Sagareppa vs The Spl.Land Acquisition Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 11894 Kant

                             -1-




                                      MFA No. 21082 of 2010

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                     DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21082 OF 2010
                           (LAC-)

BETWEEN:

1     SAGAREPPA
      S/O HEBBANNA DEVARAVAR
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1A    BASAVAPRABHU SAGAREPPA DEVARAVAR
      AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRIL,

1B    NINGAPPA SAGAREPPA
      DEVARAVAR, AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1C    ISHWARAPPA SAGAREPPA
      DEVARAVAR, AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1D    SHANKREPPA SAGAREPPA
      DEVARAVAR, AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1E    APPASAHEB SAGAREPPA
      DEVARAVAR, AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1F    AWABAYAWWA BASAPPA TELI
      AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1G    SMT. ANNAWWA MAHADEVI PATIL
      AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

1H    SMT. MAHADEVI BASAGOUDA PATIL
      AGE MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE
                                  -2-




                                              MFA No. 21082 of 2010




1I.    BOURAWWA SAGAREPPA DEVARAVR
       AGE;MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

2.     SHRISAIL SHRIMANT DEVARAVAR
       AGE:MAJOR, OCC;AGRICULTURE,

3.     SANJEEVAPPA SHRIMANT DEVARAVAR
       AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
       ALL ARE R/O KADAKOL, TQ:JAMKHANDI,
       DIST:BELGAUM.
                                                       ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE.,ADVOCATE,
     APPEAL AGAINST A1C, A1D, AND A1G STANDS ABATED)

AND:

      THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
      JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT

                                                      ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)


       THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF L.A. ACT,         AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT     AND     AWARD      DATED:22/12/2009,       PASSED     IN
LAC.NO.129/2007,    ON   THE    FILE   OF   THE,   ADDITIONAL    CIVIL
JUDGE,(SR.DN.)     JAMKHANDI,    PARTLY     ALLOWING    THE     CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENCHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-




                                        MFA No. 21082 of 2010

                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent/State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants is that

the structure was acquired by Notification dated 18.07.1991

and the same was published in the Grama Chavadi on

09.06.1992 and award was passed in the year 1995. The

Notification under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act

(for short 'the Act') was served on 28.12.1995. Reference

application was filed by the claimants before the Special

Land Acquisition Officer on 01.03.1996 and the same was

received on 19.04.1997 by the Court.

3. The claimants being aggrieved by the award passed in

LAQ/SR No./210/91-92 filed a reference application and the

same is numbered as LAC No.129/1997. The trial Court

after considering the reference application and taking note of

the fact that admittedly the structure is acquired by the

authorities comes to the conclusion that claimants are

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

entitled for enhanced compensation of 50% over and above

the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for

the acquisition of the house property. The Land Acquisition

Officer awarded an amount of Rs.4,63,065/- and the same

has been divided in respect of VP No.9a and 9b and awarded

Rs.2,31,532/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

vehemently contend that the Reference Court has failed to

take note of the document Ex.D.1 which is the house

estimation report produced by the respondent and has failed

to determine market value as per estimation report. He

further submits that the appellants have examined P.W.3,

Range Forest Officer who has categorically stated that the

total wood used for the construction of the acquired house is

29.340 sq. mtr. Hence, the Reference Court should have

considered the evidence of PW-3. Accordingly, he submits

that the judgment and award of the trial Court calls for

interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that while the

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

document Ex.D.1 is marked and estimation was made but

the same has been strike out and the author of the

document Ex.D.1 with regard to the estimation is concerned

has not been examined. P.W.3 who has been examined in

respect of the claim of the appellants is only the Officer who

was a successor but he has not identified the signature of

the Forest Officer who estimated the cost and when such

being the case, the Reference Court has rightly come to the

conclusion that Ex.D.1 cannot be accepted and hence, the

contention of the learned counsel for the claimants was not

accepted. However, the trial Court has granted 50%

compensation over and above the market value awarded by

the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the judgment and

award of the trial Court does not call for any interference.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader,

the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the reference Court has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ?

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

(ii) What order ?

7. Answer to Point No.1 : Having heard the respective

counsel and also on perusal of the material the P.W.1 is

examined before the reference Court and he claims in his

evidence that, the house which was acquired was

constructed by using teakwood and while assessing the

value, it is considered as Jungle wood. He was also cross-

examined before the trial Court. In the cross-examination, it

is elicited that, in order to assess the valuation of the house,

the Engineer had visited the house. He admits that, the

house was constructed by his father and also house was

constructed 15 years ago and also admits that the Engineer

had mentioned that the house was constructed 22 years ago

and he cannot tell how much amount was spent for the

construction of the house and also he cannot estimate the

cost of construction. He also admits that, in terms of Ex.P.3,

the respondents have given 50% more compensation. The

claimants also examined P.W.2 an Engineer who assessed

the value of the house as Rs.19,81,000/- and this

assessment was made in the year 2000 and he admits the

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

same in the cross-examination and apart from that, he

admits that, he cannot tell what was the condition in the

year 1992. He also admits that, while assessing the house

property in terms of Ex.D.1, assessed the value of the wood

used. He also admits that, he went alone without taking the

owner of the house while inspecting the house and he cannot

tell the valuation made by the Engineer as well as the

valuation made by him what would be the difference. He also

admit that, the respondents while assessing the value of the

house called the experts from Forest Department and

assessed the value and also taken the measurement of the

wall. He also admits that, the Government has taken DSR

rate and respondent considering the same prepared the

estimation and assessed the property valuation. The

claimant also examined P.W.3 who is the Range Forest

Officer who succeeded the office of earlier Officer, who

conducted the inspection and in his evidence, he says that,

while drawing Ex.D.1, taking note of the use of the teakwood

and in terms of estimation it was assessed Rs.6,43,866/-. In

the cross-examination he admits that, he did not visit the

house and he cannot tell what type of wood was used while

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

constructing the house and also he admits that, in Ex.D.1, it

was mentioned that, it was a Jungle wood and also he

cannot tell the actual value of the wood which is mentioned

in Ex.D.1 and he cannot tell the actual cost of the wood in

terms of Ex.D.1.

8. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

also the material on record, no dispute with regard to the

fact that the structure was acquired by the Government by

issuing the notification in the year 1991 and subsequently,

the award was passed in the year 1995. The main contention

of the appellant counsel is that, in terms of Ex.D.1, the

Forest Officer taken note of the wood which was used for

construction of the house and though it was assessed for a

sum of Rs.6,45,000/-, and the same was striked out and no

explanation is given by the Government for striking out the

same and on the other hand, it is the contention of the State

that, the author of the document at Ex.D.1 has not been

examined and also no explanation for the reason why it was

striked out and in terms of Ex.D.1, which is dated

07.06.1993, the same is conducted by the Range Forest

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

Officer and specifically it is mentioned that, the VPC No.9A &

B and rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the

State that, the author of the document has not been

examined. It is also important to note that, the very claimant

examined particularly two witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3.

P.W.2 estimated the same in the year 2000 and

subsequently to the award and the award was passed in the

year 1995 itself and conducting the inspection in the year

2000 that too, without taking the owner which is admitted by

him, the same cannot be believed and hence, the reference

Court has not accepted the evidence of P.W.2. No doubt the

claimant also examined the P.W.3, and P.W.3 also

categorically admits in the cross-examination that while

assessing the value the same is rightly assessed taking note

of the wood which was used and the assessment made is

proper, but P.W.3 claims that, it was assessed taking note of

the using of the teakwood for an amount of Rs.6,43,866/-,

but in the cross-examination he also admits that, even he

cannot assess the value in terms of Ex.D.1 and also he

cannot tell the assessment made in terms of Ex.D.1, is also

proper. He also admits in the cross-examination that he

- 10 -

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

cannot tell whether they have used Jungle wood or teakwood

and also he cannot tell the value of the wood which was

used, which is mentioned in Ex.D.1 and also he admits that

in Ex.D.1 a reference was made that they have used the

Jungle wood and the main contention of the counsel

appearing for the appellant that there was a reference in the

document in Ex.D.1 with regard to the use of the teakwood,

but the same has been striked out and no explanation on the

part of the appellants also and the witness examined before

the Court is also not the witness who conducted inspection

and regarding the striking out the value which is mentioned

in the Ex.D.1 dated 07.06.1993 has not been corroborated

by examining the author of the document and the author of

the document can only give an explanation with regard to

why it was striked out and when such being the case, I do

not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant. The reference Court has also taken note of the

said fact into consideration. However, while passing an

award, apart from the award amount passed by the LAO,

considered the claim of the appellant and awarded 50% of

the award amount and when such being the case, I do not

- 11 -

MFA No. 21082 of 2010

find any force in the argument of the appellant counsel to

enhance the same by taking note of the Ex.D.1, which is

striked out and no explanation is found with regard to the

said fact and the right person to speak with regard to the

same is the author and when the author has not been

examined, I do not find any merit in the appeal.

9. Answer to Point No.2 : In view of the above

discussions, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JM/SVH