Sri Basaiah vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1333 Kant

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.2142 OF 2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

SRI. BASAIAH
S/O ADIVAIAH
AGED BOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT. WODEYARA HATHUR VILLAGE
BELAGUTTI HOBLI
HONNALLI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577217.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADV.,)

AND:

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

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
       HONNALI CITY, HONNALLI TALUK
       DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577217.

3.     SMT. SHIVAGANGAMMA
       W/O MAHESHWARAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
                              2



4.   S.M. VEERASHEKARAIAH
     S/O MAHESHWARAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

5.   S.M. BASAIAH
     S/O MAHESHWARAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

     R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT. WODEYARA
     HATHUR VILLAGE
     BELAGATTI HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK
     DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

     [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED BY
     VIDE ORDER DATED 7.8.2018].
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. PRAKASH ANGADI B.V. ADV., FOR R2
    MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
        R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)
                             ---
      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
3.4.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.155/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, REJECTING THE REFERENCE
PEITION 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) has been filed by the appellant against the

judgment dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Reference

Court by which a reference made by the appellant

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation

has been rejected.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant were the owners of the

land measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and 20 guntas in

Survey No.64, survey No.3/1 and Survey No.4 situate in

Wadeyara Haithur Village. The aforesaid land as well as

other lands were required for formation of channel of

Upper Tunga Project. Accordingly, the process under the

Act was set in motion. The possession of the land was

taken on 09.01.2001. Thereafter, a Notification under

Section4(1) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2001, which

was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act

on 19.09.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter

passed an award on 29.09.2004 by which compensation

in respect of trees was determined at Rs.3,58,950/- and

no compensation was awarded to the appellant in

respect of the lands in question. Thereupon the

appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

The Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated

03.04.2012 rejected the reference made by the

appellant and confirmed the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer, by which compensation was assessed

at Rs.3,58,950/-. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant while

placing reliance on the judgment dated 07.07.2011

passed by a bench of this court in M.F.A.No.1556/2010

submitted that the appellant is entitled for a sum of

Rs.10,08,000/- per acreas compensation. It is further

submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as

the Reference Court grossly erred in not awarding any

amount on account of market value of the land which is

impermissible in law. It is also pointed out that the

appellant was examined as PW5. In his deposition at

page 2 had stated that the market value of the land is

Rs.10 to Rs.15 Lakhs. However, the appellant claimed

Rs.10 Lakhs per acre. However, the Reference Court

grossly erred in awarding compensation only in respect

of the trees situate on the land. In support of aforesaid

submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in

SRI.BASAPPA VS. SLAO AND ANOTHER MFA

NO.1556/2010 DATED 07.07.2011,

D.G.PARAMESHWARAPPA JANGLI VS. SLAO AND

ANOTHER, MFA NO.7480/2012 DATED 29.01.2014,

SRI.VEERAPPA B VS. SLAO AND ANOTHER, MFA

NO.6847/2012 DATED 29.01.2014, K.BASAPPA VS.

SLAO AND ANOTHER, MFA NO.91/2013 DATED

25.06.2014, ALIMOHAMMAD BEIGH AND OTHERS

VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, (2017) 4 SCC

717, 'SRI.VITHALRAO AND ANOTHER VS. SLAO,

(2017) 8 SCC 558, 'UNION OF INDIA VS. BAL RAM

AND ANOTHER, AIR 2004 SC 3981, 'K.PERIASAMI

VS. SUB-TEHSILDAR', (1994) 4 SCC 180, 'RAJA

RATI RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, (1987) (SUPP)

SCC 19, SRI.G.C.SHARANAPPA VS. SLAO AND

ANOTEHR, MFA NO.3364/2012 DATED 13.01.2020,

SRI.NINGOJI RAO AND ORS VS. SLAO AND

ANOTHER, MFA NO.7123/2014 DATED 13.01.2020,

SRI.ESHWARAPPA AND ORS VS. SLAO AND

ANOTHER, MFA NO.8200/2015 DATED 13.01.2020

and CIVIL APPEAL NO.9361/2017.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for

the respondent No.2 submitted that the decision

rendered by this court in M.F.A.No.1556/2010 has no

application to the facts of the case as the Notification in

the aforesaid case as well as in the present case are

different and lands are located in different villages. It is

further submitted that on the lands involved in

M.F.A.No.1556/2010, on the entire land the arecanut

was grown whereas, in the instant case, only on the land

of Survey No.64 arecanut trees are situate and on the

remaining land tamarind and bamboo trees are grown.

It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision do not

apply to the fact situation of the case. It is also

submitted that no evidence was led in by the petitioner

to prove the market value of the land and the judgment

passed by the Reference Court is perfectly justified 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 HINDUSTAN

PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS. DARIUS CHENAI,

(2005) 7 SCC 627 held that in view of Article 300-A of

the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of power

of eminent domain may interfere with the right of the

property of a person by acquiring the same but the

same must be for a public purpose and reasonable

corporation therefor must be paid. In 'N.PADMAMMA

VS. S.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY', (2008) 15 SCC 517,

it was held that right to hold the property is a human

right as also a constitutional right and the same cannot

be taken away except in accordance with law. Article

300-A of the Constitution of India protects the right to

hold the property. Similar view was taken in 'DELHI

AIR TECH SERVICES (P.) LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P.',

(2011) 9 SCC 354. The aforesaid principles were

reiterated with approval in 'VIDYA DEVI VS. STATE OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS', (2020) 2 SCC

569.

6. The Supreme Court in B.NINGOJI RAO VS.

SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

supra has held that what is material is the quality of the

land and it does not necessarily depend on the crops

grown at a particular time or season. The Supreme

Court in the aforesaid decision remitted the matter to

the high court to adjudicate the quality of the land on

the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and to

determine the compensation. In other words, the land

belonging to the appellant cannot be acquired without

payment of compensation and they are entitled to

payment of compensation in respect of land as well.

However, from perusal of the order passed by the

Reference Court, we find that the Reference Court has

not awarded any compensation to the appellant in

respect of the land but has determined the

compensation only in respect of the trees grown on the

land. However, it is pertinent to note that the appellant

has not adduced any evidence with regard to the market

value of the land before the Reference Court. In the

award dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer also, we do not find any reference with regard to

market value of the land of the appellant. There is not

an iota of evidence on record even to guess the market

value of the land in question. Therefore, in the peculiar

fact situation of the case and bearing in mind the

constitutional mandate contained in Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to grant an

opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence with

regard to the quality of the land as well as the market

value of the land, which has been acquired.

In the result, the impugned judgment dated

03.04.2012 passed by the Reference Court is hereby

quashed and the matter is remitted to the Reference

Court to adduce an opportunity to lead evidence with

regard to the nature of land as well as market value of

the land to both the parties and thereafter, to determine

the compensation payable to the appellant. The

aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the Reference

Court within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS