Karnataka High Court

Mahalingappa Shetteppa Patrot, vs The Land Acquisition Officer, on 1 July, 2021

Author: Krishna S. Yerur

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021
                          PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
                            AND
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                MFA No.25802/2012 (LAC)

BETWEEN:
Mahalingappa Shetteppa Patrot,
Chairman Khadi Gramodyog Association
Mahalingapur, R/o.: Mahalingapur, Tq.: Mudhol.
                                                 ... Appellant
(By Smt. Archana A.Magadum, Adv.)

AND:
1.     The Land Acquisition Officer,
       & AC, Jamakhandi.
2.     The Asst. Executive Engineer,
       KEB, Mahalingapur.
3.     The Executive Engineer,
       KEB, Jamakhandi.
4.    Executive Engineer (EL) TL & SSM Division,
      Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited,
      (KPTCL), Akkamahadevi Road,
      14th Cross, Near Vidyagiri, Bagalkot.
                                            ... Respondents
(By Shri G.I. Gachhinamath, Adv. for R2 to R4;
 Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, GA for R1)

     This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of L.A. Act,
1894, against the Judgment & Award dated 16.08.2012,
passed in LAC No.3109/1998 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Mudhol, partly allowing the reference petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
                              :2:



     This MFA coming on for admission, this day, Krishna
S.Dixit, J, delivered the following:

                      JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the land loser lays a challenge to the

Judgment & Award, dated 16.08.2012 entered by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, whereby his

reference in LAC No.3109/1998 having been dis-favoured

the compensation came to be downwardly revised by

taking the land price at Rs.15.35 per sq. ft. which is on

par with the one taken by the LAO coupled with a further

discount of 10%.

2. After service of notice, the respondent-LAO

having entered appearance through the learned

Government Advocate and the respondent-KEB having

been represented by its Senior Panel Counsel, resist the

appeal making submission in justification of the

impugned Award; they contend that the learned Judge of

the Reference Court below having had the advantage of

accumulated wisdom in matters of the kind has employed

the same in framing this award and therefore, there is no

warrant for indulgence of this Court merely because

another view is arguably possible; so contending, they

seek dismissal of the appeal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the original LCRs, we are

inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and

for the following reasons:

(a) Admittedly, the LAO had constructed the award

taking the land price at Rs.15.35 per sq. ft. since it was

converted to non-agricultural purpose; it has been a

settled position of law that the award is in the nature of

an offer to the land loser and therefore compensation

determined on the values mentioned therein cannot be

denied or downwardly revised by the Reference Court,

the very reference being at the instance of the land loser

himself; this submission is consistent with the

Parliamentary intent of Section 25 of the L.A. Act, 1894,

which has the following text:

"25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.-The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section

11."

This aspect having lost sight of by the learned

Judge of the Court below, there is a legal infirmity that

has caused loss to the land loser, and indulgence of this

court is therefore warranted.

(b) Learned counsel for the land loser places on record

a copy of judgment & order dated 25.11.2019 made by

the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA

No.25482/2012 that arose from the acquisition made

under the very same notification dated 19.10.1995,

wherein the land price has been refixed at

Rs.26,13,339/- per acre; in the aforesaid judgment,

paragraphs 9 & 10, run as under:

"9. The tri al Court merely on the basis of the fact that the l and covered under the sale deed namel y Ex.P-7 is situated at a distance of 1 k.m. f rom the land which is sought to be acqui re d, has refused to conside r the same. The aforesai d approach is impe rmissible in law. It is equally well settled that where the se veral sale dee ds are filed, the highest value mentioned in the transaction has to be taken into account. The appellant has filed the sal e dee ds Ex.P-7 to P-17 and the highest value is reflected in the sale deed Ex. P-7. Therefore, in view of law l ai d down in case of Mehrawal Khe waji Trust (supra) and in vi ew of the w ell settle d legal pre position that even small plots of land

can furnish the basis for ascertaining the market value after making appropriate de duction, the market value menti oned in the sale deed Ex.P-7 has to be tak en into consi deration and the tri al Court theref ore grossl y erre d in discarding the same on the ground that the same is si tuated at a distance of 1 km. from the land of the appell ant.

10. F rom pe rusal of Ex. P7, i t is evi dent that pre no tification sal e deed which was executed prior to issuance of notification under Secti on 4(1) of the Act on 21.04.1994 and l and measuri ng 600 sq.f t. has been sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, the marke t value of the prope rty comes to Rs.56.66 sq. f t. However, as stated supra, the aforesai d sale de ed is in respect of non-agri cultural land, but we are conscious of fact that it is in respect of a small piece of land. Some element of guess w ork is always invol ved in assessing market value of the pro perty. Therefore, we deem it appropri ate to appl y deduction of 10% towards market value of the prope rty in view of the law lai d down in Trishal a Jain's case supra. Theref ore, the market value of the land of the appel lant is assessed at Rs. 26,13,339/- per acre."

vehemently contend that the land of the appellant herein

is situate at Gudni Village, whereas the land comprised in

the Coordinate Bench judgment is situate at Mahalingpur

and thus, elements of parity are lacking and

consequently the said judgment cannot be much banked

upon; learned counsel for the appellant at once replies

and we agree with the same that the judgment although

spoke of the land in Gudni Village, the enhancement has

been granted by the Bench banking upon the Sale Deed

at Ex.P-7, which admittedly relates to the land at Gudni

Village itself and therefore what is stated in the said

judgment applies to the case of appellant with equal

force, the operational norm being what applies to goose

should apply to gander, differentials not being pointed

out from the record.

(d) Learned counsel for the respondents submit that

the order of the Coordinate Bench is put in challenge

before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.6401/2020 and that

an interim order of stay thereof has been granted on

05.06.2020; be that as it may. What emerges from the

above is that there is a refixation of the land price at the

rate of Rs.26,13,339/- per acre by the Cooridnate Bench

of this Court in respect of the land acquired pursuant to

the very same notification and therefore, the principle of

parity enacted in Section 28A of the L.A. Act, 1894

becomes invokable subject to all just exceptions into

which argued case of the respondent does not fit; thus,

there is no impediment for disposing off this appeal in

terms of Coordinate Bench Judgment, of course, subject

to result of the pending SLP.

(e) Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in

terms of the Division Bench Judgment, at least 50% of

the compensation amount be released to the land loser

subject to the out come of the said SLP; this is

vehemently opposed by the learned Government

Advocate and the learned Panel advocate by pointing out

the interim arrangement made by the Apex Court vide

order dated 05.06.2020 in the said SLP; the interim

order reads as under:

"The petitioner shall deposit the 50% of the enhanced compensation in the Court which shall be invested in the interest bearing bank account by the Reference Court. However, the amount shall not be released without the leave of the Court."

There is force in the submission of learned advocates for

the respondents; when in a matchable fact-situation the

Apex Court has shown a way, there is no reason for us to

take a different route. Similar arrangement, if made,

would do justice to both the stakeholders.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed

with costs including the Court fee in terms of Co-ordinate

Bench judgment dated 25.11.2019 rendered in MFA

No.25482/2012; the appellant-land loser shall be entitled

to the compensation computed on the basis of land rate

of Rs.26,13,339/- (twenty six lakh, thirteen thousand,

three hundred & thirty nine rupees) only per acre with all