Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11691 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                         BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                 M.F.A. NO.24858/2011
C/W. M.F.A. Nos.24857/2011 & 24862/2011 (LAC)

IN MFA No.24858/2011

BETWEEN

1.     KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
       REPTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       GRBC DIV.NO.4, CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH N MISALE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
       HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM,
       TQ: HUKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

2.     SRI.ANNAPPA SIDDAPPA KORAVI,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

3.     SRI.SHIVANGOUDA SIDDAPPA KORAVI,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

4.     SRI.APPASAHEB SIDDAPPA KORAVI,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

5.     SRI.MARUTI BANDU KORAVI,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            2




      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

6.    SRI.RAMACHANDRA BANDU KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.


7.    SMT.GANGUBAI BANDU KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

8.    SMT.SAVITRI SIDDAPPA KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

9.    SRI.SHANTU SHANKAR KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

10.   SRI.SHIDDAPPA SHANKAR KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

11.   SRI.MAHESH SHANKAR KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

12.   SMT.MEGHANA SHANKAR KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

13.    SMT.DUNDAWWA LAXMAN KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

14.   SRI.MAHANTESH LAXMAN KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

15.   SRI.SHIDDU LAXMAN KORAVI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
                            3




16.   SRI.MOMIN FAROQ ZALIL,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

17.   SRI.SHITALKUMAR BABURAO BEDKIHAL,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R17)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.6/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,06,000/- INSTEAD OF Rs.84,808/- PER ACRE.

IN MFA No.24857/2011

BETWEEN

1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRBC DIV NO. 4, CHIKODI, DIST. BELGAUM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMESH N MISALE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELGAUM

2. SRI. ABDUL RAFIQUE ABDULKARIM MULLA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

3. SRI. ABDULMAJID ABDULKARIM MULLA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

4. SRI. ABDUL SATTAR ABDULKARIM MULLA,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

5. SRI. IQBAL ABDULKARIM MULLA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

6. SRI. HALAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

7. SRI. SATAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

8. SRI.MAYAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

9. SRI.BHARAMAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

10. SRI. BHIMAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

11. SRI. RAMA RAYAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM

12. SRI. CHIDANAND KALLAPPA HALINGALI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SMT. SAVITRI CHIDANAND HALINGALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R12)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.7/2009 ON THE FILE OF

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,06,000/- INSTEAD OF Rs.84,808/- PER ACRE.

IN MFA No.24862/2011

BETWEEN

1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., REPTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRBC DIV.NO.4,. CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMESH N MISALE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

2. SMT.PARVATI TUKARAM MANGALEKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

3. SRI.SHIDDALING RAYAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT:26.02.2011 PASSED IN L.A.C. NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,06,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.84,808/- PER ACRE.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the Karnataka

Neeravari Nigam Limited against the common

judgement and award passed in LAC Nos.4/2009,

6/2009 and 7/2009 dated 26.02.2011 on the file of

the Senior Civil Judge, Raibag (for short, 'trial Court'),

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded for

the lands acquired in Survey Nos.646/1 to an extent

of 22 guntas in LAC No.4/2009, Survey No.639/1 to

an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta and 4 gunta, in total 1

acre 5 gutas in LAC No.6/2009 and Survey

Nos.643/1B/B, 643/B/2, 643/1B/3, 643/B/2 to an

extent of 35 guntas in LAC No.7/2009.

2. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the trial Court is that lands belonging to them

were acquired vide 4(1) notification dated 08.01.2004

and award was passed on 10.12.2007 and service of

notice on the claimants was on 29.12.2008 and after

service of notice, the claimants filed an application to

refer the matters to the Court and accordingly the

matters were referred and on reference, the trial

Court enhanced the market value of Rs.10,06,000/-

instead of Rs.84,808/- per acre and solatium of 30%

of the market value and also held that claimants are

entitled for additional market value at the rate of 12%

p.a. from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of

award. The trial Court also held that the claimants are

entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year

from the date of award and thereafter at the rate of

15% p.a. till payment.

     3.    Being    aggrieved         by   the   impugned

judgment    and    award,       the    appellant-Karnataka

Neeravari Nigam Limited has challenged the order

passed only in LAC Nos.4/2009, 6/2009 and 7/2009.

4. Though separate appeals are filed, all the

appeals are taken up together and common grounds

are urged in all these appeals contending that the trial

Court has committed an error in enhancing the

compensation to Rs.10,06,000/- by ignoring the fact

that Survey No.646/2017 is situated at a distance of

more than 1 kilometer from the acquired lands under

Survey No.638. It is contended that the trial Court

failed to take note that the lands acquired are

agricultural land situate in the deep interiors of hillock

and therefore, by no stretch of imagination within

these acquired lands could fetch similar value as those

under Survey No.638.

5. It is also contended that the acquired lands

absolutely not have NA potentiality whatsoever, but

the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the lands

which were acquired are having NA potentiality and

taken note of similar non-agricultural plots in Exs.P.19

and P.20 which are situated on highway and have

distinct advantages when compared to the acquired

lands. It is also contended that the trial Court

committed perversity by ignoring the fact that in

respect of 20 guntas of land in Survey No.640

abutting to Yadwad road was sold under a registered

sale deed on 20.02.2002 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-

only indicating that these acquired lands, which are

agricultural lands continued to be sold as agricultural

lands in the open market.

6. The counsel for the appellant vehemently

contends that the lands in Exs.P.19 and P.20 were

situate on the main road and the same were formed

part of layout in the year 1998-1999 and no plots

were come up even after 20 years and also contends

that even adjoining land was sold at Rs.1,40,000/- per

acre during the relevant period and by relying on

documents at Exs.P.19 and P.20 which are similar

plots, the trial Court has awarded the compensation in

respect of larger plot.

7. Counsel further contends that lands which

were acquired are dry lands and in those lands jowar

and sajje were cultivated and lands are also acquired

for irrigation of canal and the lands which were

acquired in the year 1991 are the converted lands and

those sale deeds cannot be a basis for awarding

compensation.

8. Counsel also relied upon map which is

marked as Ex.P.20 which discloses road not leading to

both sides and the lands acquired are situated in the

interior area and trial Court committed an error in

awarding more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Counsel submits

that even the trial Court deducted 1/3rd for

development purpose and ought to have considered

65%.

9. Counsel in support of his argument, relied

upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in (2009) 11 SCC 164 in the case of

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage

Board and Others vs. K.S.Gangadharappa and

Another, wherein it is held that market value of large

area cannot be determined by rates of small plots and

further held that market value has a definite concept

and it cannot be evaluated without any foundation or

basis. Further, it is observed that deductions may be

made for development, but such deductions have to

be from some definite figure.

10. Counsel referring to this jugement, would

vehemently contend that Exs.P.19 and P.20 are

considered which are in respect of small plots and

converted lands and the same cannot be considered

for the lands which were acquired in the larger area.

11. Per contra, counsel appearing for the

claimants would contend that notification was issued

in the year 2004 and Survey No.639 situate adjacent

to these ands and there were shops, bank and hotels

and in Survey No.644 Government constructed Mini

Vidhanasoudha and properties which have been

acquired are having NA potentiality. Counsel submits

that sale deeds which have been relied upon at

Exs.P.19 and P.20 are of the year of 1997 and plots

measuring 20x60 and 27x40 are sold for an amount of

Rs.52,000/- and also Rs.28,000/- and these

properties are also abutting the NA potentiality.

12. Counsel submits that Ex.P.21 is the

document which shows Sub-Registrar value in respect

of NA land and agricultural land and photographs have

been also produced before the Court to show in the

land abutting to the acquired lands, commercial

buildings have come up.

13. Counsel further contends that the trial

Court has considered the material on record and

potentiality of NA land and deducted 1/3rd towards

development charges and not committed any error. In

support of his argument, he relied upon recent

judgement the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR

2020 SC 2354 in the case of Sajan Vs. State of

Maharashtra, wherein it has discussed with regard to

development charges and in the said case also land

acquired for construction of dam project converted

into non-agricultural purpose, much of development

like in case of layout for housing colony is not

required, 40% deduction appears to be on higher side

and comes to the conclusion that 20% deduction for

development cost would be reasonable.

14. Counsel referring to this judgement, would

contend that in a similar set of facts, land acquired for

construction of dam project converted into non-

agricultural purpose, reduced deduction at 20% and in

the case on hand 30% has been deducted and lands

acquired were for the purpose of canal and not for any

layout or housing purpose.

15. Having heard the respective counsel and

also on perusal of the material available on record, in

keeping the grounds urged in the appeals and also

submission of respondents' counsel, the following

points would arise for consideration:

i. Whether the trial Court has committed an error in granting compensation of Rs.10,06,000/- per acre as contended in the appeals?

ii. What order?

16. Regarding Point No.1: Having heard the

learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

material on record, it is not in dispute that the lands

were acquired for the purpose of drawing the canal in

the properties which have been acquired and it is also

not in dispute that acquisition notification under

Section 4(1) was issued in the year 2004 and

subsequently award was passed in 2007. It is also not

in dispute with regard to the award passed by Special

Land Acquisition Officer fixing rate of lands at

Rs.84,808/- per acre.

17. The claimants in order to substantiate their

contention, they have examined two witnesses as

PWs.1 and 2 and relied upon documents at Exs.P.1 to

P.38. The map of Raibag was also marked as Ex.P.18

and Exs.P.19 and P.20-certifiied copies of two sale

deeds were relied upon. Apart from that, price list

issued by Sub-Registrar, Raibag was also produced at

Ex.P.21 so also Ex.P.22-certificate issued by Town

Panchayat Raibag was also produced. Certified copy of

judgement and award passed in LAC No.11/2001 is

also produced at Ex.P.23. Photographs at Exs.P.24 to

P.37 were marked to show that properties are located

adjacent to NA lands.

18. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, no

doubt P.W.1 admits that in terms of Ex.P.18 the land

is located at a distance of village and in the said

sketch it is showed as forest, but he claims that

though this is an agricultural land, in 2007 its value

per gunta would be Rs.50,000/-. He also admits

Ex.P.23-award in respect of Gokak and Ghataprabha.

Other witness P.W.2 who produced the documents at

Ex.P.24 to 37, in the cross-examination he admits that

Ex.P.37-photho pertains to acquired land and he

admits that surrounding the same there are hillocks

and in respect of photograph at Ex.P.36 canal passes

through in the said land and no buildings are

surrounding the same.

19. Having considered the above evidence,

since the appellant herein has not examined any

witness before the trial Court, photographs are

produced to show that lands are surrounded by NA

lands. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.22 is issued by

Pattan Panchayat, Chief Officer dated 06.08.2010 and

in Ex.P.22 itself it is categorically mentioned that

Survey Nos.638, 639, 643, 646, 647 and 648 comes

within the Pattan Panchayat jurisdiction and the lands

in question are also acquired in respect of the very

same survey number.

20. It is also important to note that the land

loosers also relied upon document Ex.P.21 and in

terms of Ex.P.21 as per SR guidelines in respect of

commercial the rate is shown as 377 and in respect of

residential the rate is shown as 339. The trial Court

also while considering the material available on

record, not only relied upon Exs.P.19 and P.20, which

are admittedly sale deeds in respect of small plots and

also taken note of potentiality of lands which were

acquired and in para No.22 taken note of the evidence

of PWs.1 and 2 and comes to the conclusion that oral

and documentary evidence disclose that in the

surrounding areas of lands in question, there situate

schools, colleges, poultry forms, hotels, dhabas, etc.

It is also noted that the Raibag is fastly growing town

and lands in question situate by the side of Raibag-

Kanchagarwadi road. The trial Court also taken note of

land relating to one Gadde family bearing Survey

Nos.638/1, 638/4 and another Survey No.639/1 have

been converted into NA land, plots have been made,

sold and several constructions have already been

made. Similarly, in the vicinity of the lands acquired,

there are garages, commercial establishments,

hospital, etc., and taken note of the same by looking

into the documents i.e photographs which have been

produced by PWs.1 and 2.

21. The trial Court also taken note of Exs.P.19

and P.20 which were executed in the year 1991-1992

and also taken note of Ex.P.22 Town Panchayat has

issued a certificate which goes to show that all these

lands are within the limits of Town Panchayat and not

only relied upon Exs.P.19 and P.20-sale deeds. Even

considering Exs.P.19 and P.20, almost after 12 years

back the lands were converted and sites were formed

and sold and having considered Ex.P.21-price list

issued by Raibag Sub-Registrar Office discloses that

price of commercial plot yard is 377 and price of

residential plot is 339 per yard in Gadde plot area and

having taken note of all these aspects into

consideration, more particularly, Exs.P.21 and P.22,

the trial Court comes to the conclusion that lands

acquired are having NA potentiality and admittedly no

crops were grown in the said lands and the lands are

also adjoining to the developed area and also taken

note of other adjoining survey numbers which were

converted into NA lands and hence, very contention of

counsel for appellant that the compensation awarded

by the trial Court is on higher side cannot be

accepted.

22. No doubt, the counsel also brought to

notice of this Court Ex.P.18-village map and when

property is within the purview of Pattan Panchayat in

terms of Ex.P.22, the very contention of appellant's

counsel that property is situated in the interior area

cannot be accepted. Ex.P.22 has not been disputed by

the appellant before the trial Court and mainly

concentrated with regard to document at Exs.P.19 and

P.20. The trial Court not only considered Exs.P.19 and

P.20 and even Exs.P.19 and P.20 are the sale deeds

pertaining to the lands sold in the year 1991-1992 and

though they were small plots, but these lands are

acquired in the year 2004 is almost after 13 years of

acquisition of the said properties. When Exs.P.21 and

P.22 disclose having the properties situate within

Pattan Panchayat of Raibag, the very contention of the

appellant's counsel cannot be accepted.

23. The other count of argument before this

Court is that judgement of Apex Court in the case of

K.S.Gangadharappa, supra is aptly applicable to the

case on hand and no doubt it is settled law that

market value of larger area cannot be determined by

the rate of small plots and at the same time, the Court

has to take note of potentiality of the lands which

were acquired.

24. I have already pointed out that Exs.P.19

and P.20 are not only considered and particularly

Exs.P.21 and P.22 disclose that lands comes within

the Pattan Panchayat has also to be taken note of.

25. The other contention of counsel for the

appellant is that the deduction made at 1/3rd is also

very less and it ought to have been 65%. The Court

has to take note of whether land was acquired for any

purpose of formation of layout and housing purpose

and also whether land is acquired for any other

purpose and admittedly the lands are acquired for the

purpose of drawing canal and the Apex Court in the

case of Sajan, supra relied upon by the respondents'

counsel, taken note of the said fact into consideration

and held that when the land was acquired for

construction of dam project converted into non-

agricultural purpose, much of development like in case

of layout for housing colony is not required and even

comes to the conclusion that 40% deduction appears

to be on higher side and reduced it to 20% towards

development cost and in the case on hand, when the

lands are acquired for drawing of canal and not for

any housing purposes, the trial Court already

considered deduction of 1/3rd and the same is just and

reasonable and hence, on the ground of deduction

also, the very contention of the appellant's counsel

cannot be accepted.

26. Having considered the material on record

both oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any

force in the contention of appellant's counsel that

exorbitant compensation has been awarded and trial

Court has taken note of material on record and also

lands which have been acquired and also taken note

of adjacent lands are converted as NA lands and lands

which have been acquired are also adjacent to NA

lands and buildings are come up in the surrounding

area and also comes within the purview of Pattan

Panchayat in terms of Ex.P.22 and potentiality is

taken note of. Hence, I do not find any merit in the

appeals to set aside the order and reduce the

compensation awarded by the trial Court. Hence, point

No.1 is answered in negative.

27. Regarding point No.2: In view of the

discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

Appeals are dismissed. No cost.

The registry is directed to transmit the trial court

records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH