State Of Karnataka vs Lakshmamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 967 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.6390 OF 2019 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY SPECIAL LAND
       ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       HASSAN.

2.     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       P.W.D. HASSAN.

3.     KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
       CORPORATION LIMITED
       PRESENT ADDRESS AT:
       SAMPARKA SOUDHA, NO.8
       BEP PREMISES,
       OPPOSITE ORION MALL
       DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE-576 010
       REP. BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       MR. R. MANJUNATH.
                                              ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W
    MR. AJAY J. NANDALIKE A.V., ADV.,)

AND:

LAKSHMAMMA W/O
KRISHNEGOWDA, 69 YEARS
R/O MARGONDANHALLI VILLAGE
                                    2



KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                                     ... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)

                                  ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2015
PASSED IN LAC NO.419/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
U/S.18(1) OF LA ACT.


      THIS     M.F.A.    COMING   ON    FOR   ORDERS,   THIS    DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                              JUDGMENT

Mr.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate

General along with Mr.Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel

for the appellant.

None for the respondent though served.

2. This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

for short) by the appellants seeking against the

judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Reference

Court.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent were the owners out of

parcels of land situated in Gadenahalli Village in Hassan

Taluk. The aforesaid lands were required for the

purposes of Yagachi Reservoir Project. Thereupon, the

proceedings under the Act were set in motion and a

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on

02.01.2008. Eventually, an award was passed under

Section 11 of the Act, by which the Land Acquisition

Officer determined the market value of the land in

question at Rs.37,152/- per acre in respect of the land

in question. The claimants being aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation determined by the Land

Acquisition Officer, sought reference under Section 18 of

the Act seeking enhancement of the amount of

compensation. The Reference Court vide impugned

judgment dated 25.08.2015 inter alia determined the

market value of the property at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta

and held claimants entitled to other statutory benefits as

are admissible under the Act. The relevant extract of the

order passed by the Reference Court, reads as under:

13. On perusal of Ex.P35 and 36 the judgment and decree passed in LAC No.422/2014, it can be seen that the lands acquired by way of preliminary Notifications dated 02.01.2008 are of Magrodanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk. In the said case the lands were acquired for Yagachi Reservoir Project. In the said judgment, the enhanced market value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the instant case, the acquired land is as per the preliminary Notification dated 02.01.2008 and the award is passed on 23.07.2011. As per the said award, the SLAO has fixed market value per acre of the acquired land at Rs.37,152/- only.

14. The judgment and decree passed in LAC No.422/2014 and connected cases at Ex.P35 and 36 remained unchallenged. In the said cases also, the lands were acquired in the same village, for the same purpose under same Notification. Hence, by relying on the Ex.P35

judgment passed in LAC No.422/2014 and connected cases, I am of the opinion that the claimants of this case are also entitled to get the compensation on par with the claimants of the above referred judgment.

Thus, from perusal of the judgment passed by the

Reference Court, it is evident that the sole basis for

determination of the market value of the land in

question is the judgment and decree passed in LAC

No.422/2014. The Reference Court has not examined

any other material available on record and merely on

the basis of the judgment and decree passed in LAC

No.422/2014 has determined the market value of the

lands in question at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

4. When the matter was taken up today, learned

Additional Advocate General submitted that the lands

under LAC No.422/2014 were acquired under a different

Notification than the one which was issued in the

present case. It is further submitted that the judgment

and decree passed in LAC No.422/2014 was in fact,

raised on judgment and decree passed in LAC

No.215/11, which has been set aside vide order dated

16.07.2019 passed by a bench of this court in Writ

Petition No.48067/2017 along with connected petitions

on the ground that the beneficiary in the proceedings

before the Reference Court was not impleaded. It is also

pointed out that the aforesaid view was taken by a

bench of this court in view of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in 'UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD

VS. GYAN DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS', (1995) 2 SCC 326.

Therefore, it is urged that the entire foundation, on

which the judgment and decree passed in LAC

No.215/11 was passed as disappeared and in any case,

the Reference Court ought to have determined the

market value with reference to the evidence adduced by

the parties.

      5.    None       has   appeared     on   behalf    of   the

respondents.     However,       learned    counsel      for   the

respondents / land owners in connected cases were

unable to dispute the aforesaid submissions made by

learned Additional Advocate General. However, it is

urged by them that the land owners be granted the

liberty to adduce evidence before the Reference Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. It is trite law that proceedings before the

Reference Court is in the nature of original proceedings

and is akin to a suit. The claimant is in the position of

the plaintiff and he has to lead cogent evidence to prove

the market value of the property. However, in the

instant case, the Reference Court has merely relied on

the judgment and decree passed in LAC No.422/2014

and has failed to appreciate that the dates of Notification

in the aforesaid case were different and without

reference to any evidence on record, merely with

reference to the judgment and decree passed in LAC

No.422/2014, the market value of the land in question

has been determined. No reasons have been assigned

by the Reference Court for determining the market value

at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is also pertinent to

mention here that the judgment and decree passed in

LAC No.422/2014 was passed on judgment in LAC

No.215/11, which has already been set aside by a bench

of this court in W.P.No.48067/2017 and other connected

matters and the matter has been remanded to the

Reference Court for decision afresh.

In view of preceding analysis, we quash the

impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court

dated 25.08.2015 and remit the matter to the Reference

Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.

Needless to state that the Reference Court shall also

afford an opportunity to the claimants as well as to the

appellants herein to adduce evidence and thereafter to

decide the market value of the land in question afresh

in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed

any opinion on the merits of the case as the market

value of the lands has to be determined by the

Reference Court on the basis of the material adduced

before it. Since, the acquisition proceedings were

initiated in the year 2008, we deem it appropriate to

direct the Reference Court to conclude the proceedings

expeditiously preferably within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed

today.

The parties before us undertake to cooperate with

the Reference Court for early conclusion of the

proceedings and not to seek any unnecessary

adjournments. The parties shall appear before the

Reference Court along with the copy of this order on

04.02.2021.

In cases where parties are represented through

counsel before this court, counsel for both the parties

undertake that the parties shall remain present before

the Reference Court on 04.02.2021. In remaining cases,

Reference Court hall issue notice to the parties for their

appearance.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss