Hanmanth S/O Honnappa Walikar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9375 Kant

                                1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

                           PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                              AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

             MFA CROB No.200046/2015 (LAC)
                In MFA No. 200797/2014

Between:

Hanamanth,
S/o Honnappa Walikar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Hunshyal Village,
Tq & Dist. Vijayapura.
                                          ...Cross Objector

(By Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)


And:

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       Through Land Acquisition Officer
       and Assistant Commissioner,
       Vijayapura.

2.     The Executive Engineer,
       Minor Irrigation Division,
       Vijayapura-586 101.
                                2

3.   The Deputy Commissioner,
     Vijayapura 586 101.

4.   The Chief Secretary,
     Government of Karnataka,
     Bengaluru 560 001.
                                              ...Respondents

(By Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP)

      This MFA Crob is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC
praying to call for the records and allow this MFA Crob by
modifying the judgment and award dated 5.7.2013 passed
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur, in LAC No.
80/2011 and award compensation as prayed for.

    This MFA Crob coming on for hearing, this day,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

This Cross Objection was filed in MFA

200797/2014. The order sheet dated 6.7.2020 shows

that the appeal was disconnected from this cross

objection and hence this cross objection is taken up for

disposal separately.

2. The cross objector is a land loser. His land in

Sy. No. 59/1 of Hunshyal Village, Vijayapura District,

measuring 12 acres 16 guntas was notified for

acquisition on 29.11.2008. In the first instance, the

land acquisition officer passed an award granting

compensation of Rs.67,000/- per acre. In the reference

proceeding, LAC 80/2011, the Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayapura, enhanced the compensation determining the

market value of the acquired land as Rs.5,51,250/- per

acre. Being not satisfied with this enhancement, the

land loser has preferred this cross-objection.

3. We have heard Smt. Ratna Shivayogimath,

learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Veeranagouda

Malipatil, HCGP, for the respondent.

        4.     It     is     the     argument       of   Smt.      Ratna

Shivayogimath         that     the    reference     court    failed    to

consider Exs. P5 and P9, and had they been considered,

it was possible for the reference court to determine the

market value at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. She argues

that the reference court did not adopt capitalization

method in the initial stage and again resorted to the

same method. Ex.P5 is the sketch of Vijayapura Taluk.

Hunshyal Village is very close to Vijayapura city. The

lands situated in the territories of Aliyabad, Burnapur

and Madhabhavi were acquired for construction of

airport. Pertaining to that acquisition, the market value

of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs.9,00,000/- per

acre for the wet land and Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for dry

land by the advisory committee headed by Deputy

Commissioner. It was her argument that it is quite

reasonable to give further enhancement in the instant

case to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.

5. Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil submits that

Hunshyal Village is located at a farther distance to

Vijayapura city than three villages namely Aliyabad,

Burnapur and Madhabhavi. The lands of those villages

were acquired for construction of airport. Consent award

was passed in the committee headed by the Deputy

Commissioner. That award was without any statutory

benefits and it cannot be followed in the case on hand

for giving enhancement. Here land was acquired for

construction of minor irrigation tank. Ex.P5 gives clear

topography of the location of villages. The reference

court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,51,250/-

per acre as against Rs.67,000/- per acre granted by the

SLO. This enhancement is in all respects proper and

adequate. Cross objection is devoid of merits and it is

to be dismissed.

6. We have perused the records and considered

the arguments. The point to be examined is whether

the reference court ought to have placed reliance on

Ex.P5 and Ex.P9 for enhancing the compensation as

claimed by the appellant.

7. Ex.P5 is the map of Vijayapura Taluk. It shows

that the villages namely Aliyabad, Burnapur and

Madhabhavi are situated near to Vijayapura city. The

village Hunshyal where the appellant's land is situated is

far away from Vijayapura. Therefore the argument of

Smt. Ratna Shivayogimath that Hunshyal is situated

nearby Vijayapura is difficult to be accepted. Ex.P9 is a

consent award passed in relation to acquisition of lands

of the said three villages for the purpose of construction

of airport. Whenever consent award is passed, the land

losers cannot claim other statutory benefits. Moreover,

the acquisition is for a different purpose and as stated

already Hunshyal village is not situated near Vijayapura

to follow the same yardstick. In this view, these two

documents are rightly not considered by the reference

court.

8. It is true that the reference court was of the

opinion in the beginning that capitalization method could

not be followed. But the discussion shows the reasons

why the reference court did not follow the exemplars

produced by the appellant and at last it had to apply the

capitalization method. Merely because the reference

court opined that the capitalization method could not be

followed, it does not mean that it cannot resort to it

once again. Considering the fact that the appellant was

growing sugarcane in the acquired land, it decided to

enhance the compensation to Rs.5,51,250/- per acre.

We find that this enhancement is reasonable and that

the appellant has been awarded just compensation. We

do not find any good ground to entertain this cross-

objection and accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Ckl