Sri Karegowdara Irappa vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 405 Kant

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.5188 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

SRI. KAREGOWDARA IRAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE & EMPLOYMENT
R/AT. HARNAHALLI ROAD
AYANUR, SHIMOGA TQ & DIST-577201.
                                               ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,)

AND:

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

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGHAMA LTD.,
       UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
       SHIMOGA DISTRICT
       SHIMOGA-577201.                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV., FOR R1
    MR. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR MR. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2)

                               ---
                             2



      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
17.08.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.130/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR 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

17.08.2011 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 1 acre and 17 guntas bearing Survey

No.111/6 situated at Sominakoppa Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for

Upper Tunga Project. Thereupon proceedings were

initiated and a preliminary Notification dated 17.11.2000

under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter a declaration

under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 19.01.2002.

The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation

in respect of the land of the appellant at the rate of

Rs.150/- square meter and granted compensation for 27

guntas though, 1 acre and 14 guntas of land was

acquired.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference

under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide

judgment dated 17.08.2011 determined the market

value at Rs.105/- 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.3364/2012. It is

further submitted that the land of the appellant is also

situated in Sominakoppa Village and is similarly situate

to the land involved in M.F.A.No.3364/2012. It is also

pointed out that land belonging to the appellant 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 appellant is therefore, entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.197/- 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., Sominakoppa 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.3364/2012 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.150/- 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.150/- 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