The Executive Engineer vs Vijaysingh Nanasaheb Nimbalkar
2022 Latest Caselaw 270 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                  MSA.NO.100077/2016 (LA)
BETWEEN

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HESCOM LTD., CHIKODI.-591201
                                                  ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.M.ANGADI & SMT.RATNAMALA G.H., ADVS.)

AND

1 . VIJAYSINGH NANASAHEB NIMBALKAR
    SECRETARY,
    SHREE HALSIDDANATH DEV TRUST,
    NANADI, TQ: CHIKODI-591295

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    SUB DIVISION CHIKODI.-591201
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1,
    SRI.P.G.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R2)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LA ACT
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VII ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN
LAC    APPEAL   NO.48/2011   DATED  30.11.2015  AWARDING
RS.1,80,000/ ACRE ALONG WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS IN
RESPECT OF ACQUIRED LAND BEARING SY.NO.6 MEASURING 6
ACRES OF NANADI VILLAGE TQ.CHIKODI AND ALSO CONFIRM THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUE, CHIKODI
IN LAC NO.13/2003 DATED 03.01.2011.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2




                              JUDGMENT

The captioned Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by

the beneficiary questioning the judgment and award

passed by the first appellate court in LAC Appeal

No.48/2011.

2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the land

bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 6 acres situated at Nanadi

village of Chikodi taluk. The said land was acquired by the

State for the purpose of installation of 33/11 KV power

station at Nanadi and accordingly, notification was issued

and respondent No.2 passed an award on 14.08.2000

awarding compensation of Rs.10,400/- per acre including

statutory benefits.

3. Respondent No.1/owner feeling aggrieved

sought reference before the reference court. Respondent

No.1/owner of the land in question was examined as P.W.1

and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P4. The

appellant/beneficiary examined its official as R.W.1 and

also relied on Exs.R1 to R7. The reference court having

assessed the oral and documentary evidence discarded the

price list placed on record by respondent No.1/owner vide

Ex.P3. The reference court proceeded to presume that the

land owner is growing crops like, jowar and sadhak and the

price list does not refer to prevailing price of jowar and

sadhak and has come to the conclusion that it is not

possible to determine the market value of the acquired

land. Therefore, the reference court was of the view that

the market value determined by respondent No.2/Assistant

Commissioner adopting the sales statistics method was

found to be proper and reasonable. The reference court

was of the view that compensation determined by

respondent No.2 would not warrant any interference,

consequently dismissed the reference.

4. Respondent No.1/owner of the land feeling

aggrieved by the order passed by the reference court

preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The

first appellate court on re-appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence has set aside the reasons assigned

by the reference court. The first appellate court has

examined Ex.P2 and on appreciation of Ex.P2 and Ex.R2

and R3, has found that, as on the date of acquisition, the

land owner was infact growing chilly crop. Therefore, by

placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this court in

MFA No.8347/2004, taking Rs.5,000/- as prevailing price of

chilly on the relevant date of acquisition of the land in

question, by deducting 40% towards expenses and

applying multiplier of '10' re-determined the compensation

payable to the land owner at Rs.1,80,000/- per acre.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/beneficiary would strenuously argue and contend

before this court that the judgment and award passed by

the first appellate court is perverse and not based on

clinching evidence indicating that the land owner was

growing commercial crops like, chilly. Therefore, she would

submit to this court that the order passed by the first

appellate court enhancing the compensation at

Rs.1,80,000/- per acre as against Rs.10,400/- is without

any basis. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by

the first appellate court is liable to be set aside. She has

also raised technical objection in regard to maintainability

of the reference application on the premise that it was not

filed by an authorized person. Therefore, she would submit

that the reference was bad in law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1/owner would however support the

judgment and award passed by the first appellate court. He

would submit to this court that respondent No.1/owner has

succeeded in proving that, as on the date of acquisition, he

was growing crops like chilly and the documents at Ex.P4

coupled with documents produced by the beneficiary at

Exs.R2 and R3 would clearly demonstrate that respondent

No.1/owner was growing chilly. Therefore, he would submit

to this court that judgment and award passed by the first

appellate court may not warrant any interference at the

hands of this court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for respondent No.1/owner and learned

HCGP for respondent No.2.

8. Perused the judgment and award passed by the

reference court and the first appellate court. I have also

gone through the records.

9. On perusal of Ex.P4, this court would find that

respondent No.1/owner was growing commercial crops like

chilly. Respondent No.1/owner has also placed reliance on

Ex.P3 which is the price list issued by the Agricultural

Produce Marketing Committee, Nippani. As per the price

list issued by the committee, in the year 1998-99, the price

of chilly is shown as Rs.5,000/- per quintal. On perusal of

Ex.P4, I would find that respondent No.1 has succeeded in

proving that he was growing crops like chilly. The relevant

Record of Rights coupled with the price list placed on

record as per Ex.P3 would establish the case of respondent

No.1/owner. The reference court has discarded these

materials documents and no reasons are forthcoming. This

aspect is rightly dealt by the first appellate court and has

rightly interfered with the judgment and award passed by

the reference court. I do not find any reason to interfere

with the judgment and award passed by the first appellate

court. The re-determination done by the first appellate

court is based on the records which were placed on record

by respondent No.1/owner as well as the

appellant/beneficiary as per Exs.R2 & R3. I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and

award passed by the first appellate court.

10. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits is

accordingly, dismissed.

        11.   In   view    of    dismissal     of     the   appeal,

I.A.No.2/2016      filed   for   stay   does    not    survive   for

consideration and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-