M/S Hospete Power Company Mukund ... vs Balachandra Rao S/O Vinayaka Rao ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2865 Kant

           1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

                          AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

               MFA No.100246/2021 (LAC)
             C/w. MFA No.100245/2021 (LAC),
             MFA Crob. No.100027/2021 (LAC)
            & MFA Crob. No.100028/2021 (LAC)


IN MFA NO.100246 OF 2021:
BETWEEN

M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY,
MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL,
TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT
S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER,
LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD.,
CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL,
 FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV.)

AND
1.  SHANKAR RAO
    S/O. VAMAN RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
    SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.

     1(A) SMT VEENA ALAWADIKAR,
     W/O. LATE SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
                             :2:



     AGE MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
     R/O.: KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL,
     TQ. & DIST.: KOPPAL.

     1(B) POOJA ALAWANDIKAR,
     D/O. LATE SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
     AGE MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
     R/O.: KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL,
     TQ. & DIST.: KOPPAL.

     BOTH REPSONDENT NOS.1(A) & (B) ARE
     NOW RESIDING AT 31ST WARD, 1ST CROSS,
     NEHARU COLONY, HOSAPETE-583201,
     TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST.: BALLARI.

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     KIDB DHARWAD, P.B ROAD, DHARWAD.
     TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.

3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTION OFFICER
     & MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA
     INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
     KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560001.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1(A) & (B); SHRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.8/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN), KOPPAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,00,000/- PER ACRE.

IN MFA NO.100245 OF 2021:

BETWEEN

M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY, MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.

REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT

S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER, LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.

... APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. BALACHANDRA RAO, S/O VINAYAKA RAO ALAWANDIKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIDB, DHARWAD, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. SHASHANK HEDGE, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED U/S 18(1) OF L.A. ACT.

IN MFA CROB. NO. 100027 OF 2021:

BETWEEN

SHRI. BALACHANDRA RAO S/O. VINAYAKA RAO ALAWANDIKAR

AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL ... CROSS-OBJECTOR (BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, DHARWAD, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.

2. M/S. HOSPET POWER COMPANY MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.

REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER-LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.100245/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN) AT KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA CROB. NO.100028 OF 2021:

BETWEEN

SHRI SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

1. SMT.VEENA W/O.SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR,

AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL

2. POOJA D/O. SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC.

R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL ... CROSS-OBJECTORS (BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, DHARWAD, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD

2. M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY, MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.

REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER, LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE R1 RI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV FOR R2)

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.100246/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.8/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.

THESE MFAS & MFA CROBS. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDG MENT

The challenge in these appeals are to the Judgment &

Awards of the Court below whereby the compensation has

been enhanced; the respondent land losers having entered

appearance through their counsel resists the appeals

contending that the compensation ought to have been still

more high in terms of their cross-objections.

2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing

for the rival parties and having perused the appeal papers

and the original LCR, as well, we are inclined to grant a

limited and conditional indulgence in the matter as under

and for the following reasons:

(a) The land losers having not been happy with the

compensation awarded by the SLAO, were before the

Reference Court u/s 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, wherein the compensation has been enhanced;

this enhancement happens to be the bone of contention

between the parties; the immediate beneficiary namely the

allottee of the land in question complains that the

enhancement is too much on the higher side whereas the

land losers grieve that the compensation awarded is much

lesser than what they are legally entitled to; be that as it

may.

(b) The law is well settled right from the days of A.K.

Kraipak &; Ors etc. v. Union of Inida &; Ors., that no

adverse order can be made against a person without having

his say in the matter; even the God is said to have given an

opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing

them for eating the forbidden fruit in the Eaden Garden;

this is the view which one of us sitting single (KSDJ) has

held in KIADB V. Sri.Byregowda, 2019 (1) KLJ 805; in

the said decision it is broadly held that the beneficiary of

acquisition and the persons claiming under such beneficiary

need to be heard by the Reference Court before granting

enhancement of compensation; this having not happened in

this case, our indulgence is emanately warranted as rightly

argued by the learned Senior Advocate Shri R.V.S. Naik

appearing for the allottee of the land.

(b) The vehement contention of learned Advs. for the land

losers that the KIADB was heard in the matter inasmuch as

the SLAO belongs to KIADB, is bit difficult to countenance;

the acquisition in question was under the provisions of

KIADB Act, 1966; State being the acquirer, the KIADB

happens to be only a beneficiary; the allottee of land/site

being the immediate beneficiary of acquisition; under the

scheme of the Act, it is only the Chief Executive Officer, who

can represent the KIADB and none else; this view finds

support from the text of Section 20(ii)(c), as rightly argued

by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik; merely because

the respondent SLAO has been wrongly described in the

cause title, as of KIADB, that per se does not make him the

true & official representative of this statutory body; that

being the legal position, it cannot be gainfully contended

that the KIADB as such was represented and heard in the

matter before the Reference Judge.

(c) After turning the pages of the LCR, we are of a

considered opinion with which the learned Senior Advocate

Mr. Naik appearing for the appellant grantee of the acquired

land is also broadly agreed that what has been awarded by

the SLAO through awards in question is arguably on the

lower side; there may be scope for argument that what has

been granted as enhancement of compensation is on the

higher side; however, we are not expressing any opinion

this way or that way; regard being had to all the facts that

emerge from the evidentiary material on record, we are of a

considered view that Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five

lakh) only in each of the appeals be released from out of the

amount deposited before the Reference Court below

pursuant to interim orders of this Court and that this would

be subject to outcome of the remand, we are making now

herein; this would put both the sides to some reprieve

justice, especially when the land losers are grieving against

the arguable frugality of compensations awarded by the

SLAOs.

In the above circumstances, these appeals and the

cross-objections are disposed off; the impugned judgment

and awards having been set at naught, the matter is

remanded to the Reference Court for consideration afresh in

accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of

hearing to all the stake holders, who may lead their

evidence too; time for compliance is six months.

From the amount in deposit, the land losers shall be

given a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh) only

in each of the appeals subject to outcome thereof, and that

the remainder shall be refunded to the parties who have

deposited the same;

It hardly needs to be stated that the entire Court fee

paid by the appellants and the cross-objectors shall be

refunded forthwith; this apart the balance amount in deposit

shall be refunded to the depositors - appellant/s.

The parties through their counsel are put to notice to

appear before the reference Court on 18.08.2021 and seek

further instructions in the matter from the learned Judge.

Pending I.As. pale into insignificance in view of

disposal of the main matter.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vnp*