Nagamma vs The Special Land
2021 Latest Caselaw 1248 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.2436 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

NAGAMMA
W/O D.G. SHIVAKUMAR
AGE 75 YEARS
R/AT. GOPISHETTIKOPPA
SHIMOGA
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER
L. VENKATESH
S/O LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. WARD NO.35
GADIKOPPA LYAOUT, SHIMOGA-577201.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND
       ACQUISITION OFFICER
       TUNGA & BHADRA PROJECT
       SHIMOGA-577201.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       KNNL, UTP, SHIMOGA-577201.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR
    MR. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2
    MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
                             2




                          ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
4.8.2010 PASSED ON LAC NO.10/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA,
PARTLY ALLOWING REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, 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

04.08.2010 passed by the Reference Court.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant is the owner of land

measuring 2 acres and 32 guntas bearing Survey No.44

in Goppashettikoppa Village in Shimoga Taluk. The

aforesaid land was required for Upper Tunga Project.

Thereupon proceedings were initiated and a preliminary

Notification dated 30.03.1996 under Section 4(1) of the

Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated

14.07.2000 determining the market value at

Rs.66,000/- per acre.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference

under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide

judgment dated 04.08.2010 determined the market

value at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre.

4. When the matter was taken up today, learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that this court vide

judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed in

M.F.A.No.4614/2014 and M.F.A.No.1262/2016 has

determined the market value of the land at Rs.105/- per

square feet in respect of the lands situate at

Goppishettikoppa which was acquired under the same

Notification and for the same purpose. 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., Goppishettikoppa 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.4614/2014 and

M.F.A.No.1262/2016 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