Karnataka High Court
Satyakumar vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 28 June, 2021
Author: S.G.Pandit And M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB NO.99/2005
Between:
1. Satyakumar
2. Sanjaykumar
3. Vijaykumar
4. Shivakumar
All are major sons of
Neelakanth, R/o Chennur
Chincholi Taluk
Gulbarga District
... Cross-objectors
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Gulbarga
... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross-objection is filed
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, praying to allow the cross-
objection by awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per
2
acre for an extent of 4 acres of wet and irrigated land and
Rs.65,000/- pr acre for 4 acres 28 guntas of dry land of
Sy.No.95 of Chennur village by modifying the judgment and
award of passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sedam dated
12.12.2003 in LAC No.290/2003.
This Cross-objection having been heard and reserved
for judgment on 17.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement
of Judgment this day, M.G.S.KAMAL, J., delivered the
following:-
JUDGMENT
This cross-objection is filed under Order 41 Rule
22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the claimants in
MFA No.5473/2004 against the judgment and award
dated 12.12.2003 passed in LAC No.290/2002.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, by
notification dated 08.04.1991 under Section 4(1) of
Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act'), land bearing
Sy.No.95 situated at Chennur village measuring 8 acres
28 guntas, out of which an extent of 4 acres is
wet/irrigated land and remaining 4 acres 28 guntas is
dry land, was proposed for acquisition for the public
purpose of Lower Mullamari Project. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed award determining the value
of wet land at Rs.12,000/- per acres and dry land at
Rs.8,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award,
petition under Section 18(1) of the Act was filed by the
claimants before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sedam
seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Before the reference court, cross-objector
No.4 namely, Sri Shivakumar examined himself as
P.W.1 and got exhibited five documents as Exs.P.1 to 5.
Respondent did not lead any evidence. The reference
court by the impugned judgment held that the
claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of
Rs.33,400/- per acre for dry land and Rs.58,000/- per
acre for irrigated lands. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and award, the SLAO filed MFA No.5473/2004. On
receipt of notice in the said appeal, the claimants have
filed the cross-objection seeking enhancement of
compensation.
4. This court by order dated 26.05.2010 had
disposed of aforesaid MFA No.5473/2004 and MFA
CROB No.99/2005 by enhancing the compensation at
the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for irrigated land and
Rs.65,000/- for dry land with consequential statutory
benefits. That similarly situated persons whose appeals
were disposed of by this court granting compensation as
above had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP
No.3742/2012, which was disposed of with liberty to
seek review of the order. The review petition filed by
those persons were allowed enhancing compensation
determining the market value at Rs.1,72,630/- per acre
in respect of irrigated lands and Rs.1,15,085/- per acre
in respect of dry land with all statutory benefits.
Thereafter, other review petitions were also allowed.
Since the cross-objectors herein are also similarly
situated entitled for similar compensation had filed
review petition in R.P.No.200013/2019 seeking review
of the order dated 26.05.2010 passed in MFA
No.5473/2004 and present MFA CROB No.99/2005
with prayer to condone the delay.
5. This court by order dated 09.03.2021
allowed the review petition condoning the delay subject
to condition that the cross-objectors would not be
entitled for interest for the delayed period of 3163 days
as well as period of pendency of review petition.
Consequently, restored the MFA CROB No.99/2005.
Hence, same is taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors
submits that the present matter is covered by the
judgment of this court passed in MFA No.11585/2005,
which was in respect of the same notification, for same
purpose and of the same village in respect of which the
compensation of Rs.1,72,630/- per acre has been
awarded in respect of irrigated land and Rs.1,15,086/-
per acre has been awarded in respect of dry land. He
further submits that the aforesaid judgment of co-
ordinate bench of this court has taken note of another
judgment of this court in MFA No.2274/2001 C/w MFA
No.2272/2001 decided on 04.01.2017 wherein this
court has awarded similar compensation pertaining to
same notification, same purpose and in respect of the
adjacent village. He also relied upon judgment in MSA
No.674/2011 reported in case of Srikanth v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013(1) AKR
433 pertaining to same village in respect of
Sy.No.100/C wherein learned single judge of this court
has granted compensation at the above rate.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate
admits and confirms the aforesaid position of the
matter.
8. Heard learned both the counsel and perused
the records.
9. Inasmuch as this court has already awarded
compensation of Rs.1,72,630/- per acre in respect of
irrigated lands and Rs.1,15,085/- per acre in respect of
dry lands pertaining to the same notification, same
village and adjacent villages, which fact has been
admitted and confirmed by the learned Additional
Government Advocate. We are of the considered opinion
that the cross-objectors herein shall be entitled for
similar compensation of Rs.1,72,630/- per acre in
respect of irrigated lands and Rs.1,15,085/- per acre in
respect of dry lands.
10. Resultantly, the cross-objection is allowed
with costs. The cross-objectors are held entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,72,630/- per acre in respect of
irrigated lands and Rs.1,15,085/- per acre in respect of
dry lands. The cross-objectors are entitled for incidental
statutory benefits. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the reference court is modified accordingly.
11. It is made clear that the cross-objectors are
not entitled for interest on the delayed period in filing
the review petition for a period of 3163 days and during
the pendency of the review petition.
12. The cross-objectors had restricted their
claim to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of wet land
and Rs.65,000/- per acre for dry land and had paid the
court fee thereon. The Apex Court in the case of
Narendra & Ors. vs. State Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426, wherein it is held that
the courts are not precluded from awarding a higher
compensation than the claimed. In view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court and in view of cross-objectors
held entitled for the amount more than they claimed,
the cross-objectors are directed to make good the deficit
court fee.
Modified decree shall be drawn only on payment of
difference of court fee.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
