Karnataka High Court
Nanjamma vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2017 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2021
IN MFA NO.2126 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
1. NANJAMMA
W/O D.K. NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT KALACHAR STREET,
K.R.S. AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Location: HIGH AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
COURT OF HASSAN-BANGALORE NEW RAILWAY LINE,
KARNATAKA
TUMKUR-572121
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (WEST)
CONTONMENT,
BENGALURU-579101
3. THE DEPUTY ENGINEER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (WEST)
CONTONMENT,
BENGALURU-579101
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
(BY SRI. C BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
MRS.LEENA C.SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2016
PASSED IN LAC NO.47/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MSA NO.127 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
WEST-II/CONSTRUCTIN
# 18, MILLERS ROAD,
CANTONMENT
BENGLAURU - 560001
...APPELLANT
(BY MRS. VANITHA M.A., ADVOCATE FOR
MR.SATISH KUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O D.K. NANJUNDAIAH
MAJOR BY AGE
R/AT. KALACHAR STREET
K.R.S. AGRAHARA
KUNIGAL TOWN
TUMAKURU - 572130
2. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE - HASSAN RAILWAY LINE
MINI VIDANA SOUDHA
TUMAKURU-572101
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
(BY MRS. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
MR.YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.68/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIMRING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.47/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION MADE
UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel appearing for R2 and R3 in MFA
No.2126/2017, learned counsel appearing R1 in MSA
No.127/2021 and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for R1 in MFA No.2126/2017 and R2 in MSA
No.127/2021, are present before the Court.
2. MFA No.2126/2017 is filed challenging the
judgment and award dated 17.12.2016 passed in LAC
No.47/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC.,
Kunigal, wherein, an amount of Rs.250/- is fixed per square
feet. The claimant contends that fixing of Rs.250/- per square
feet is very less. It is also contended in the appeal that the
respondents-authorities had acquired the site owned by the
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
appellant/claimant situated in the limits of Kunigal Town
Municipalities and adjacent to National Highway No.48, the
compensation awarded is very meager and illegal and
prevailing market value of the sites in the area is more and
fixing the rate at Rs.250/- is contrary to the evidence on
record. Hence, it requires interference.
3. Per contra, the Railway Department questioned
confirming the fixing of rate of Rs.250/- in R.A.No.68/2018 and
the award passed in LAC No.47/2009, wherein, it is contended
that fixing of the rate of Rs.250/- and confirming the same by
the Appellate Court is erroneous. In the same area, the
property was sold in the year 2006 at Rs.120/- per square feet
and the enhancement is not reasonable and proper. It is the
acquisition of the year 2007. The reference Court without any
justification enhanced the market value from Rs.250/- to
Rs.350/-. Hence, it requires interference.
4. Learned counsel appearing for R2 and R3 in MFA
No.2126/2017 and the learned counsel appearing for R1 in MSA
No.127/2021 have relied upon the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in MFA No.2207/2016 (LAC), wherein, the
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
Division Bench taking into note of the order passed in
R.A.No.248/2017, which was decided by the learned District
Judge by a judgment dated 18.12.2019 and the amount of
compensation was reduced to Rs.200/- and also made the
submission that they are ready to pay the amount of Rs.200/-
per square feet. The Division Bench taking into note of fixing
the rate of Rs.200/- per square feet in a similarly situated land,
which was acquired for the same purpose and come to the
conclusion that it has attained its finality and the same, should
be made applicable to the case of the appellant.
5. Having considered the award passed in LAC
No.47/2009, in the said matter questioned the fixing of rate.
Admittedly, the sites which are formed were acquired for the
purpose of formation of railway lane from Bengaluru to Hassan.
The Appellate Court also considering the rate at Rs.250/- per
square feet in respect of the acquired sites situated at KRS
Agrahara, fix the same in the appeal. The Division Bench
having considered the reducing rate of Rs.200/- in LAC
No.43/2009, which has attained its finality considered and fixed
the rate at Rs.200/- per square feet.
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is
absent and not disputed the reduced rate of Rs.200/- per
square feet, the same is considered by the Division Bench. The
rate is fixed at Rs.250/- per square feet is challenged before
this Court in MSA No.127/2021 and the Division Bench of this
Court fixed the rate at Rs.200/- per square feet. I do not find
any ground to enhance the same from Rs.250/- to higher
amount. The Division Bench has already taken decision in
fixing the rate at Rs.200/- per square feet. Hence, MSA
No.127/2021 requires to be allowed by fixing the rate as
Rs.200/- per square feet and the appeal filed by the claimant in
MFA No.2126/2017 requires to be dismissed.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.2126/2017 is dismissed.
(ii) MSA No.127/2021 allowed.
(iii) The impugned order dated 17.12.2016 passed
in LAC No.47/2009 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC at Kunigal and the order
dated 07.11.2019 passed in R.A.No.68/2018
MFA No. 2126 of 2017
C/W MSA No. 127 of 2021
on the file of VI Additional District Judge at
Tumakuru, are set aside.
(iv) The amount of Rs.200/- is fixed per square
feet and also the claimant is entitled for other
statutory benefits.
In view of disposal of the appeals, IAs., if any do not
survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of in
both the appeals.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CP
