T B Jagadish vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 87 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

               M.F.A. NO.7455 OF 2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

T.B. JAGADISH
S/O T.B. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT. VINOBANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
       SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
       SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1
    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
01.04.2011 PASSED ON LAC NO.12/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING
                             2



THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING,           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 claimants seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation, against the judgment dated

01.04.2011 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 26 guntas 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

11.09.1997 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The

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

19.12.1998 and possession of the land was taken on

16.10.2000. The appellant was awarded in all a sum of

Rs.1,02,106/-.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a reference

under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide

judgment dated 01.04.2011 has assessed the market

value at Rs.2 Lakhs per acre and has awarded various

statutory benefits as are admissible under the Act. In

the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

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

on 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.280/- 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. 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