The Special Land Acquisition vs Rayagondappa
2023 Latest Caselaw 6206 Kant

                                             -1-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB
                                                    MFA No. 102914 of 2017




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                          PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
                                             AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102914 OF 2017 (LAC)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
                        UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
                        JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

                   2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                        BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
                                                            ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI MADAMOHAN KHANNUR, AGA)

                   AND:

ROHAN              1.   RAYAGONDAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KADAKOL,
HADIMANI                R/O: KAVATAGI, JAMKHANDI TQ,
T
                        BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587301.
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
                   2.   BASAPPA S/O. RAYAGONDAPPA KADAKOL,
HADIMANI T              R/O: KAVATAGI, JAMKHANDI TQ,
Date:
2023.09.02              BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587301.
11:42:34 -0700
                   3.   NINGAPPA S/O. MELAPPA SAHUKAR,
                        R/O: KAVATAGI,
                        JAMKHANDI TQ,
                        BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587301.

                   4.   BASAVARAJ S/O. MELAPPA SAHUKAR,
                        R/O: KAVATAGI,
                               -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB
                                       MFA No. 102914 of 2017




    JAMKHANDI TQ,
    BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587301.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER
SECECTION 54 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.10.2016 IN LAC NO. 82/2014, PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI.

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal by the State is directed against the

impugned judgment and award dated 29.10.2016 passed

in LAC.No.82/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as the

'Reference Court') whereby, the said reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was partly

answered in favour of the claimants and the compensation

payable in favour of the respondent/claimants was

enhanced by the Reference Court.

2. Heard learned AGA for the appellants and

learned counsel for the respondents.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB MFA No. 102914 of 2017

3. Learned AGA for the appellants has filed a

memo enclosing a copy of the final order dated

01.04.2021 passed in MFA.No.102915/2017 whereby, this

Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the

appellant/State arising out of the common judgment and

award passed in LAC.No.85/2014 and connected matters

including the instant LAC.No.82/2014. The said final order

passed by this Court reads as under:

"The captioned appeal is filed by the State challenging the compensation determined by the Reference Court in LAC No.85/2014. The respondent/claimant is the owner of land bearing survey No.304/2 measuring 11 guntas in Bidari Village of Jamkhandi is acquired for the purpose Mulawad Lift Irrigation Project by preliminary notification dated 19.05.2011. Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 30.06.2012 treating the acquired land as dry lands has awarded a compensation of Rs.59,143/-.

2. The respondents/claimants sought Reference and the Reference Court by placing reliance on the market value fixed in LAC No.111/2014 as per Ex.P.29 has fixed compensation at Rs.6,55,000/-. Questioning the said determination of the market value by the Reference Court, appellants are before this Court.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB MFA No. 102914 of 2017

3. Learned HCGP contended before this Court that the subject matter of the lands are dry land and the Reference Court in the absence of clinching evidence, has determined the compensation by treating the land in question has irrigated land, he would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that Reference Court erred in relying on Ex.P29 while arriving at the market value.

4. He would also vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the records of revenue indicate that sources of water is show as rain water and thereby market value determined by the Reference Court at Rs.6,55,000/- is perverse. He would further submits to this Court that Reference Court is erred in adding 5% escalation while re-determining the market value.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants would submit to this Court that the Reference Court by rightly referring to the documents at Ex.P9 to 25 has recorded a categorical finding that the lands are irrigated land if the subject matter of the appeal is irrigated land, then he would submits to this Court that that the market value determined in LAC No.111/2014 has to be taken as a basis to fix the market value of the present land in question. He would submits to this Court that the land involved in the present case and one involved in LAC No.111/2014 are same and identical.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB MFA No. 102914 of 2017

6. Learned counsel appearing fo r the appell ants have also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cas e of Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and Another AIR 2004 SC 3981. The Apex court has held, where the lands were ac quired fo r the same purpose and are identic al and similar, though lying in different villages, uniform compensation is to be aw arded.

7. The principal laid down in Balaram's case are squarely applicable to case on hand. Finding of the Reference Court in placing reliance on the market value determined in LAC No.111/2014 has to be extended to the present case on hand.

8. On re-appreciation of evidence, I would find that escalation is taken into consideration by Reference Court is in accordance with law since, date of preliminary notification in LAC No.111/2014 was dated 30.07.2009 and in the present case preliminary notification is issued on 19.05.2011.

Therefore, the judgment and award of the Reference Court is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed."

4. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed

by this Court in MFA.No.102915/2017 which arise out of

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9793-DB MFA No. 102914 of 2017

the same common judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court, the issue involved in the present appeal

is directly/squarely covered by the same order passed by

this Court whereby, the appeal preferred by the

appellant/State was dismissed. Accordingly, in the light of

the judgment passed by this Court in

MFA.No.102915/2017 dated 01.04.2021, the present

appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH