Karnataka High Court
Malianganayaka vs The Assitant Commissioner on 10 October, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3978 OF 2022 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
MALIANGANAYAKA
S/O MARINANJANAYAK
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT SUTTURU VILALGE
BILIGERI HOBLI, NANAJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISON
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT-570024.
Digitally signed 2. THE COMMISSIONER
by
DHANALAKSHMI TOWN MUNCIPAL
MURTHY NANAJANGUD TQ
Location: High
Court of MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.
Karnataka ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 26.09.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 74(1) OF RIGHT TO
FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION
AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S.64 OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Even though the matter is posted for orders, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard finally and disposed of.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-land loser
under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') challenging
the judgment dated 4.7.2019 passed by the I Additional
District Judge and Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Mysuru (for short 'the Reference
Court') in LAC No.04/2018.
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Reference
Court.
4. The appellant herein is the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.153/5 measuring 23 gutnas situated in
Sutturu Village, Biligere Hobli, Nanjanagud Taluk,
Mysore. The said land has been acquired by the
respondents vide Preliminary Notification dated 9.1.2014
and final notification was issued on 5.3.2015. After
taking possession of the land, the Commissioner has
passed the award fixing the market value of the land as
Rs.144,487/- per acre and has also awarded statutory
benefits. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellant
had filed an application before the respondents seeking
enhancement. The said application has been referred to
the Reference Court and numbered as LAC No.04/2018.
Before the Reference Court, the appellant had relied
upon 3 sale deeds, Exs.P-1 to 3. Sale deed at Ex.P-2
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
pertains to the year 2014. The Reference Court has
relied upon the said sale deed and disposed of the
matter by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.144,487/- to Rs.174,487/- per acre. Being aggrieved
by the same, the appellant-land loser has filed this
appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that Ex.P-2, sale deed pertains to the year
2014 and it is in respect of land bearing Sy.No.180/1
situated at Sutturu Village, Biligere Hobli, Nanjanagud
Taluk. The extent of land measuring in Ex.P-2 is 0-01.04
guntas (1¼ guntas), which has been sold for a sum of
Rs.137,000/-. The Reference Court in the impugned
judgment while enhancing the compensation has
misread and wrongly considered the extent of 0-01.04
guntas of land as 1 acre 4 guntas of land and awarded a
meager compensation. There is an error in the judgment
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
passed by the Reference Court. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
6. The learned AGA for the respondents has
contended that the land has been acquired in the year
2014. Even though the appellant has claimed that he
was getting annual income of Rs.1 to 2 Lakhs per acre,
he has not produced any documents to establish the
same. The Reference Court after considering the
materials available on record has rightly enhanced the
compensation to Rs.174,487/- per acre. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the impugned
order.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the owner
of the land bearing Sy.No.153/5 measuring 23 gutnas
situated in Suttur Village, Biligere Hobli, Nanjanagud
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
Taluk, Mysore. The said land has been acquired by the
respondents vide Preliminary Notification dated 9.1.2014
and final notification was issued on 5.3.2015. After
taking possession of the land, the Commissioner has
passed the Award fixing the market value of the land as
Rs.144,487/- per acre and has also awarded statutory
benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant
had filed an application before the respondents seeking
enhancement and the said application was referred to
the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court, the
appellant has produced three sale deeds Ex.P-1 to P-3.
Exs.P-1 and P-3 pertains to the year 2016. Ex.P-2, sale
deed pertains to the year 2014 and hence, the
Reference Court has considered Ex.P-2 for enhancing
compensation. In the said sale deed Ex.P-2, land
measuring 0-01.04 guntas has been sold for a sum of
Rs.137,000/-. The Reference Court while considering
Ex.P-2 has misread the extent of land as 1 acre 4
guntas and that it is sold for a sum of Rs.137,000/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:36737
MFA No. 3978 of 2022
This finding of the Reference Court is contrary to the
contents of Ex.P-2. Therefore, the matter requires to be
remitted back to the Reference Court to reconsider the
matter afresh in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned judgment dated 4.7.2019 passed
by the I Addl. District Judge and Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Mysuru in LAC No.04/2018, is set
aside.
c) The matter is remitted back to the Reference
Court to reconsider the matter afresh and to
pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
