Eranna Since Dead By His Lrs vs Special Land Acquisition
2023 Latest Caselaw 142 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                   MFA No. 10978 of 2012




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10978 OF 2012 (LAC)
               BETWEEN:

               1.     ERANNA
                      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

               1(A) LAKSHMAMMA
                    W/O LATE ERANNA
                    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

               1(B) DEVEGOWDA @ DEVANNA
                    S/O LATE ERANNA
                    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

               1(C) DINESH
                    S/O LATE ERANNA
                    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Digitally signed
by               1(D) LOKESHA
DHANALAKSHMI          S/O LATE ERANNA
MURTHY
                      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka        2    BOMMANNA
                      S/O LATE GOTAGEGOWDA
                      @ CHIKKADEVANNA
                      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

               3.     ALAMMA
                      D/O LATE GOTAGEGOWDA
                      @ CHIKKADEVANNA
                      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

               4.     DEVANNA
                      SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS
                             -2-
                                     MFA No. 10978 of 2012




4(A) SMT. NINGAMMA
     W/O LATE DEVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

4(B) SRI. JAYARAMA
     S/O LATE DEVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

4(C) SRI. ARKESH
     S/O LATE DEVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

4(D) SRI. RAVI
     S/O LATE DEVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

     LL ARE R/A D.NO.103, 7TH MAIN
      VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE-12.

                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SUNIL K N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
     OFFICER
     MUDA, MYSORE-01

2.   MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     JLB ROAD, MYSURU 570001
     REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:4.1.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.346/2001 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MYSORE,
PARTLY   ALLOWING     THE  REFERENCE    PETITION   FOR
                             -3-
                                     MFA No. 10978 of 2012




COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

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

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under

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

Act') challenging the judgment dated 4.1.2011 passed by

the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore in LAC

No.346/2001, whereby the Reference Court has marginally

enhanced the compensation fixed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer from Rs.40,300/- to Rs.52,470/-.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Reference

Court.

3. Brief facts of the case:

The claimants are the owners of land measuring 2.26

acres of land situated in Survey No.40, Basavanahalli

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk for the purpose of

formation of layout of Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd Phase,

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

Mysore Taluk. The said land has been acquired by the

respondent under the preliminary notification dated

2.1.1992. The final notification was issued on 10.12.1992

and gazetted on 31.12.1992. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer (for short 'SLAO') has passed the award dated

18.7.1994 fixing the compensation to Rs.40,300/- per

acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have

filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act to refer

the matter to the Civil Court. The SLAO has referred the

matter to the Reference Court. The learned Judge of the

Reference Court by order dated 4.1.2011 in LAC

No.346/2001 has enhanced the compensation fixed by the

SLAO from Rs.40,300/- to Rs.52,470/- per acre. Being

aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this

appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation.

4. Mr.Sunil.K.N., learned counsel for the

appellants has contended that as per Ex.P-2, certified copy

of judgment passed in LAC Nos.332/2004 and 358/2004,

the respondent has acquired the land situated in Keragalli

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk under preliminary

notification dated 24.7.1997 for the purpose of formation

of residential layout, in which, the Reference Court in LAC

Nos.332/2004 and 358/2004 has enhanced the

compensation to Rs.13,49,000/- per acre. Since the land

in question has been acquired for the very same purpose

and it is situated adjacent to the Keragalli village, the

Reference Court without considering Ex.P-2 has enhanced

only marginal compensation. He further contended that

the claimants have produced four sale deeds marked at

Exs.P-4 to 7 related to the years 1998, 1995, 2008 and

2009 respectively. The Reference Court has not considered

the said sale deeds. He further contended that even in

respect of the land acquired by the respondent situated in

Hinkal village, the Reference Court in LAC No.866/1994

has granted compensation of Rs.110,000/- per acre. The

same has been confirmed in LAC No.5/2011. The said land

in Hinkal village is situated 3.4 kms from the land in

question situated at Basavanahalli village. Under the

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

circumstances, the compensation awarded by the

Reference Court in the present case is on the lower side

and the same requires to be enhanced.

5. Mr.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for

respondent has contended that Ex.P-2, certified copy of

judgment passed in LAC Nos.332/2004 and 358/2004 is

related to acquisition of land under preliminary notification

dated 24.7.1997. The land in question has been acquired

under preliminary notification dated 2.1.1992. There is

difference of 5 years in the said two notifications. He

further contended that the order passed by the Reference

Court in LAC Nos.332/2004 and 358/2004 has been

challenged by the respondent before this Court in MFA

8771/2008 and 8772/2008. This court dismissed the

appeals. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent

approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10182/2010.

The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the

judgment of the High Court and Reference Court and

remanded the matter to the Reference Court. He further

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

contended that the sale deeds produced by the claimants

at Exs.P-4 to 7 are executed subsequent to preliminary

notification dated 2.1.1992. He further contended that in

the very same Basavanahalli village, the land was acquired

by the respondent for the purpose of housing project

under the preliminary notification dated 23.12.1991,

wherein the Reference Court has fixed the compensation

at Rs.52,470/- per acre. Considering the same, the

Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the

property in dispute at Rs.52,470/- per acre. Hence, he

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the land of the

claimants were acquired by the respondent for the purpose

of formation of layout of Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd Phase,

Mysore Taluk under preliminary notification dated

2.1.1992 and final notification was issued on 31.12.1992.

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

The SLAO has passed the award fixing the compensation

at Rs.40,300/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimants

have filed the application under Section 18 of the Act.

Thereafter, the matter has been referred to the Reference

Court.

Ex.P-2, certified copy of judgment passed in LAC

Nos.332/2004 and 358/2004 relied upon by the claimants

is related to acquisition of land under preliminary

notification dated 24.7.1997. The land in question is

situated at Basavanahalli village and it is acquired under

preliminary notification dated 2.1.1992. There is difference

of 5 years between the said two notifications. Therefore,

the Reference Court has rightly not considered Ex.P-2

relied upon the claimants.

It is the case of the respondent that the order of the

Reference Court passed in LAC Nos.332/2004 and

358/2004 has been challenged before this Court in MFA

8771/2008 and 8772/2008. This Court has confirmed the

order passed by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved by

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

the same, the respondent has challenged the same before

the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10182/2010. By order

dated 30.11.2010, the Apex Court has set aside the

judgment of the High Court and Reference Court and

remanded the matter to the Reference court and

thereafter the matter has been settled between the

parties.

In respect of Exs.P-4 to 7, the sale deeds produced

by the claimants are pertaining to the years 1995, 1999,

2008, 2009 respectively, which are executed subsequent

to preliminary notification dated 2.1.1992. The respondent

has produced the copy of the judgment passed in LAC

631/1997 dated 4.3.2009 marked as Ex.R-5. It is related

to acquisition of land situated in Basavanahalli village and

the land was acquired for the very same project under

preliminary notification dated 23.12.1991. The difference

between the said two notifications is only 10 days. In LAC

631/1997, the Reference Court has fixed the market value

at Rs.52,470/-. Since the land in dispute is adjacent to the

- 10 -

MFA No. 10978 of 2012

land acquired under the preliminary notification dated

23.12.1991 and since both the lands are situated at

Basavanahalli Village, the Reference Court has rightly

considered Ex.R-5 and fixed the market value at

Rs.52,470/-. Whereas, the document produced by the

claimants at Ex.P-2 is not adjacent to the property in

dispute. Therefore, the Reference Court considering Ex.R-

5, has rightly fixed the market value of the property in

dispute at Rs.52,470/-.

Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that there

is no error or infirmity in the judgment passed by the

Reference Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM