Ladle Patel S/O Raja Patel vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8006 Kant

                                1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

                            BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

               MSA No.200081/2020 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

Ladle Patel
S/o Raja Patel
Age: 75 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Kollur
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 101
                                                    ... Appellant

(By Smt. Geeta Sajjanshetty, Advocate)

AND:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer
M & MIP
Room No.7, Mini Vidhan Soudha
Gulbarga - 585 104
                                                ... Respondent

(By Smt. Maya T.R., HCGP)

       This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, praying to modify the judgment and award
dated 14.03.2011 passed in LAC Appeal No.112/2010 passed by
the III Additional District Judge at Kalaburagi and fix market
value at the rate of Rs.74,806/- per acre and award all statutory
benefits.
                                    2



      This   appeal   having      been   heard    and    reserved   on
23.05.2022 and coming on for pronouncement of judgment this
day, the Court delivered the following:


                          JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under

Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, against the

judgment and award dated 14.03.2011 passed in LAC

Appeal No.112/2010 by the III Addl. District Judge,

Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate

Court' for short), setting aside the judgment and award

dated 09.08.1995 passed in LAC No.563/1993 by the Prl.

Senior Civil Judge, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the

Reference Court' for short) and awarding compensation of

Rs.24,000/- per acre to the dry lands as against

Rs.13,000/- per acre awarded by the Reference Court,

seeking further enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the

appellant was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.49/2A

measuring 9 acres 29 guntas situated in Kollur village of

Gulbarga District. The same was acquired by the SLAO

along with other lands for the purpose of construction of

Gobbur Tank vide vide 4(1) Gazette Notification dated

10.04.1984. The SLAO has passed an award, fixing the

market value of the land at Rs.3,800/- per acre for dry

lands. The appellant had filed protest petition, as the

market value fixed by the SLAO is very meager compared

to the actual market value and then the Reference Court in

LAC No.563/1993 by adopting the capitalization method

has determined the market value at Rs.13,000/- per acre.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and

award has filed an appeal in LAC Appeal No.112/2010 and

the First Appellate Court has enhanced the market value to

Rs.24,000/- per acre as against Rs.13,000/- per acre.

Being dissatisfied with this judgment and award, the

appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both

the parties and perused the records.

4. Smt. Geeta Sajjanshetty, the learned counsel

for the appellant would contend that for the similar land in

the same village acquired under the notification dated

08.12.1983, the I-Addl. District Judge at Kalaburagi, vide

order dated 24.04.2017 in LAC Appeal No.398/2016 has

fixed the market value at Rs.74,806/- for dry land and

Rs.1,12,209/- for wet land. Hence, she would contend

that the impugned award passed by the First Appellate

Court in fixing the market value of the dry land at

Rs.24,000/- per acre is very less and meager. She would

also contend that the award passed in LAC Appeal

No.398/2016 is in respect of similar land in the same

village and it was acquired by notification dated

08.12.1983 and hence, she would seek for awarding

compensation on par with the award passed in LAC Appeal

No.398/2016. She would also contend that the nature and

quality of the land of the appellant is similar to that of the

land which was an issue in LAC Appeal No.398/2016 and

as such, the compensation required to be awarded at the

rate of Rs.74,806/-. She would contend that the land

acquired by the previous notification is earning a higher

compensation than the land acquired in this case and the

appellant should not be discriminated in terms of

compensation. Hence, she would seek for enhancing the

compensation to Rs.74,806/- per acre along with all

statutory benefits.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would

also rely on a decision of this Court in MSA No.809/2012

(LAC) dated 11.12.2018 (Ladle Patel vs. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer), wherein under the similar

circumstances, Rs.1,15,086/- is awarded for dry land.

Hence, she would contend that the appellant may be

awarded compensation on parity with those cases by

enhancing the compensation.

6. Per contra, Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would

support the award passed by the First Appellate Court and

contended that there is no material evidence placed to

show that the land is situated within the same vicinity of

the exemplar land and of the same quality so as to apply

the principles enunciated in the judgment relied on by the

appellant. She would further assert that placing reliance on

exemplar land without material to show the similarity, is

not permissible and the said judgment is not placed on

record and no evidence is led to show similarity in the

lands and the quality and at what geographical location it

was situated in close vicinity of the land covered by the

exemplar. Hence, she would dispute the claim and sought

for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Learned HCGP has further placed reliance on

the following decisions in support of her contention:

1. Civil Appeal Nos.2052-2053/2022, decided on 22.03.2022 (Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. Vs. N. Savitha)

2. 2020 (5) KCCR 711 (DB) (Shivamma and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer)

3. 2012 (4) KCCR 3309 (SC) (Girimallappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, M & MIP and Another)

4. MSA No.200019/2019 C/W MSA No.200022/2019, MSA No.200028/2019 and MSA No.200029/2019

5. (2018) 13 SCC 96 (Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others)

8. There is no dispute of the fact that the land of

the appellant was acquired for construction of Gobbur

Tank. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing

4(1) Notification dated 10.04.1984. The SLAO has fixed

the market value at Rs.3,800/- per acre for dry lands. It is

admitted that the acquired land in this case is dry land.

The Reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.13,000/- per

acre by adopting capitalization method. The First Appellate

Court, after appreciating the yield price and taking into

other consideration including the decision of this Court in

MFA No.3869/2004 has awarded compensation of

Rs.24,000/- per acre. It is important to note here that

before the Appellate Court, the present appellant/claimant

himself by relying on the decision in MFA No.3869/2004

has sought for enhancement of the compensation to the

extent of Rs.24,000/- per acre. Now, in view of the

subsequent developments, he is seeking enhancement to

Rs.74,806/-. The appellant is placing reliance on the order

passed in LAC Appeal No.398/2016. No doubt, it is

asserted that the said award is pertaining to Notification

dated 08.12.1983, but no evidence is placed by the

appellant/claimant to show that the land acquired in the

instant case is situated within the vicinity of the exemplary

land relied by the appellant and having same quality.

Except placing the judgment, no other material evidence is

placed. On the contrary, during the course of arguments,

reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in MSA

No.809/2012 dated 11.12.2018, wherein the compensation

was awarded at the rate of Rs.1,15,086/- per acre for dry

land. But, it is to be noted here that the land acquired

under the said decision was consisting of irrigated as well

as dry land. Further, it was acquired under notification

dated 27.06.1991. Hence, it was acquired after long gap

and hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable

to the case in hand. Further, admittedly, in the instant

case, it is a dry land and in the decision relied on by the

learned counsel for the appellant, the land was consisting

of dry as well as wet land.

9. Further, in the First Appellate Court, the

appellant himself has sought enhancement to Rs.24,000/-

per acre. Now, in view of the subsequent development, he

is seeking further enhancement. If such claims are

entertained, there will no end for such litigations.

10. In the decision relied on by the leaned HCGP in

(2018) 13 SCC 96, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held

that the award/judgment cannot be taken into

consideration while hearing arguments unless they form

part of evidence in the case. Further, it is observed that to

rely upon judgment/award in case it does not form part of

evidence recorded by the Reference Court, an application

under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be filed to adduce

evidence and if it is allowed opposite party has to be given

an opportunity to give evidence in rebuttal. It is further

observed that when the previous award/judgment is based

on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous

award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding and

such determination has to be outrightly rejected.

11. In the instant case, the appellant is simply

relying on the subsequent decision and there is no

evidence that the land is situated in the same vicinity of

the exemplar land or is having same quality. Except

placing reliance on the decision, no attempt has been

made to lead evidence and this judgment is also not part

of the records of the Reference Court. Under such

circumstances, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court referred above, the contention on the part of the

appellant cannot be accepted and it is evident that the

appellant went on changing his stands as per his

convenience and such attitude cannot be allowed. Further,

there is also delay in filing the appeal and all along it is

contended that he had no financial capacity etc., but the

records disclose that he in MSA No.809/2012 has also

secured award and this completely establish the conduct of

the appellant, who himself was an appellant in the said

relied decision.

12. Under these circumstances, considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is devoid

of any merits and there is no material evidence to show

that the land under acquisition is having similar quality and

situated in the same vicinity of the exemplary land. As

such, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

referred above, the enhancement cannot be granted

merely on the basis of an award passed subsequently by

the Court. The First Appellate Court, after considering the

material evidence and after appreciating the yields derived

has awarded proper compensation and hence, the appeal

is devoid of any merits and needs to be rejected. The

award passed by the First Appellate Court is just and

proper. The appellant/claimant has not made out any case

for enhancement of compensation.

As such, in view of the above discussion, I do not

find any justification to accept the submission on behalf of

the appellant/claimant for enhancement. Accordingly, the

appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG