Karnataka High Court

The Veterinary Medical College vs (Dase Gowda on 5 April, 2022

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 5 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

           MFA NO.1693 OF 2020 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

The Veterinary Medical College
Hassan
Rep by its Dean.                          ...Appellant

(By Sri K.N. Phaneend ra, Senior Advocate for
 Smt. Vaishali Hegde, Advocate)

AND:

     (Dase Gowda
     S/o. Velap uri Gowda
     Dead by LRs)

1.   Smt. Gang amma
     W/o Late Dasegowda
     Aged about 59 years
     R/o Jayanagara
     2 n d phase, Hassan.

2.   Smt C.D. Renukadevi
     D/o Late Dasegowda
     Aged about 42 years
     R/o Ramakrishna Nag ara
     Mysuru.

3.   Smt. C.D. Roopadevi
     D/o Late Dasegowda
     Aged about 40 years
     R/o Thirup atihalli
     Kasab a Hobli, Arasikere Taluk.
                            :: 2 ::



4.   Smt C.D. Mohanakumari
     D/o Late Dasegowda
     Aged about 38 years
     R/o Chikkagond agola Kopp alu
     Kasab a Hobli
     Hassan Taluk.

5.   Smt C.D. Tharanatha
     Aged about 38 years
     R/o Jayanagara
     2 n d Phase
     Hassan.

6.   The Chief Secretary
     Govt. of Karnataka
     Vidhana Soudha
     Bang alore.

7.   Special Land Acq uisition
     Officer & Assistant Commissioner
     Hassan.                       ...Respond ents

(By Sri Girish B. Balad are, Advocate R1 to R5
 Sri K.Dilip Kumar, HCGP, for R6 and R7)


     This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of Land
Acquisition Act 1894, ag ainst the Judgment and Award
dated 08.07.2019 passed in LAC No.54/2017 on the
file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C,
Hassan, p artly allowing the claim petition filed under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.


     This MFA having been heard & reserved on
28.03.2022, coming on for pronouncement this day,
the Court pronounced the following:
                                :: 3 ::


                             JUDGMENT

The appellant is the beneficiary of the land

which was acquired for the purpose of establishing

the campus of Veterinary Medical College at

Hassan.

2. Preliminary notification for acquiring

totally an extent of 69 acres 25 guntas of land

situated in various survey numbers of

Chikkahonnenahalli was issued on 6.9.2007.

Under this notification, 18 guntas of land in Sy.

No. 48/2 of the said village that stood in the name

of Dase Gowda s/o Velapuri Gowda was acquired.

The respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal are the legal

representatives of Dase Gowda. The Land

Acquisition Officer passed an award granting

compensation of Rs.4,92,030/- for acquiring 18

guntas of land. The land owner, i.e., Dase Gowda

sought reference under section 18(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act to the Civil Court, as according to :: 4 ::

him the compensation granted by the Land

Acquisition Officer was on a lower side. The court

below after conducting an enquiry enhanced the

compensation to Rs.81,675/- per gunta together

with solatium at 30% and interest as prescribed

under Land Acquisition Act. Assailing the award

dated 8.7.2019 of the court below, the beneficiary

has preferred this appeal.

3. The impugned award shows that the court

below relied upon judgment and award passed in

LAC 144/2013 for enhancing the compensation.

This case pertained to acquisition notification

dated 6.11.2009 for the purpose of establishing

Veterinary Medical College and that the land also

belonged to Chikkahonnenahalli Village. Therefore

the court below was of the opinion the earlier

award in respect of same acquisition could be

followed.

:: 5 ::

4. Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 has also

filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

for producing certified copies of the judgment and

award in LAC 117/2011 and certified copy of the

order sheet in Execution 272/2015, by way of

additional evidence.

5. I have heard the argument of Sri

K.N.Phaneendra, learned senior counsel for the

appellant and Sri Girish B Baladare, learned

counsel for respondents 1 to 5.

6. It was the argument of Sri

K.N.Phaneendra that the court below could not

have mechanically followed the award in another

case without ascertaining the location of the land

in the present case. When a large extent of land

was acquired, the land situate adjacent to the

main road or near to the city fetches higher

market value than the land situate far away. A

steep hike in compensation for a land which :: 6 ::

actually does not fetch the market value in a

private sale is against the established principles of

law. In support of his argument he very much

emphasized the recent judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition

Officer and Others vs N.Savitha [Civil Appeals

2052-2053/2022]. With this he argued for

allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the

court below for determining the compensation by

adopting other modes of calculation.

7. Per contra, Sri Girish B Baladare argued

that the appellant cannot disown his responsibility

of paying compensation at the enhanced rate in as

much as the appellant has already satisfied the

award passed in LAC 117/2011 in which another

piece of land belonging to Dase Gowda of the same

village was the subject matter of reference. He

submitted that 10 guntas in Sy. No. 3/8 of

Chikkahonnenhalli was acquired for the same :: 7 ::

purpose under the same notification and the

reference court enhanced the compensation to

Rs.81,675/- per gunta. The award was put into

execution where the appellant satisfied the award.

While deciding LAC 117/2011, the award in LAC

144/2013 was followed and the very same award

was followed by the court below while passing the

impugned award. He further submitted that the

application filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5

under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC be allowed and the

additional evidence be taken on record for arriving

at just conclusion in this appeal. Placing reliance

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others vs State of

J & K [Civil Appeals 4295-4297/2017], he

argued that when the lands were acquired for the

same purpose and are situated nearby, it was not

proper to discriminate between the land owners

while awarding compensation. In this view, there :: 8 ::

is no infirmity in the impugned award and hence

this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Sri K.N.Phaneendra replied that the award

passed in LAC 117/2011 was satisfied in the Lok

Adalat as is evident from the certified copy of the

order sheet in Execution 272/2015. Therefore any

award which was satisfied in Lok Adalat cannot be

considered for taking decision in another case.

9. I have considered the arguments. There

is no dispute that the land which is the subject

matter of reference in LAC 54/2017, the award of

which is impugned here and the lands which were

the subject matter of LAC 144/2013 and LAC

117/2011 were all notified on 6.9.2007 for

establishing Veterinary Medical College Hospital at

Hassan and all the lands belonged to

Chikkahonnenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan

Taluk. The reference court has placed reliance on

the judgment and award passed in LAC 144/2013, :: 9 ::

i.e., Ex.P6 for enhancing the compensation. Now,

the certified copy of the judgment and award in

LAC 117/2011 is produced by the respondents 1 to

5 by way of additional evidence. The judgment

and award in LAC 117/2011 cannot be disputed by

the appellant and in fact Sri.K.N.Phaneendra while

arguing referred to the said judgment and award.

Therefore if the two additional documents are

taken on record for deciding this appeal, the

interest of the appellant is not affected in any

way. Order 41 Rule 27 (b) of CPC clearly states

that if the appellate court requires any document

for enabling pronouncement of judgment or for

any other substantial cause, additional evidence

may be received. For these reasons, the

application under Order 41 Rule 27 can be allowed

and the documents may be straightaway looked

into as they are undisputed.

:: 10 ::

10. The question that arises in this appeal in

the light of arguments is whether the trial court

has committed any error in placing reliance on the

earlier decided case in relation to same acquisition

for enhancing the compensation. The position in

this regard is settled. Though there are other

modes of determining the market value, following

the earlier judgment is also one of the recognized

modes to avoid discrimination in awarding

compensation. The Supreme Court has clearly

observed in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh

(supra) that,

"13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the :: 11 ::

lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:- "15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which , in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in :: 12 ::

a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same."

11. But according to the appellant's counsel

the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of N.Savitha (supra) holds the field. I do

not think that this judgment helps the appellant.

The facts in the case of N. Savitha disclose that

notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act was issued on 24.11.2008 for acquiring land

situated at Bechark Revenue Village, Belagola

Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, for improving :: 13 ::

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. In relation to this

acquisition, against the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer, the reference court enhanced

the compensation to Rs.30,49,200/- per acre.

Challenging this enhancement, when appeal was

preferred to the High Court, the original claimant

referred to Ex.P17 relating to the acquisition of

the year 2011 for a different purpose, i.e., laying

of a double line railway broad gauge between

Bengaluru and Mysuru city. The High Court relied

upon Ex.P17 and made guess work for further

enhancing the compensation to Rs.40,00,000/- per

acre. When this was questioned before the

Supreme Court, it was held that the High Court

should not have relied upon the award as per

Ex.P17 in relation to a subsequent acquisition for a

different purpose. Thus, this judgment is not

helpful to the appellant.

:: 14 ::

12. The appellant's counsel has relied upon

other judgments of the Supreme Court. In fact

while arguing, he did not refer to all these

judgments. Among these judgments, if the

judgment in the case of Bhim Singh and Others

vs State of Haryana and Another [(2003) 10

SCC 529] is referred to, it is held as below :

"5. It must also be mentioned that in the other Judgments the High Court took note of Suraj Bhan's case and awarded Rs. 212 per square yard. In some of the Judgments the High Court has taken note of the fact that in respect of earlier acquisitions some matters had come to this Court and this Court had approved the rate fixed by the High Court in those matters. It was rightly held that when this Court had fixed rates in respect of earlier acquisitions for the same purpose it was better to adopt those rates with suitable increases than to rely upon sale instances."