Karnataka High Court
The Chief Executive Engineer vs P Mallaiah @ Mallanna on 4 October, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2020 (LA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2021 (LA)
IN MSA NO. 106 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KEB, TUMAKURU-572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
P. MALLAIAH @ MALLANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
Digitally signed 1. PARVATHAMMA,
by SHARANYA T C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. M. KRISHNAPPA
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3. M. PUTTARAJU
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
4. M. PUTTASWAMAIAH
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
5. M. SOMASHEKAR
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT MELEKOTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101.
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION,
KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L.SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MSA FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2019
PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2016 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.158/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MSA NO. 72 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
P. MALLAIAH @ MALLANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1. PARVATHAMMA,
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
2. M. KRISHNAPPA
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
3. M. PUTTARAJU
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
4. M. PUTTASWAMAIAH
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
5. M. SOMASHEKAR
C/O. LATE P. MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
RESIDING AT MELEKOTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KEB, TUMAKURU-572 101.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. L.PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MSA FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 15.10.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2016
PASSED IN LAC NO.158/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, TUMAKURU,
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. These two appeals are filed by the beneficiary of the
acquisition as well as the claimants respectively.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Trial Court is that compensation awarded by the
respondents at Rs.9,090/- per gunta is very meager. Hence,
the claimants being aggrieved by the compensation awarded,
challenged the same in R.A.No.94/2019 contending that the
land bearing Sy.No.11/1 measuring 2 acres, 28 guntas is
situated at Melekote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and
the same is acquired for the purpose of construction of Sub-
station by Karnataka Electricity Board ('KEB' for short) by
notification No.RT.26 AQT 94 dated 16.09.1994 and passed an
award. The claimants have received the amount with protest
and the matters were also referred to the Civil Court under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. On receipt of
reference, the same was registered as L.A.C. No.158/1997,
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
wherein an amount of Rs.9,090/- was awarded and against the
same, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.94/2019 and in the appeal, it
is contended that at the time of acquisition of land, the
property was valued at Rs.50,000/- per gunta but, the Trial
Court wrongly fixed only an amount of Rs.9,090/- per gunta.
4. It is also contended that the same has to be
modified and the appellants are entitled for Rs.30,000/- per
gunta for their acquired land. The First Appellate Court, having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also
taking note of the principles laid down in the judgment referred
by the First Appellate Court, comes to the conclusion that
compensation has to be assessed on different methods i.e.,
capitalization method, sale statistics method, opinion of experts
and by following the judgments of the Courts. Having taken
note of the principles laid down in the judgments, in detail
discussed the same and enhanced the compensation to
Rs.20,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-
claimants in M.S.A.No.72/2021 would contend that the First
Appellate Court committed an error in enhancing the
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
compensation at Rs.20,000/- per gunta and the same is very
meager considering the potentiality of the property. The
learned counsel for the appellants also would submit that this
property is situated within 2 Kms. from the town of Tumakuru
which is also located in Kasaba Hobli. The learned counsel also
would vehemently contend that the very reasoning given by the
First Appellate Court is erroneous and ought to have enhanced
the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per gunta.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
vehemently contend that the District in R.A.No.150/2021
awarded an amount of Rs.85,000/- per gunta, even though the
said property is not within Kasaba Hobli and the same is
situated at Agalagunte Village, Bellavi Hobli. The learned
counsel would further contend that in the said case, the
acquisition of property was for Hemavahi Irrigation Project and
in the case on hand, it is for construction of Sub-station for KEB
and even though the purpose is different, this Court has to
enhance the compensation to an amount of Rs.85,000/- per
gunta.
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in
M.S.A.No.106/2020 would vehemently contend that the First
Appellate Court committed an error in fixing the amount of
Rs.20,000/- per gunta, though the owners have not produced
any single piece of paper for enhancement of compensation for
more than Rs.10,000/- per gunta. The counsel would
vehemently contend that though the appellant has produced
the documents of Exs.P1 and P2, in terms of Exs.P1 and P2,
below Rs.10,000/- has been fixed per gunta and the same has
been considered by the Trial Court and fixed an amount of
Rs.9,090/-. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
the very purpose may be different in respect of the property
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant acquired
for Hemavathi Irrigation Project, the property in the case on
hand is 40 Kms. far away from the said property. Hence, the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants in R.A.No.150/2021 cannot be accepted.
8. Learned HCGP appearing for the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in both the appeals would submit that, in the
very claim made by the claimants, it is their contention that at
the time of acquisition, the property was valued at the rate of
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
Rs.4,00,000/- but, now coming to the enhancement made by
the First Appellate Court at Rs.20,000/- per gunta, it comes to
Rs.8,00,000/- per acre and the same is double the amount
which they have claimed. Hence, the question of enhancing the
compensation does not arise.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the
appellants in both the appeals as well as the learned HCGP and
also considering the material on record, the points that would
arise for consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether the appellants-claimants in
M.S.A.No.72/2021 have made out a ground
for enhancement of compensation as
contended in the appeal?
(2) Whether the appellant in M.S.A.No.106/2020
has made out a ground to set aside the order
passed in R.A.No.94/2019 and reduce the
compensation?
(3) What order?
Point Nos.(1) and (2)
10. Having considered the material on record, it is not
in dispute that the property bearing Sy.No.11/1 measuring 2
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
acres, 28 guntas situate at Melekote Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Tumakuru Taluk was acquired for the purpose of construction of
Sub-station by KEB and the said notification was issued in the
year 1994. The Trial Court in L.A.C.No.158/1997 awarded the
amount of Rs.9,090/- per gunta and the same is challenged
before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.94/2019 and the First
Appellate Court, considering the material available on record,
enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per gunta taking
note of the judgments of this Court reported in ILR 2003 KAR
2336, wherein it is observed that enhancement of
compensation made by the First Appellate Court is sought to be
challenged by the State-enhancement was made on the basis
of the judgment and award made by the Court in similar other
cases-wherein the similar nature of land of adjoining villages
acquired under same notification and for the same purpose-
uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands which
are similarly situated to the adjoining villages cannot be faulted
and confirmed the award.
11. In the other judgment reported in 2015 (2) KCCR
1993, the Division Bench of this Court also taken note of the
fact that award passed in respect of comparable lands
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
particularly the lands which are acquired under same
notification for same purpose having same advantages will
become valid and acceptable piece of evidence to determine
market value in connected cases. Taking note of these
principles laid down in the judgments referred (supra), the First
Appellate Court, having taken note of the order of acquisition
and also the potentiality of the property which is within the
purview of Tumakuru District Head Quarter and also taken note
of the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR SCW 2004 4538 in
the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.
BALIRAM SHARMA AND OTHERS, has allowed 10%
escalation as the notification is subsequent to previous
notification in the case on hand. The Apex Court has also taken
note of escalation and also depreciation of 10% per year in
view of principles laid down in the Apex Court ruling and having
considered the same, comes to the conclusion that awarding
compensation at Rs.20,000/- per gunta is just and reasonable
amount.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants in M.S.A.No.72/2021 before this Court is
that similarly placed property is acquired for Hemavathi
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
Irrigation Project and the same was acquired in the year 1993
and though the purpose is different, the Court has to take note
of the potentiality of the property. The learned counsel for the
appellants would vehemently contend that this property is
situated within Kasaba Hobli and the same is not in dispute and
the amount awarded at Rs.85,000/- per gunta is in respect of
Agalakunte Village, Bellavi Village and the said property is far
away from Tumakuru and even though the same is outside
Tumakuru, an amount of Rs.85,000/- per gunta is awarded.
13. Though the said contention is urged, the Court has
to look into the material on record in keeping the contention of
both the parties. On perusal of the material on record, when
the claim was made by the claimants in L.A.C.No.158/1997, the
claimants themselves have stated in Para No.8 that in the year
1994-95, the average value of the land per acre is
Rs.4,00,000/- and also produced the documents of Exs.P1 and
P2 and the Trial Court considered the same and awarded
Rs.9,090/- per gunta. It is also settled law that Court has to
adopt capitalization method and take the opinion of the experts
and also take note of the judgments of the Court while
assessing compensation.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
14. It is also important to note that, in the appeal filed
by the appellants, though it is contended that the First
Appellate Court ought to have awarded the compensation at
Rs.50,000/- per gunta in the appeal memo filed by the
claimants, the First Appellate Court only awarded Rs.20,000/-
per gunta, the Court has to look into the material on record as
to in which year the notification was issued and it is not in
dispute that notification was issued in the year 1994 and the
fact that property is also situated within Kasaba Hobli of
Tumakuru Taluk is not in dispute. When such being the
material on record and also having considered the principles
laid down in the judgments of this Court and also the judgment
of the Apex Court, the Court has to look into the potentiality of
the property while awarding compensation.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant in
M.S.A.No.106/2020 would vehemently contend that in the
registered sale deed, actual value will not be mentioned and
only S.R. value will be mentioned and there is a force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and
however, the Court has to take note of the potentiality of the
property while awarding compensation and in the judgment
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants, an amount of Rs.85,000/- per acre is fixed and the
same cannot be accepted, since the very claim of the
appellants-claimants in this appeal is restricted to a sum of
Rs.50,000/- and also in the affidavit filed before the Trial Court
itself, it is stated that the property is worth of Rs.4,00,000/-
per acre and as rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP that
amount fixed at Rs.20,000/- per gunta by the First Appellate
Court would fetch Rs.8,00,000/-, the same also cannot be a
basis and the Court has to look into the principles laid down in
the judgments of this Court and also the Apex Court.
16. Having considered the potentiality of the property
and the property is also situated within Kasaba Hobli of
Tumakuru Taluk, the material available on record and also the
contention that even if site is formulated in the said land, it
would be Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- for site measuring 30 x 40
sq.ft. and when the property is situated adjoining Tumakuru
Taluk and also purpose for which the property was acquired is
for construction of Sub-station for KEB and the same is also not
for irrigation purpose, when such being the case and the
property acquired is 2 acre, 28 guntas for construction of Sub-
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
station for KEB within the surrounding area of Tumakuru Town
and the same comes within the purview of Tumakuru Urban
agglomeration, hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of
Rs.30,000/- per gunta and not as claimed by the appellants-
claimants at Rs.50,000/- per gunta and the same is awarded.
Hence, the appellant in M.S.A.No.106/2020 has not made out
any ground to reduce the compensation amount and the
appellants-claimants in M.S.A.No.72/2021 have made out
grounds to enhance the amount and accordingly, Rs.30,000/-
per gunta is awarded with all other statutory benefits.
Therefore, I answer point Nos.(1) and (2) accordingly.
Point No.(3)
17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal in M.S.A.No.106/2020 is
dismissed and the appeal in
M.S.A.No.72/2021 is allowed in part, granting
compensation of Rs.30,000/- per gunta with
all other statutory benefits.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35837
MSA No. 106 of 2020
C/W MSA No. 72 of 2021
(ii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be paid
in favour of the appellants-claimants on
property identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
