Mahiboobsab Imamhusain Bagawan vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2391 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
                             AND
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                  M.F.A. No.22727/2013 (LAC)
BETWEEN:

1.    MAHIBOOBSAB IMAMHUSAIN BAGAWAN
      AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O: SHIGIKERI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
      (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S)

1A.   SMT. MAHABOOBI W/O MAHIBOOBSAB BAGAWAN
      AGE 60 YEARS. OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.

1B.   IBRAHIM S/O MAHIBOOBI BAGAWAN
      AGE 36 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE.

1C.   YASHIMIN S/O MAHIBOOBSAB BALIKAI
      AGE 30 YEARS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

1D.   AFIRIN BHAVASA BAGAWAN
      AGE 25 YEARS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

1E.   SHAHIN MOHAMMADSHAHID BAGAWAN
      AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

      (ALL ARE R/O H.NO.66/79, WARD NO.10
      VINAYAKA NAGAR, NEAR ILIYAS MASJID, BAGALKOT)


                                                   ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL., ADVOCATE AND
SRI LINGARAJ MARADI., ADVOCATE)
                                2



AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       MALAPRABHA PROJECT NO.1
       NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
       (KNNL), M.B.C.DN. NO.1
       GADDANAKERI CAMP
       TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)


       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN LAC NO.30/2010 DATED
29.09.2012 AND AWARD OF COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF
RS.7,03,500/- P.A. NOW THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED
RS. 162/- PER SQ.FT THE STATUTORY BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed by the land loser impugning the

judgment and award passed by the reference Court in LAC

No.30/2010 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot

(for short 'the Tribunal'). The land in question is Sy.No.51/3

measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Shigikeri village of Bagalkot taluk.

The land was acquired in terms of Section 4(1) notification dated

14.4.2005 published under Land Acquisition Act, 1896 (for short

'L.A.Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO')

vide order dated 29.3.2008 awarded compensation of

Rs.86,588/- per acre holding that 1 acre of the acquired land is

wetland and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,86,455/- in

respect of 12 guntas of land, taking into consideration,

pomegranate crop was standing in the said portion of the land.

2. Being aggrieved by the size of the award of SLAO,

reference is sought by the land loser. The reference Court

awarded compensation of Rs.7,03,500/- for 1 acre of wetland.

The remaining portion of the award in respect of 12 guntas of

land is confirmed in terms of judgment and award dated

29.9.2012. The land losers have filed the instant appeal on the

premise that the land acquired is very close to Belagavi-Raichur

road, which is very near to the National Highway. It is also

contended that the land is located within the Bagalkot Municipal

Limit and the land is located very close to Bagalkot Railway

Station, colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. Based on above said

contentions, the market value of Rs.200/- per Sq. Mtr is claimed

to contend that the land had the potential for non-agricultural

use.

3. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Shivaraj C.Bellakki, learned counsel for the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr Patil, placing

reliance on the documents placed before the Court particularly

the Ex.P2-notification for including the Shigikeri village

development limits would contend that the land is located very

close proximity to the Bagalkot city and deserves higher

compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

5. In addition to this submission, the reliance is also

placed on additional documents namely the award dated

08.06.2007 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Bagalkot

wherein higher compensation is awarded in respect of the lands

acquired in Shigikeri village of Bagalkot taluk in terms of the

notification dated 03.08.2006. By referring to this document, it

is contended that the compensation of Rs.192/- per Sq.ft is

awarded and this compensation is paid by the respondent and

the appellant claims parity in respect of compensation to be

awarded to his land.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the compensation awarded by this Court in MFA

No.100574/2016 was filed against LAC No.83/2009. It is

submitted in terms of the said judgment, a compensation of

Rs.192.89 per Sq.ft is fixed for the adjoining lands in the same

village.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shivaraj

Bellakki would submit that application seeking production of the

additional document is not maintainable and valid reasons are

not assigned for not producing the said documents before the

reference Court. It is also urged that in previous proceedings,

the compensation is awarded based on a document, which was

fraudulently obtained to say that the land is falling within the

municipal limits. He contends that the land for which the

certificate was issued to say that it is within the limits is

withdrawn and would submit that the judgments which have

been delivered based on fraudulent documents cannot be the

basis to determine the compensation in respect of this land.

Learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki would further submit that

in the event of an application for production of additional

documents to be allowed, the matter may be remitted back to

the reference Court to lead further evidence in support of his

defence.

8. We have considered the rival contentions raised by

the parties and also documents placed on record including the

additional documents.

9. The additional document sought to be produced are;

(a). The award dated 8.6.2007 passed by SLAO in respect of lands located in Shigikeri village in terms of notification of the year 2006.

(b). The award passed by the SLAO in respect of lands acquired in terms of the notification dated 10.5.2004 and said lands are also lands located in Shigikeri village.

(c). The sketch prepared by the revenue department pertaining to the location of Sy. No.51 of Shigikerei village.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his

contention would place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Manoj Kumar and others Vs the State of

Haryana and others1 and would submit that the compensation

awarded in other proceedings concerning the same notification

cannot be blindly accepted.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Jagadish Patil

countering the submission of learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj

C.Bellakki would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the matter of Sardara Singh & Ors Vs Land

Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar &

Ors2 and in support of his contention would submit that what is

held in Manoj Kumar's case is an application to particular facts

of the said case and cannot be taken as a ratio.

(2018) 13 SCC 96

(Civil Appeal No.4269-4278 of 2019)

12. We have considered both the judgments referred to

above.

13. It is to be noticed that the compensation payable in

respect of the land, which is acquired is not determined based on

the certificate which is said to be fraudulently obtained to the

effect that the property is located within the municipal limits.

However, the compensation is awarded based on the notification

issued by the State, including Shigikeri village in town planning

limits. The document is not in dispute. Hence, the contention of

learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki based

on Manoj Kumar's case is not accepted.

14. Since all the documents are public documents, this

Court feels that it is not necessary to remand the matter to

consider these documents and the implication of these

documents can be considered in this appeal itself. Moreover, the

objection of the respondents to produce these documents cannot

be entertained for the simple reason that these public

documents and these documents would be helpful to determine

the just compensation in respect of the land in question.

15. From the sketch produced before the Court it is

apparent that the Shigikeri village is adjacent to Bagalkot town.

Ex.P2 i.e., the notification issued by the State would indicate

that the entire Shigikeri village is included in the development

plan of Bagalkot. This is the notification dated 02.03.2004. This

document is not disputed. Under these circumstances, the

contention that higher compensation is awarded in other cases

based on the erroneous certificate to the effect that the Shigikeri

village is within the Municipal Limit does not come to the rescue

of the respondents. The sketch produced before the Court as

well as the notification marked at Ex.P.2 would reveal that the

land in question is adjacent to the Bagalkot town and is also

included in the town development plan. Moreover, the

respondent has not sought review of the judgment wherein the

compensation is awarded in terms of the award passed in LAC

No.83/2009, where the compensation of Rs.192.82 per Sq.ft is

awarded to the land in the same village. However, it is to be

noticed that LAC No.11/2018 is arising out of land acquisition

where Section 4(1) notification is published on 04.12.2006. In

the instant case, the 4(1) notification is on 14.04.2005. So more

than 1 ½ years earlier the land in question is acquired. Under

these circumstances, a deduction of 15% per annum is to be

made to determine the value of the land in question. Thus for 1

½ years, the deduction would be 22%. Thus, applying the said

formula the market value of the land in question has to be

reduced by Rs.42/- per square feet. Thus, the compensation

payable would be;

Rs.192-Rs.42=Rs.150/- per Sq.ft.

16. Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award

dated 29.09.2012 passed in L.A.C.No.30/2010 on the file of II

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot is modified awarding

Rs.150.00 per square feet in respect of acquired land.

The appellants are entitled to all statutory benefits. The

appellants are also entitled to the proportionate cost of the

appeal, which is payable by the respondents.

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

am.