Karnataka High Court
Sri. S.T. Srinivasa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16 March, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A. NO.3915 OF 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
S.T. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NEAR MANGALORE
POVA MILL, N.T. ROAD
SHIMOGA-577201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.N. DAYALU, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
SHIMOGA-577201.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL
UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
SHIMOGA-577201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. POONACHA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR
SRI. M.R.C. RAVI, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
2
15.3.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.2/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATIN AND SEEKNIG FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for short) has been filed by the land owner against
judgment dated 15.03.2010 seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation awarded by the Reference
Court.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellant was the owner of land
measuring 28 guntas of Sy.No.57 situated at
Anupinakatte Village. The aforesaid land was required
for Upper Tunga Project. Thereupon, the proceeding
under the Act was initiated and Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 29.08.1997 and
award was passed on 25.08.2001, by which the market
value of the land was determined at the rate of
Rs.75,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The
appellant thereupon sought a reference under Section
18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the
compensation. The Reference Court vide impugned
judgment dated 15.03.2010 awarded the compensation
at the rate of Rs.5,11,850/- per acre and determined the
compensation accordingly along with all statutory
benefits. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this
appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while
inviting our attention to sketch map Ex.P16 submitted
that Anupinakatte Village is situated adjacent to
Gadikoppa Village and therefore, the compensation may
be determined accordingly. On the other hand, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 after perusal of Ex.P16 i.e.,
the sketch map submitted that Anupinakatte Village is
situated adjacent to Gadikoppa Village.
4. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. The Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in the
case of 'UNION OF INDIA VS. BALRAM' (2010) 5
SCC 747 has held that if the purpose of acquisition is
the same and the lands are identical and similar though
lying in different villages there is no justification to make
any discrimination between the land owners to pay the
more compensation to some of the land owners and less
compensation to others. Similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court in 'ALI MOHAMMED BEIGH AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR',
(2017) 4 SCC 717.
5. It is not in dispute that this court in
M.F.A.No.7123/14 vide judgment dated 13.01.2020
while dealing with the issue of market value of the land
pertaining to Gadikoppa Village has determined the
market value of the land at Rs.105/- per square feet as
on 11.08.2000. It is also not in dispute that
Anupinakatte village is situated adjacent to Gadikoppa
Village. Therefore, in view of decisions in Balram and
State of Jammu and Kashmir supra, there appears to be
no justification for adopting a different approach for
determination of market value in this case. Besides this,
the respondent No.2, which is an instrumentality of the
State cannot be permitted to practice discrimination and
pay compensation to the land owners even though the
land is situated in adjoining villages. The appellant has
produced a sketch Ex.P5 and has produced a copy of
sale deed Ex.P9, which is executed on 23.11.2006 in
respect of land measuring 35 x 60 feet situated at
Gopala Village. The aforesaid sale deed is of no
assistance to the appellant as the same has been
executed after passing of the award and in respect of a
small portion of land which cannot be the basis for
determining the market value of the land. The appellant
has also produced sale deed Ex.P6 executed on
13.12.2001 in respect of land situated in Gadikoppa
Village. The aforesaid sale deed is also post Notification
sale deed and is in respect of land measuring 30 x 50
square feet. The aforesaid sale deed is also of no
assistance tot the appellant. Thus, there is no evidence
on record to determine the market value of the land.
However, the lands in question have potentiality for non
agricultural use. The lands have been acquired for the
purposes of Upper Tunga Project and are situated in
Anupinakatte Village. We have already determined the
market value of agricultural land, which has a
potentiality for non agricultural use at Rs.105/- per
square feet on the basis of the judgments passed by the
Reference Court in which market value of the land was
determined at Rs.105/- and the same has been accepted
by Karnataka Niravari Nigam Ltd. as on 11.08.2000. The
Supreme Court in SARDAR JOGENDRA SINGH VS.
STATE OF U.P.', (2008) 17 SCC 133 in para 12 has
held as under:
In ONGC LTD. VS. RAMESHBHAI
JIVANBHAI PATEL this Court held that in
regard to urban and semi-urban areas, in
the absence of other acceptable evidence a
cumulative increase of 10% to 15% was
permissible with reference to acquisitions in
the 1990s. In the decades preceding 1990s,
the quantum of increase was considered to
be less than 10% per annum. This Court
however observed that transactions beyond
five years before the acquisition, should be
considered with caution and may not always
be a reliable guide.
Therefore, since the Notification in this case has
been issued on 29.08.1997 therefore, bearing in mind
the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the market
value of the land is assessed at Rs.76.5/- which is
rounded off to Rs.77/- per square feet .
Needless to state that the appellant will be
entitled to solatium and statutory benefits including the
interest, which are payable to them under the provisions
of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed
by the Reference Court is modified. The appellant shall
be entitled to refund of the excess amount of court fee,
if any.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss
