Karnataka High Court
The Senior Regional Engineer vs Mohan Timmanna Nayak, on 3 March, 2021
Author: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A.NO.22008/2010 (LAC)
BETWEEN :
The Senior Regional Engineer,
The Konkan Railway Corporation,
(A Government of India Undertaking
Having its head Office at Belapur Bhavan)
Sector 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614,
Now rep by Chief Engineer,
Karwar.
... APPELLANT
(BY Sri G.K.Hiregoudar Adv.)
AND :
1. Mohan Timmanna Nayak,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Govt. Servant,
R/o Sedgeri, Tq: Ankola.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(For Konkan Railway Corporation)
Kumta.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Murthy D.Naik and Sri M.L.Vanti, Advts. For R.1)
(By Sri V.S.Kalasoormath, HCGP for R.2)
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 54(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and award
dated 30.11.2009 passed in LAC.No.19/2007 by the Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Kumta and reject the reference and may be pleased to
pass such other order or judgment as may be deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2
This appeal coming on for hea ring on I.A., this da y,
the Court delivere d the following:
: JUDGMENT :
The cap tioned appeal is filed by the Konkan
Railway Corporation assailing the correctness of the
judgment and award passed in LAC.No.19/2007.
2. The land which is sub ject matter of the
app eal was acquired for the purpose of formation of
broad-g aug e railway line between Mang aluru-Mumb ai
and the same had acq uired under a p reliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act ("the Act" for short) dated 17.06.1998. The Land
Acquisition Officer p assed an award fixing the market
value of Rs.2,500/- per gunta in respect of
Sy.No.108/A-5 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Shedgeri
village in Ankola Taluka.
3. The 1st respondent being aggrieved by
inadequate compensation sought reference und er
Section 18 of the Act claiming higher comp ensation.
4. The reference petition was contested by the
app ellant-Corporation. The Reference Court having
examining the oral and documentary evidence on record
enhance the market value of Rs.15,640/- per gunta.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award p assed by
the Reference Court, the Corporation is in app eal before
this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
app ellant, respondent No.1-claimant as well as learned
Hig h Court Government Plead er for the 2 n d respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent would place reliance on judgment p assed by
this Court in MFA.No.21990/2010 and MFA.No.22001/
2010. Placing reliance on these two judgments, the
learned counsel for the 1 s t respondent-claimant would
submit this Court by placing the reliance on the
comp ensation d etermined for Seab ird Project wherein
the market value was determined at Rs.11,500/-. This
Court having reg ard to the date of preliminary
notification also held that the claimants are entitled for
3% escalations for a p eriod of five years. The nature of
land in the present appeal is id entical and issues are
covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in
MFA.No.21990/2010 and MFA.No.22001/2010. This
factual aspect is not seriously disputed by the counsel
app earing for the appellant as well as the counsel
app earing for respondent No.2.
7. The Reference Court has rightly taken note of
the judgment rendered by this Court in resp ect of
Seabird Project and I do not find any infirmity in
quantum determined by the Reference Court. In that
view of the matter, the g rounds urged in the appeal are
not at all sustainab le.
For the reasons stated sup ra, the app eal filed by
the corporation is dismissed.
Sd/-
JU DGE
EM /-
