Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Rudragouda S/O Salbanna Kabadagi And ... on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
MFA No. 200025 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200025 OF 2016 (LAC)
C/W.
MFA CROSS OBJ. NO.200051 OF 2018(LAC)
IN MFA NO.200025/2016:-
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KPTCL(KEB)
VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN
Location: High AND
Court of
Karnataka
1. RUDRAGOUDA
S/O SALABANNA KABADAGI
DEAD BY LR'S.
1(a) SMT. GOURABAI
W/O RUDRAGOUDA KABADAGI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
MFA No. 200025 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
1(b) SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O SANGANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1(c) SRI RACHAGONDA @ RACHOTI
S/O RUDRAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. KADLEWAD PCH,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-585107.
2. THE SLAO AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV., FOR C/R1;
SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP, FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI AT-
SINDAGI IN LAC NO.43/2007.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
MFA No. 200025 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
IN MFA CROB NO.200051/2018:-
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RUDRAGOUDA
S/O SALABANNA KABADAGI
DEAD BY LR'S.
1(a) SMT. GOURABAI
W/O RUDRAGOUDA KABADAGI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
1(b) SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O SANGANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1(c) SRI. RACHAGONDA @ RACHOTI
S/O RUDRAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 15.02.2022.
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. KADLEWAD PCH,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
INDI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KPTCL, KEB,
VIJAYPUR-586101.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
MFA No. 200025 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP, FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 41 rule
22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE CROSS OBJECTORS BY
SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDAGI, IN LAC NO.43/2007.
THE MFA AND MFA CROB. COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in
LAC No.43/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sindagi, at Sindagi, dated 20.12.2014, the
Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Vijayapur, has filed the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
appeal, in that the claimants have also preferred Cross
Objections.
2. The appellant is the befificiary, a notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was
published in the Official Gazette on 29.11.2001.
Thereafter, the land to an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas,
belonging to the respondent-claimant was acquired for
the purpose of construction of Electricity 33 K.V.
Station at Kadlewad Village, Tq: Sindagi, Dist:
Vijayapur and an amount of Rs.18,000/- per acre was
awarded. Later under Section 19(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has
referred the matter to the civil court. Before the
reference Court, the claimant was examined as PW1
and 20 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P20 were marked on
his behalf. None was examined and Exs.R1 and R2
are marked on behalf of the appellant. The Court
below has observed that there are 3 methods of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
valuation generally adopted, (i) Opinion of experts;
(ii) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona
fide transactions of the purchase or sale of lands
acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired
and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) the
number of years purchase of actual or immediately
prospective profits of the lands acquired i.e.,
capitalization method. The Court had considered the
other judgment wherein the value of the land is fixed
at Rs.6,77,000/- for irrigated land and as the land in
question is a dry land, 2/3rd of it was taken as
Rs.4,51,333/-, which was rounded of to Rs.4,51,500/-
per acre. As the notification is 05 years prior to the
award passed by the Court, the de-escalation of 2.5%
per year for 5 years i.e., 12.5% is deducted from
market value and by deducting an amount of
Rs.56,437-50 i.e., 12.5% rounded of to Rs.3,95,100/-
per acre. The Court had fixed market value of one
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
acre at Rs.3,95,100/- and for the 2 acres 10 guntas of
the petitioner's land the Court had granted an amount
of Rs.8,88,975/- and 13% solatium on the enhanced
compensation, which worked out to Rs.2,66,693/- and
12% additional market value on the date of 4(1)
notification Rs.1,86,466/-. Totally an amount of
Rs.13,42,134/- was granted. In that, the
compensation that was already paid at Rs.59,358/-
was deducted and Court had granted compensation of
an amount of Rs.12,82,776/- for 2 acres 10 guntas of
the dry land of the petitioner which was acquired for
the purpose of constructing the Electricity 33 K.V.
Station.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
beneficiary submits that while the Court had observed
that there are 3 methods of determining the market
value i.e., i) Experts' opinion method, ii) Sale
Statistics method and iii) Capitalization of income
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
method, the Court gives its specific finding that to
determine the compensation on the 2 methods, there
is no evidence placed before the Court. When it
comes to the 3rd method, the Court had considered
acquisition case of the year 2007 when in the present
case acquisition is of the year 2001 and Court had
adopted deescalating 2.5% for 5 years and has
arrived at a conclusion that the rate per acre is
Rs.3,95,100/-.
4. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of
the Apex Court in case of General Manager, Oil &
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., vs Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel & Anrs., dated 31.07.2008
arising out of Civil Appeal Nos.5192-5198/2022
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has depreciated
this practice of de-escalation and has observed that
the said procedure is not a safe procedure and the
Court should therefore avoid determination of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
market value with reference to subsequent future
transactions even if it becomes inevitable there should
be greater caution while applying the cautions fetched
for transaction in future.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel in this
case that when it is the case of the claimants that
there is a particular price for the said land. The
burden lies on the claimant to adduce evidence in that
regard. But in this case no such evidence is adduced.
The Court below having observed that no evidence is
placed on record had considered acquisition of the
year 2007, de-escalated price and came to a
conclusion that one acre will fetch the said amount.
Learned counsel further submits that said procedure
adopted by the Court below is contrary to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and without any
basis compensation has been awarded by the Court
below.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that, the compensation that was awarded by
the Tribunal was on the lower side. The Court below
has considered that the land was a dry land and the
Court ought to have observed the land was irrigated
land and in case of irrigated land the compensation
would be much more than what has been awarded by
the Court. Considering the value of land as per
acquisition of year 2007 and the market value, he
submits that the Court below had rightly considered.
The only grievance of the claimants is that the Court
ought to have considered the said land as irrigated
land and should have granted the compensation.
7. Having heard the learned counsels on either
side, perused the material available on record.
8. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has
fixed compensation at Rs.18,000/- per acre. The
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
claimants were unsatisfied with the same and the
matter was referred to the Civil Court. When it is the
case that the compensation of Rs.18,000/- per acre
fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not
reasonable compensation, the burden lies on the
claimant to prove that the land value is a particular
amount by adducing cogent evidence. This Court has
perused the exhibits, though Exs.P1 to P20 are
marked, none of those documents show what is the
value of the land at the relevant point of time and the
Court went wrong in arriving at a compensation basing
on acquisition of 2007, which is 06 years after
acquisition notification in this case. The said
procedure adopted by the Court below is not correct
and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it
appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below
for fresh consideration, whereby, both the parties are
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
at liberty to adduce evidence and the Court below by
considering the said evidence shall decide the
compensation. As this is an acquisition of 2001,
without further notice the parties shall appear before
the Court below by 27.03.2024 and within six months
from 27.03.3024 the Court below shall dispose of the
petition.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that this Court by order dated 12.07.2016 directed to
deposit 50% of the award amount, they have
deposited 100% and the same is lying before the
Court below. Both the counsels submit that in view
Section 64 of the Karnataka Courts Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1954, as the matter is remanded back
to the Court below, they are entitled for refund of the
Court Fee paid. Hence, considering Section 64 of the
said Act, the Registry is directed to refund the Court
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1388
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200051 of 2018
Fee paid by the appellant as well as the cross objector
-claimant.
10. The deposited amount should remain in the
account till the disposal of the petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
