Siddappa vs The State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4858 Kant

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


              MSA No.200070/2018 (LAC)

Between:

Siddappa S/o Beerappa,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Bennur (B),
Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                           ... Appellant
(By Smt. Hema L.K, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State through Chief Engineer,
       IPZ, Kalaburagi-585 101.

2.     The Executive Engineer,
       KNNL/BNT, Kalaburagi-585 101.

3.     The SLAO,
       (M & MIP), Kalaburagi-585 101.

4.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Kalaburagi-585 101.
                                    ... Respondents
(By Smt. Maya T.R, HCGP for R1, R3 & R4;
 Sri Gourish S. Kashampur Advocate for R2)
                                     2




      This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under
Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying to allow
this appeal with costs and modify the judgment and award
passed     by    the     Civil   Judge,   (Sr.Dn.)    Sedam      dated
27.02.2008 in LAC No.40/2007 and also judgment and
award      of    I-Addl.    District    Judge,   Kalaburagi      dated
14.10.2015 in LACA No.141/2014 and fix the market value
at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and award all
statutory benefits and grant any other relief which this
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.


      This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-


                             JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed by the claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated

14.10.2015 passed by I-Additional District Judge,

Kalaburagi, in LACA No.141/2014 enhancing the

amount of compensation of Rs.1,80,480/- per acre.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

Claimant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.33/3

measuring 2 acres 14 guntas situated at Bennur(B)

village, Chittapur Taluk, Kalaburagi District. The said

land was acquired by the respondents vide preliminary

notification dated 19.08.2004 issued under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of

Bennethora project. The respondent passed an award

on 10.05.2006 and fixed the market value of the land

at Rs.23,000/- per acre for dry land. The claimant

being dissatisfied with the market value determined

by respondent No.3/SLAO filed an application under

Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent

No.2/SLAO referred the matter to the jurisdictional

Civil Court for determination of compensation. The

reference Court after recording the evidence of one of

the claimants determined the market value at the rate

of Rs.72,000/- per acre for acquired land and further

held that the claimant is entitled for additional market

value of 12% p.a., on the said compensation from the

date of 4-(1) notification till the date of award. The

reference Court further held that the claimant is

entitled for interest at the rate of 9% on the

compensation amount together with solatium and

additional market value. The claimant being

dissatisfied with the compensation amount determined

by the reference Court filled appeal in LACA

No.141/2014 before the appellate Court. The

appellate Court on re-appreciation of material on

record allowed the appeal and enhanced the

compensation at the rate of Rs.1,80,480/- per acre

with all statutory benefits and interest thereon.

3. The claimant being dissatisfied with the

compensation determined by the appellate Court filed

this appeal on the following grounds:

             "4.    That      the       learned    Civil   Court
     Sedam         in   LACA         No.549-552/2017             in





respect      of     similarly    situated     lands
pertaining     to   adjacent     village    Sangavi
acquired     under     the      same   preliminary

notification has awarded market value of Rs.4,84,251/- per acre for dry land. Hence the appellants herein are also entitled for the same market value for the dry land. The copy of the said Judgment is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A.

5. That the court below ought to have considered the other judgment in respect of similar matter wherein higher compensation is awarded. That the courts below has not considered loss of structures and standing trees. That the value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification is more than five lakhs per acre for dry land. Due to inability to pay the court fee the appellant is restricting the value for Rs.500000/- per acre for dry land. That in the light of the Judgment of constitution Bench in Bhaghsingh case, This Hon'ble court be pleased to award to just

compensation and provide an opportunity to the appellant to pay the deficit court fee if any.

6. That the appellant is entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the provisions of right to fare compensation and transparency in land compensation and rehabilitation and re-settlement act, 2013."

      4.    Heard          the   learned      counsel        for     the

appellant/claimant           and        learned       High         Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1,

3 and 4 and Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant

placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in

MFA No.200196/2014 wherein this Court has

determined the compensation at the rate of

Rs.6,70,168/- per acre and further placed reliance on

the decision of this Court in MSA Nos.1106 and

1108/2013. On these grounds, she prays to enhance

the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,70,168/- per

acre.

        6.   Per   contra,   the     learned   High   Court

Government         Pleader         submits     that     the

appellant/claimant has not made out any grounds for

enhancement of compensation. She submits that the

land in MFA No.200196/2014 is situated at Tumkunta

village, Chincholi Taluk and the land acquired in this

case is situated in Bennur(B) village of Chittapur Taluk

and the distance between Tumkunta and Bennur(B)

village is more than 48 Kms. She further submits that

the claimant has not led any evidence to show that

the land in question was similar in quality and had

same geographical location or was situated in the

close vicinity with the exemplar land. She submits

that the judgment passed in MSA Nos.1106 and 1108

of 2013 is challenged in SLP(C) No.019874/2021

which is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. She

further submits that the land involved in MFA

No.200196/2014 is acquired for different project and

not for the same project. Hence, she submits that the

compensation determined by the appellate Court is

just and proper and does not call for any interference.

On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the land of the

appellant was acquired under the Preliminary

Notification dated 19.08.2004 and award came to be

passed on 10.05.2006 awarding compensation of

Rs.23,000/- per acre for dry land. The claimant being

dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by

respondent No.3 filed application under Section 18(1)

of the Act. Respondent No.3 referred the matter to

the Reference Court. The Reference Court clubbed

the references of other land owners. The claimant in

LAC No.31/2007 was examined as P.W.1 and

examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P13. The Reference Court vide common

judgment dated 27.02.2008 enhanced the

compensation at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre for

the acquired land. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence

that they are growing Jawar and Toor and price of

Jawar and Toor was shown in the price list; price of

Toor at Rs.1,550/- minimum and Rs.2,965/-

maximum for the year 1998-99 and Rs.1,360/-

minimum and Rs.2,430/- maximum for the year 1999-

2000. The price of Jowar is shown as minimum of

Rs.500/- and maximum of Rs.1,555/- for the year

1998-1999 and for the year 1999-2000 minimum of

Rs.580/- and maximum of Rs.1,800/- and relied on

the decision reported in MFA No.6790/2003 and also

MFA No.2594/2006. This Court has determined the

value of six quintals of Jowar and four quintals of Toor

and multiplied by the price and in that total income

deducted 40% towards cost of cultivation and balance

amount is multiplied by multiplier 10. The reference

Court after considering the evidence on record

enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per

acre for the acquired land with all other statutory

benefits. The claimants being aggrieved by the

judgment and award passed by the Reference Court

preferred appeals in LACA No.141/2014 and

connected matters. The appellate Court on re-

appreciation of material on record enhanced the

compensation to Rs.1,80,480/- per acre with all other

statutory benefits and interest thereon. The appellant

being dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the

courts below has preferred this appeal. The claimant

has merely placed reliance on the judgment passed in

MFA No.201960/2014 in respect of exemplar land, but

has not satisfied the Court that his land was similar in

quality and had same geographical location or was

situated in the close vicinity with the exemplar land.

The claimant failed to prove that his acquired land is

in similar quality, situation and potential with the

exemplar land. The claimant has placed reliance on

the land which is situated at Chincholi Taluk, whereas

the claimant's land is situated at Chittapur Taluk. The

distance between Chincholi Taluk and Chittapur Taluk

is more than 48 Kms. There cannot be an identical

fixation of market value on compensation to the entire

village or adjacent village, because the lands situated

in the same village or adjacent village may not fetch

same market value. This Court in the case of

Girimallappa vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

reported in 2012(4) KCCR 330 held that no

enhancement can be made based upon the market

value fixed on the exemplar land. Further, in the case

of Shivamma and others vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, UKP, Indi, reported in (2020)5

KCCR 711 (DB) held that there must be material to

show similarity of the exemplar land with the acquired

land.

9. In the present case, the claimant has not

entered into witness box. The claimant in other cases

was examined as P.W.1. He has not stated that the

land acquired in MFA No.200196/2014 was similar in

quality and had the same geographical location and

was situated in the close vicinity with the exemplar

land. In the absence of evidence, there cannot be any

enhancement of compensation based upon the market

value fixed in Chinchioli Taluk. The market value of

the land has to be determined on the basis of the

evidence in respect of the land in that village, unless

the situation and potentiality of the two villages are

same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj

Kumar and ors., vs. The State of Hariyana

reported in 2018 (13) (SC) KCCR 96 held that

previous award/judgment is based on exemplar which

is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment

of the Court cannot be binding and such determination

has to be out rightly rejected. Further, it was held

that when some mistake has been done in awarding

compensation, it cannot be followed as on the ground

of parity and illegality cannot be perpetuated. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Soman vs. Inland

Waterways Authority of India and Another in

Civil Appeal Nos.2825, 2826, 2827 of 2011 and

7599 of 2021 upheld the judgment of the Court

wherein the market value is fixed on the different

categories of the land. Category 'A' lands were dry

land having direct frontage on National Highway

No.47. Category 'B' was of the wet reclaimed lands

with road frontage and access to the river and

Category 'C' land is based on the situation of the

lands. The claimant has failed to prove that the

acquired land is similar in quality, situation and

potential to the exemplar land. In the absence of

evidence, there cannot be no enhancement based on

the judgment passed in MFA No.200196/2014. The

claimant has not made out case for enhancement of

compensation.

10. In view of the above discussion and

considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court and this Court, I do not find any grounds in the

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*