Sri S K Girish vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1133 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.10235 OF 2012
                            C/W
               M.F.A. NO.2541 OF 2013 (LAC)


M.F.A. NO.10235 OF 2012
BETWEEN:

SRI. S.K. GIRISH
S/O KRISHNAN, AGE MAJOR
K.R. PURAM ROAD, SHIMOGA.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. AJITH, ADV., FOR
    MR. A. ANANDA SHETTY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND
       ACQUISITION OFFICER
       UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
       SHIMOGA.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
       SHIMOGA.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
    MR. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR
    MR. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2)
                                2




                             ---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.7.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.115/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

M.F.A. NO.2541 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

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

... APPELLANT (BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA)

AND:

1. S.K. GIRISH S/O KRISHNAN G.S. AGE MAJOR K.R. PURAM ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIMOGA-577201.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. AJITH, ADV., FOR MR. A. ANANDA SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1 MR. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR MR. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.7.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.115/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.F.A No.10253/2012 has been filed by claimants

seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas,

M.F.A No.2541/2013 has been filed by the State Government

against the judgment dated 19.07.2012 passed by the

Reference Court. Since, both these appeals arise out of the

same judgment, they were heard together and are being

decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the appellant in M.F.A No.10253/2012 is the owaner

of land measuring 20 Guntas (21,780 square feet bearing

Survey No.38/2 situated at Alkola Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Shimoga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for Upper

Tunga Project. Thereupon, proceedings were initiated and a

preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was

issued. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on

28.03.2003.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference under

Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide judgment

dated 19.07.2012 awarded the compensation at the rate of

Rs.85/- 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.7998/2014 along with

connected appeals. It is further submitted that the land of

the appellants is also situated in Alkola Village and is

similarly situate to the land involved in M.F.A.No.7998/2014.

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 appellant is situated at the same

village viz., Alkola 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.7998/2014 in the aforesaid judgment, in respect of

the lands covered under the same Notification and for the

same purpose and has potentiality for non-agricultural 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 appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE ss