Karnataka High Court

Saral W/O Bharat Lahoti vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 December, 2023

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                                      -1-
                                                             NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB
                                                            MFA No. 101625 of 2016




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                              DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                                PRESENT
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                                   AND
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101625 OF 2016 (LAC-)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   SMT. SARALA W/O BHARAT LAHOTI,
                           AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                      2.   SHRI. GOPAL S/O BHARAT LAHOTI,
                           AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,

                      3.   SMT. HEMA W/O VIVEK ZANWAR,
                           AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                      4.   SMT. SNEHA D/O BHARAT LAHOTI,
                           AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                           ALL ARE R/O: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                                                        ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAO,
         Digitally
         signed by
                           JAMAKHANDI.
         JAGADISH
JAGADISH T R
TR       Date:
         2023.12.18
         16:31:18
         +0530
                      2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                           BAGALKOT.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 21.01.2016 PASSED IN
                      LAC.NO. 157/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                      JMFC, MUDHOL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
                      COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


                           THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                      VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB
                                           MFA No. 101625 of 2016




                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants - land owners under

Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the

L.A. Act') assailing the judgment and award dated 21.01.2016

passed in LAC No.157/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Mudhol, wherein the Reference Court has enhanced the

market value of the subject land at Rs.2,47,500/- per acre.

Being aggrieved, the land owners have preferred this appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the

respondent - State Government has issued preliminary

notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act on

10.12.2009/07.03.2010. The acquisition is for the purpose of

construction of percolation tank in Shirol Village, Mudhol Taluk,

Bagalkot District. Pursuant to the preliminary notification, the

Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') has determined the

market value of the land at Rs.1,37,787/- per acre considering

the subject land as irrigated land and being potential for

growing commercial crop like sugar cane.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

3. The appellants filed reference petition under Section

18(1) of the L.A. Act and the Reference Court re-determined

the market value of the subject land at Rs.2,47,500/-, taking

note of the fact that the land is sugar cane growing land. The

present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the market

value to Rs.17,55,000/- per acre, placing reliance on the

judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.102375/2018 as the lands

are adjacent to each other and of the same village.

4. Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that the reference court has committed

grave error in determining the market value of the subject land

at Rs.2,47,500/- per acre without appreciating the fact that the

land is irrigated land and the appellants are growing sugar cane

and they have placed sufficient evidence before the reference

Court to determine just and proper compensation. It is

submitted that the appellants have examined 3 witnesses and

marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents have

not adduced any evidence and without considering the evidence

available on record, the reference Court has determined the

lower compensation to the land in question.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

5. It is further submitted that the respondent - State

has acquired the adjacent land as that of the appellants vide

preliminary notification dated 10.12.2009 and the reference

court in LAC No. 361/2011 has re-determined the market value

of the adjacent land at Rs.16,80,000/- per acre. The subject

matter of the land in LAC No.361/2011 is Sy. No.273/2+3/3 of

Shirol Village, Mudhol Taluk and the subject matter of the

present appeal is Sy. No.273/2+3/4 measuring 3 acres 34

guntas of the same village. Learned counsel for the appellants

places reliance on the aforesaid judgment which is produced

along with an application for additional grounds and

documents.

6. It is also submitted that this Court in

M.F.A.No.102375/2018 has determined the market value of the

land at Rs.17,55,000/- per acre and the said appeal was arising

out of LAC No.155/2011 pertaining to the land in Sy.No.278/9

of the same village and the said land is adjacent to the land in

question and the said land was also acquired in the same

notification. It is submitted that the potentiality of the land and

the nature of crop grown in these lands are one and the same.

Hence, this Court is required to determine the market value of

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

the subject land at Rs.17,55,000/- per acre, taking note of the

reasons assigned by the reference Court in LAC No. 361/2011

and in M.F.A.No.102375/2018. Hence, he seeks to allow the

present appeal by determining the market value of the land in

question at Rs.17,55,000/- per acre.

7. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP

supports the impugned judgment and award of the reference

Court and submits that the reference Court at Paragraph Nos.

17 and 18, has assigned detailed reasons and has determined

the market value of the subject land at Rs.2,47,500/- per acre.

The reference court has recorded a finding that the appellants

have failed to place sufficient evidence before the reference

Court with regard to the yield of the sugar cane in the acquired

land and in the absence of any such evidence, taking note of

the oral and documentary evidence, the reference Court has

determined the market value at Rs.2,47,500/- per acre, which

is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement in the

present appeal. She seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants,

learned HCGP for the respondents-State and having perused

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

the memorandum of appeal and the Reference Court records,

the following point would arise for consideration:

a) Whether the compensation re-determined by the reference Court is just and proper?

b) Whether appellants are entitled for further enhancement?

9. Answer to point No.(i) is held in negative and

answer to point No.(ii) is held in affirmative for the following

reasons:

a. It is not in dispute that the respondent - State has

issued preliminary notification dated 10.12.2009 / 07.03.2010

to acquire various extents of lands of Shirol Village, Mudhol

Taluk of Bagalkot District, for the purpose of construction of

percolation tank. The subject matter of the land is Sy.

No.273/2+3/4 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas of Shirol Village,

Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District. The LAO has determined the

market value of the land in question at Rs.1,37,787/- per acre

vide order dated 26.04.2011 taking note of the fact that the

land is irrigated land and sugar cane is being grown in the said

land. Being aggrieved by the determination of the market value

of the LAO, the appellants filed reference petition under Section

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

18(1) of the L.A. Act and the reference Court in LAC 157/2011

has determined the market value at Rs.2,47,500/- per acre.

b. On close perusal of the impugned judgment of the

reference Court, it is evident that the land in question is

irrigated land and the appellants have placed sufficient material

before the reference Court to establish the fact that they are

the sugar cane growers and placed Ex.P.3 - yield certificate,

Ex.P4 - Price list of sugarcane, Exs.P5 and 6 of sugarcane

weighing slip issued by the sugar factory and Ex.P.10 - yield

certificate of sugarcane. Taking note of the aforesaid

documents and on close perusal of the oral testimony of the

land owners, i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is evident that the subject

land is irrigated land and sugarcane is grown. It is also not in

dispute that the adjacent land i.e., land in Sy. No.273/2+3/3 of

Shirol Village of the neighbouring land owners has been

acquired under the same notification by the respondent - State

and the reference Court in LAC No. 361/2011 has enhanced the

market value of the land at Rs.16,80,000/- per acre.

c. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that

the subject land in LAC No. 361/2011 and the land in

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

M.F.A.No.102375/2018 are all adjacent to the land in this appal

and having same potential of growing sugar cane. It is also not

in dispute that the common award is passed by the land

acquisition officer insofar as the subject land and the land in

LAC No.361/2011. When things stood thus, there is no

justification for the State to contend that the appellants have

failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim for

re-determining the market value as per LAC No. 361/2011 and

M.F.A.No.102375/2018. The reference Court in LAC No.

361/2011 has assigned detailed reasons for re-determining the

market value at Rs.16,80,000/- per acre. Similarly this Court in

M.F.A.No.102375/2018 has assigned reasons. On perusal of

the reasoning assigned by the reference Court and this Court,

we do not find any dissimilarity between the land in question

and the land in LAC No. 361/2011 and M.F.A.No.102375/2018.

d. The appellants have also placed copy of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in

M.F.A.No.102375/2018 and the learned Single Judge vide order

dated 18.12.2020, has re-determined the market value of the

land and fixed the market value at Rs.17,55,000/- per acre

with all statutory benefits, interests and costs. The said MFA

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14511-DB

was arising out of LAC No. 155/2011 and the subject matter of

the land in the said appeal is Sy. No. 278/9 measuring 1 acre

19 guntas of Shirol Village, Mudhol Taluk, which is also

adjacent land to the land in question in the present appeal and

the said land was also acquired under the preliminary

notification dated 10.12.2009. The learned Single Judge of this

Court considering the potentiality of the land and the nature of

the crop grown and taking note of various other factors, has re-