Sri A B Vasantha Kumar vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1121 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.9106 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

SRI. A.B. VASANTHA KUMAR
S/O A. BORAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT. OPPO TILES FACTORY
SAVALANGA ROAD
SHIVAMOGA
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
                                                 ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
       SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK
       SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
       SHIVAMOGA CITY, SHIVAMOGA TALUK
       SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577201.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
    MR. B.V. PRAKASH ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2)

                           ---
                                2




      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
2.11.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.113/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short) by the claimant seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation, against the judgment dated

02.11.2010 passed by the Reference Court.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellants are the owners of land

measuring 5 acres 4 guntas of Survey No.51 and 0.03

acres of Sy.No.52 situated at Gadikoppa Village,

Shimoga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for

Upper Tunga Project. Thereupon proceedings were

initiated and a preliminary Notification dated 21.12.2000

under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition

Officer passed an award on 29.01.2004 by which

compensation was fixed at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference

under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide

judgment dated 02.11.2010 awarded the compensation

at the rate of Rs.47/- per square feet.

4. When the matter was taken up today, learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue with

regard to determination of market value of the land in

question is squarely covered by judgment of this court

dated 13.01.2020 passed in M.F.A.No.7123/2014 along

with connected appeals. It is further submitted that the

land of the appellants is also situated in Gadikoppa

Village and is similarly situate to the land involved in

M.F.A.No.7123/2014. It is also pointed out that land

belonging to the appellants is situate adjacent to the

residential layouts as well as educational institutions and

a commercial complex has been constructed within the

vicinity of the land in question and the appellants are

therefore, entitled to compensation at the rate of

Rs.105/- per square feet. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the respondent has submitted that the

amount awarded by the Reference Court is just and

proper and does not call for any interference.

5. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. The Supreme Court in 'ALI MOHAMMAD

BEIGH AND ORS. VS. STATEOF J AND K', AIR 2017

SC 1518 while following the decision in 'UNION OF

INDIA VS. HARINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS',

(2005) 12 SCC 564, held that if the lands are similarly

situated and are identical and similar, it would be unfair

to discriminate between the land owners with the matter

of grant of compensation. The Supreme Court in

NANDRAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA JT 1988 (4) SC

260 has held that State cannot refuse and has rather an

obligation to pay in respect of the land acquired under

the same Notification under the same award to the land

owners whose lands are similarly situate and have been

acquired under the same Notification and for same

purpose, the compensation at the same rate.

6. It is pertinent to note that the lands have

been acquired under the same Notification and for same

purpose i.e., for Upper Tunga Project. It is also pertinent

to mention here that the land of the appellants is

situated at the same village viz., Gadikoppa Village and

has potentiality for non agricultural use. Therefore, we

find that the lands of the appellant are similarly situate

as that of land involved in M.F.A.No.7123/2014 in the

aforesaid judgment, in respect of the lands covered

under the same Notification and for the same purpose

and has potentiality for urban use. In the aforesaid

judgment, we have already determined the market

value of land at Rs.105/- per square feet. Therefore, in

order to maintain the parity, the market value of the

land in question is assessed at the rate of Rs.105/- per

square feet. Needless to state that the appellant shall

be entitled to solatium as well as statutory benefits,

which are admissible to him under the provisions of the

Act. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the

Reference Court is modified.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss