Karnataka High Court
Sidramappa vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer And Anr on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
MSA No. 200172 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO.200172 OF 2017 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
SIDRAMAPPA BY LR'S.
VEERANNA S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TONDAKAL, TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
M & MIP, KALABURAGI-585102.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MATHAPATI MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585102.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. THE EXECUATIVE ENGAINEER,
KNNL, BNT SUB DIVISION,
HEBBAL, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI.
(Amended vide Court order dated: 22.03.2018)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI-AG AND
SRI. G.B. YADAV-HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL ADV. FOR R3)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
MSA No. 200172 of 2017
COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AT GULBARGA DATED 22.12.1994 IN
LAC NO.499 OF 1993 AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AT KALABURAGI DATED 07.08.2015 IN
LACA NO.821 OF 2012 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE
OF RS.1,00,000/- PER ACRE AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS. AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this Appeal against the
judgment and award passed dated 07th August, 2015 passed in
LACA No.821 of 2012 by the I Additional District Judge,
Gulbarga.
2. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are that,
the appellant is the owner of the land bearing survey No.22/2
measuring 8 acres situate in Tondakal village of Kalaburagi
Taluk which was acquired by the respondents for construction
of Bennethora project vide preliminary notification dated 11th
October, 1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award on 13th December, 1991 determining the market value of
the acquired land at Rs.6,300/- per acre. Upon reference, the
learned Principal Civil Judge, Kalaburagi has enhanced the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
compensation to Rs.17,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the
appellant preferred appeal before the I Additional District Judge
at Kalaburagi (for brevity hereinafter referred to "First Appellate
Court) in LACA No.821 of 2012. The First Appellate Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre with all
statutory benefits. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the First Appellate Court, the appellant is before
this Court in this Second Appeal, seeking enhancement of
compensation.
3. Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the III
Additional District at Kalaburagi in LACA No.149 of 2014
decided on 24th March, 2016, which pertains to acquisition
proceedings through preliminary notification dated 13th
September 1984, pertaining to the Tondakal village, has passed
an award enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,14,565/- per
acre with all statutory benefits and the respondent-KNNL having
satisfied the said award passed in LACA No.149 of 2014 in view
of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SALAHA BEGUM, ETC. v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
reported in 2013 SCR (Civil) 109; and in the case of ASHOK
KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
reported in 2015(15) SUPREME COURT CASES 200, the
appellant is also entitled for escalation at 8% per annum with
cumulative effect which comes to Rs.1,81,798/- per acre with
statutory benefits. On all these grounds, the learned counsel
sought for compensation at Rs.1,81,798/- per acre.
Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that, if this Court is not
intended to award compensation on the basis of judgment and
award passed in LACA No.149 of 2014 (supra), this Court can
award the compensation as per the judgment dated 15th
February, 2018 passed by this Court in MSA No.200092 of 2017
rendered in the case of MALKAJAPPA AND OTHERS v. SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, which pertains to the lands
acquired in Harsoor village, which village is nearby to Tondakal
village, which lands are acquired by the respondents for the
purpose of Bennethora Project in the same year, i.e. vide
Preliminary Notification dated 05th July, 1990. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, has awarded the compensation of
Rs.1,52,059/- per acre to the acquired land in Survey No.98 of
Harsoor village with all statutory benefits. The learned counsel
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
further submits that the KNNL has preferred Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No.2563 of 2020 in KNNL v. MALKAJAPPA
AND OTHERS, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning
the order passed by this Court in MSA No.200092 of 2017
(supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special
Leave Petition. The copy of the judgment dated 28th February,
2020 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2563 of
2020 is also produced by the learned counsel.
4. The learned Counsel Sri Sanjeev Kumar Patil
appearing for KNNL and Sri Gopalakrishna B. Yadav, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondents, submit that the First Appellate Court has awarded
compensation as awarded in LACA No.44 of 2009 and
determined the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre. It is
their submission that the preliminary notification pertaining to
the case on hand is issued in the year 1990. Now the appellant
has relied upon the decision of the Reference Court rendered in
LACA No.149 of 2014 pertaining to the lands acquired under
preliminary notification issued on 13th September, 1984.
Therefore, on the basis of this judgment, appellant cannot seek
enhancement of compensation. Though the KNNL has satisfied
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
the award passed in LACA No.149 of 2014, that cannot be a
ground for enhancement of compensation in this case. With
regard to escalation is concerned, the learned counsel submit
that escalation of price to determine the compensation
pertaining to land acquired in 1994 is not applicable. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of SLAO v. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS
reported in 2010(5) SCC 708; and in the case of MANOJ KUMAR
ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.
rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.13132-13141 of 2017 decided on
disposed of on 13th September, 2017.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of material placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement
of compensation as per the judgment of this Court
dated 15th February, 2018 rendered in MSA
No.200092 of 2013 which is confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.2563 of
2020 in KNNL v. MALKAJAPPA AND OTHERS?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
2. What Order or award:
My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
6. I have carefully examined the material placed
before this Court. The appellant is the owner of dry land in
Survey No.22/2 of Tondakal village, acquired by the
respondents for the purpose of Bennethora Project vide
Preliminary Notification, dated 11th October, 1990 issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 30th
December, 1991 determining the market value at Rs.6,300/-
per acre of dry land. Upon reference, the Reference Court has
awarded the compensation of Rs.17,000/- per acre. Being
aggrieved by the award passed by the Reference Court, the
appellant has preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court.
The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and award dated 07th
August 2015 passed LACA No.821 of 2012, enhanced the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre with all statutory
benefits. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by
the First Appellate Court, the appellant is before this Court in
this Second Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. With regard to submission of learned counsel for the
appellant with regard to adding escalation at 8% per annum
considering the award dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the First
Appellate Court in LAC No.44 of 2009 which is pertaining to
notification issued on 13th September, 1984 is concerned, there
is a gap of more than six years in the notification pertaining to
LAC No.149 of 2014 and the present case. Though the land in
question and the land involved in LACA No.149 of 2014 are
situated in the same village, since there is along gap of more
than six years, it is not just and proper to assess the market
value of the property by adding escalation at the rate of 8% per
annum with cumulative effect. Hence, the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot
be considered.
8. With regard to award passed by this Court in MSA
No.200092 of 2017, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2563 of 2020
disposed of on 28th February, 2020 is concerned, this Court has
awarded the compensation of Rs.1,52,059/- per acre with all
statutory benefits to the lands in Survey No.98 of Harsoor
village acquired by the respondents in the same year for the
same project under preliminary notification dated 05th July,
1990. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the land situated in Tondakal village is very near to the
land acquired in Harsoor village and are within a distance of
less than four kilometers. The nature of the land involved in
MSA No.200092 of 2017 is also the dry land. Since the award
passed by this Court to the lands in Survey No.98 of Harsoor
village situate in same taluk which is confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is just and proper to award same
compensation of Rs.1,52,059/- per acre of land with all
statutory benefits. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
9. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2884
ORDER
1. Appeal is partly allowed with costs;
2. Appellant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,52,059/- per acre with all statutory benefits;
3. It is made clear that the appellant is not entitled
for interest on the compensation for the delayed
period in preferring the first appeal;
4. Appellant shall pay the deficit court fee and file
fresh valuation slip within a period eight weeks;
5. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
