls for any interference by this Court?"

15. My answer to the above point is partly

in the affirmative for the following :

: REASONS :

16. It is not in dispute that the claimants

are the owners of the land measuring 2.30 acres

of land in R.S.No.131 of Malagali village of

Saundatti Taluk, which was acquired by

respondent No.1 for the purpose of laying MRBC

by issuing 4(1) notification on 18.09.2003. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the

market value at Rs.38,607/- per acre by

classifying the land in question as an irrigated

land. It is not in dispute that the land is

irrigated land and sugarcane was being grown in

the same. Now the question arises as to what is

yield of sugarcane crop per acre and what is the

price of the sugarcane which can be taken into

consideration.

17. The learned counsel for the

respondent relied on the various decision of this

Court to contend that the yield of the sugarcane

could be fixed at 50 tons per acre. But all the

said lands considered by coordinate Benches of

this court were acquired under different

notifications for Upper Krishna Project ("UKP"

for short). No materials are placed before the

Court to contend that the fertility of the land in

question is equal to that of the lands which were

acquired under UKP. None of the decision relied

on by the learned counsel for the respondent are

under notification which is under consideration.

Moreover, the respondents have not challenged

the impugned judgment and award passed by

the Reference Court to seek enhancement of the

yield of the sugarcane from 35 tons to 50 tons.

Therefore, the said contention raised by the

learned counsel for the respondent cannot be

accepted.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant

placed reliance on the case of Manoj Kumar Vs.

State of Haryana and others, 3 wherein the

Hon'ble Court held as follows :

"15. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequal's. As per situation of a village, nature of land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to three- kilometer distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.

Civil Appeal Nos.13132-13141 of 2017

19. 16. The previous awards/ judgments are the only piece of evidence at par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be out rightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."

20. The Reference Court considering the

yield certificate Ex.P.5 produced by the

claimants fixed the sugarcane yield as 35 tons

per acre. However, it has formed an opinion

that, one ton sugarcane will yield one quintal

jaggery. Thus 35 tons of sugarcane would yield

35 quintals of jaggery and after taking into

consideration the price of the jaggery at

Rs.1,400/- per quintal fixed the market value at

Rs.2,45,000/- per acre.

21. However, the Reference Court based

its finding on the earlier judgment dated

25.01.2009 and also yield certificate Ex.P.5,

which is of the year 1992-93. The average price

of sugarcane for the year 2000-01 to 2002-03 in

different sugar factories referred to in the

synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the

appellant disclose that it ranges from Rs.783/-

to Rs.852/- per ton. The yield of sugarcane as

assessed by the Trial Court on the statistics that

was available for the year 1992-93 may not be

suitable while assessing the yield for the year

2002-03.

22. Even though the respondents/

claimants have not challenged the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Reference

Court, I deem it proper to consider the

contention of both the parties as it is the duty

of the Court to determine the just

compensation. Therefore, I am of the opinion

that the yield of the sugarcane per acre could be

reasonably taken at 40 tons instead of 35 tons

and the price for sugarcane could be fixed at

Rs.852/- per ton. 50% of the costs is to be

deduced towards cultivation and therefore the

value of the sugarcane grown in one acre of land

would be Rs.17,040/- on capitalizing the same,

the value of the land in question would be

Rs.1,70,400/- (40X852/2x10=Rs.1,70,400/-) per

acre.

23. Thus the market value for the lands in

question which was acquired by respondent No.1

could be fixed at Rs.1,70,400/- per acre.

However, the claimants are entitled to for all the

statutory benefits, on the compensation for

which they are entitled to.

24. Therefore, the decision relied on by

the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(B) &

3(D) cannot be the basis to determine the

compensation in this case.

25. In view of the above, the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Reference

Court fixing the market value of the acquired

land at Rs.2,45,000/- is liable to be modified.

Hence I answer the above point 'partly in the

affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

: ORDER :

The appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment and award dated 05.04.2010 passed in LAC.No.18/2007 by the Reference Court is modified.

The compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.2,45,000/- per acre by the Reference Court is reduced to Rs.1,70,400/- per acre, with all statutory benefits.

Draw award accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM