Karnataka High Court
Kempamma vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 2 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandeshpresided Byhpsj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.S.A. NO.63/2014
BETWEEN:
1. KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE CHALVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SANABADAKOPPALU VILLAGE
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
T.B.EXTENSION
NAGAMANGALA-571 432.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA-571 434.
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
SACHIVALAYA-2, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2
4. DEPURTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. H.R.ANITHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS M.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 12.03.2014 PASSED IN MA(LAC) 5/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE III-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2011
PASSED IN LAC.76/2009 (OLD NO.250/2007) ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.) AND JMFC, AT PANDAVAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.
THIS M.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.05.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant in this appeal prays that this Court to modify
the judgment and award dated 12.03.2014 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at
Srirangapatna) passed in M.A.(LAC) No.5/2012 and also the
judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed by the Court of
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Pandavapura in
L.A.C.No.76/2009 (Old No.250/2007), by enhancing the
compensation to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre with all statutory
benefits and also prays to pass such other orders as deemed fit
under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the lands
measuring 6 and ¼ guntas situated at Kamanayakanahalli
Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District,
bearing Sy.No.67/1 was notified for acquisition and the land was
submerged under the back water of tonnur tank on account of
the water level of Kere Tonnur tank was up due to water from
the Hemavathi Dam was canalized to the tank (Hemavathi
Project). The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded an amount of
Rs.44,160/- per acre and thereafter, the same was referred to
the Reference Court.
3. The appellant has taken the contention before the
Trial Court that for the purpose of enhancement of compensation
she produced the copy of judgment passed in LAC No.450/2002
on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna and
the judgment in MA (LAC) 50 to 55 & 62 to 64 of 2004. In those
judgments for the purpose of Hemavathi Canal the lands of
Kamanayakanahalli village were acquired and the compensation
was awarded at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. They have
also relied upon the judgment in LAC No.273/2006 on the file of
Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC., Srirangapatna, wherein,
the market value was assessed at Rs.2,25,000/- per acre with all
statutory benefits. The First Appellate Court having considered
the material available on record dismissed the appeal confirming
the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and
J.M.F.C., Pandavapura. Hence, the present appeal is filed before
this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the issue raised in this appeal are fully
covered by the judgment of this Court passed in M.S.A.No.62 of
2014 (D.D. 16.02.2017) in the case of Bhagyamma v. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagamangala and others.
The learned counsel also would submit that the lands covered by
the instant appeal and by MSA are situated in the same village,
acquired for the same purpose and under the same Notification.
The market value was fixed at Rs.2,73,600/- per acre for dry
land and Rs.3,60,000/- per acre for wet land. The learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court
referring the disposal of M.S.A.No.135/2012 (LA), considered the
same and in M.S.A.No.62/2014 granted an amount of
Rs.2,73,600/- per acre. Hence, the same is covered by the
order passed by this Court.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents is in no position to dispute the
same and accepts that already an order has been passed in
M.S.A.No.62/2014.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the appellant has
paid the Court Fee claiming Rs.2,25,000/- per acre towards the
market value and in view of the fixing the market value as
Rs.2,73,600/- this Court has to enhance the market value to
Rs.2,73,600/- per acre.
7. In view of the order passed by this Court in
M.S.A.No.62/2014, the same is in respect of Sy.No.80/1 at
Kamanayakanahalli Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura
Taluk, Mandya District, notified for acquisition on 28.03.2002 for
the purpose of Hemavathi Nala Project and the claim in this case
is also in respect of Sy.No.67/1 situated at Kamanayakanahalli
Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District,
and the order passed in M.S.A.No.62/2014 pertaining to the
same village for the same purpose. Hence, the appellant is
entitled for compensation as the same is also acquired on
28.03.2002 and the property belongs to the same village,
acquired for the same purpose and under the same notification.
Hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,73,600/- per
acre for dry land.
8. The learned counsel during the course of arguments
submits that he has paid the Court Fee even for the amount of
Rs.2,73,600/-. If the same is paid no dispute and the same is
not paid, the learned counsel for the appellant has to pay the
Court Fee within two weeks from the date of issuance of certified
copy of the judgment passed by this Court.
9. The registry is directed to draw the modified award
subject to, the appellant depositing the amount towards the
Deficit Court Fee. This Court already made it clear that if the
appellant already deposited the Court Fee for the claim of
Rs.2,73,600/- as submitted, draw the decree.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
