[email protected] W/O ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4859 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.200021/2020 (LAC)
Between:
Shantabai @ Kantabai W/o Gowrishankar,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Devantagi Village, Tq: Afzalpur,
Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                             ... Appellant
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate)

And:
1.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Mini Vidhan Soudha,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.

2.     The Chief Engineer,
       K.N.N.L., IPC Zone,
       Aiwan-E-Shahi Road,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.

3.     The Executive Engineer,
       K.N.N.L., IPC, Amerja Division,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.

4.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       M & MIP, # 7, Mini Vidhan Soudha,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.
                                            ... Respondents
(By Smt. Maya T.R., HCGP for R1 & R4;
 Sri. Gourish S. Khashampur, Advocate for R2 & R3)
                                2




        This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under
Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying to allow
this appeal with costs and fix the market value of the land
acquired at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for irrigated
land by modifying the judgment and award of the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Afzalpur dated 15.07.2015 in LAC
No.5/2014 and also that of learned I-Addl. Dist. Judge,
Kalaburagi    dated    01.09.2016   in   LACA   No.150/2015,
including 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

01.09.2016 passed by I-Additional District Judge,

Kalaburagi, in LACA No.150/2015 enhancing the

amount of compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- per acre.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

Claimant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.84/3

measuring 1 acre 1 gunta situated at Devantagi

village of Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District. The said

land was acquired for the purpose of construction of

right bank canal of Amerja project vide preliminary

notification dated 24.12.2009 issued under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the

Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the

award fixing the market value of the land at

Rs.48,500/- per acre. The claimant being dissatisfied

with the market value determined by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer filed an application under Section

18(1) of the Act contending that the market value of

the acquired land is more than twenty lakhs per acre

and it is an irrigated land and has fertile soil. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to

the jurisdictional Civil Court for determination of

compensation. The reference Court recorded the

evidence. Claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got

marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The

respondents have not led oral evidence except

marking one document with consent. The Reference

Court after recording the evidence and considering the

material on record allowed the reference application

and re-determined the market value at Rs.2,40,500/-

per acre with all other statutory benefits as per the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The claimant,

being dissatisfied with the compensation determined

by the reference Court, preferred appeal in LACA

No.150/2015. The appellate Court on re-appreciation

of the material on record enhanced the compensation

and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the

rate of Rs.5,20,000/- per acre with all other statutory

benefits. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the

compensation determined by the appellate Court, has

filed this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

        3.      Heard     the   learned       counsel      for     the

appellant/claimant           and       learned      High         Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1

and 4 and Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant

submits that the compensation awarded by the

appellate Court is on the lower side. He further

submits that the claimant was growing sugar cane,

banana and toor dal in the acquired land and in order

to prove the same, the claimant has produced Ex.P12

and the said document has not been properly

considered by the Courts below. He further submits

that the Courts below have not properly considered

the material placed on record and on these grounds,

he prays to allow the appeal.

     5.   Per   contra,    the   learned     High    Court



submits that    the compensation awarded            by   the

appellate Court is just and proper.         Further, the

claimant has not produced any record to show that

the claimant was growing sugar cane and banana in

the acquired land and on these grounds, she prays to

dismiss the appeal.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the claimant

and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 and 4.

7. The point that arises for consideration is

whether the claimant has made out case for

enhancement of compensation in respect of the

acquired land.

8. It is not in dispute that the claimant is the

owner of the land under acquisition. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer has determined the market value at

the rate of Rs.48,500/- per acre. The claimant, being

dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed an application

under Section 18(1) of the Act contending that the

market value of the land is more than twenty lakhs

per acre and it is an irrigated land having fertile soil.

In order to substantiate her contention, claimant

examined herself as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she

has reiterated the averments made in the protest

petition and produced the documents. The claimant

has produced record of rights in respect of the

acquired land for the year 2008-2009 which is marked

as Ex.P5. From perusal of Ex.P5, it discloses that in

column No.9 name of the crop grown in the land is

shown as sugar cane. Further, the claimant has

produced certificate issued by the Village Accountant

authorizing the claimant to irrigate the land through

the well situated in the land. Further, the claimant has

produced record of rights for the year 1998-2000. The

type of crop is shown as sugar cane, banana along

with toor dal. Considering the documents produced

by the claimant, the appellate Court has answered

point No.1 in affirmative holding that the acquired

land is irrigated land and not dry land. The appellate

Court considering Exs.P2 and P3 which are Yield

Certificate and price list of jaggery, has fixed the

appropriate value to the irrigated land based on the

market value determined by this Court in MFA

No.30208/2018 disposed of on 09.02.2015 in the case

of Spl. L.A.O., Kalaburagi vs. Dhulappa and others,

wherein this Court has determined the market value

of the irrigated land acquired in the year 2008 in

Afzalpur Taluka of Dudunagi village. The appellate

Court has also considered the market value

determined in MFA No.31613/2012 by applying

escalation price for a period two years and awarded

compensation of Rs.4,81,400/- per acre. But in the

present case, land was acquired in the year 2009 i.e.,

one year after the land acquired in MFA

No.30208/2013 and added 8% escalation of price for

one year i.e., from 2008 to 2009 and determined the

market value at Rs.5,19,912/- per acre for irrigated

land and rounded of to Rs.5,20,000/- per acre. The

claimant has not made any ground for enhancement

of compensation. The appellate Court after

considering the material on record and also relying

upon the judgments passed in the aforesaid appeals

has rightly determined the market value of the land at

Rs.5,20,000/- per acre for irrigated land. Though the

claimant has taken contention in the protest petition

that the market value of the acquired land is more

than twenty lakhs per acre, in support of her

contention, the claimant has not produced any record

to establish that the market value of the acquired land

is Rs.20,00,000/- per acre as on the date of issuance

of preliminary notification. In the absence of records,

the appellate Court has determined the compensation

based on the judgment passed by this Court in the

aforesaid cases. The appellate Court is justified in

determining the market value. I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and

award passed by the appellate Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal

is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*