Karnataka High Court
Mahalingappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
MSA No. 19 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2017 (LA)
BETWEEN:
MAHALINGAPPA,
SON OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KAGGERE VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 117.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
Digitally KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105.
signed by ...RESPONDENTS
MALATESH (BY SRI. T.P. MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
KC
Location: THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF THE
HIGH KARNATAKA LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE
COURT OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN
KARNATAKA RA.NO.129/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IInd ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED;
01.03.2012 PASSED IN LAC.NO.78/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION PRAYING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
MSA No. 19 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.T.P.Malipatil, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the respondents.
2. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with
the award passed by the reference Court and the First
Appellate Court with regard to three coconut trees has
preferred this present appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. Land of the appellant in Sy.No.26/2A1 measuring
13 guntas, situated in Chindigere village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi
Taluk was acquired by the respondent for construction of
Hemavathi Canal.
3.2. The acquired land said to have contained ten
coconut trees, three fruit yielding mango trees and eight
tamarind trees.
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
4. Learned Judge in the reference Court, granted
compensation which did not satisfy the claimant. Therefore,
claimant filed an appeal before the District Court, Tumkur in
RA(LAC) No.129/2012.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
reconsidering the rival contentions of the parties, enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per gunta in respect of
5 guntas of land in Sy.No.26/2A1 of Chindigere village and
allowed compensation for three coconut trees at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per coconut tree and sum of Rs.44,100/- in respect
of six mango trees and Rs.12,750/- in respect of seven
tamarind trees.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the claimant
is before this Court, in this appeal.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the amount of compensation determined by the
learned Judge in the reference Court as well as the First
Appellate Court in respect of the trees that were situated in the
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
acquired land, is on the lower side and sought for enhanced
compensation.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate supports the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Trial Court.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in MFA No.5709/2015 dated 18.06.2021 in respect of quantum
of compensation of coconut trees, wherein this Court has
awarded sum of Rs.10,800/- per tree in the acquired land
which was situated in vicinity of the land in question in the
present appeal.
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, in
respect of similarly situated acquired land, this Court in Division
Bench ruling as referred to supra, has awarded sum of
Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree. Therefore, appellant has made
out a case for enhancing the compensation in respect of
coconut trees at the rate of Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree in
NC: 2024:KHC:29877
partial modification with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
coconut tree.
12. Insofar as mango trees and tamarind trees, the
appellant has not made out any good grounds to enhance the
compensation.
13. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The quantum of compensation assessed by the
First Appellate Court is maintained except for the
coconut trees, which has been enhanced to sum
of Rs.10,800/- per coconut tree.
iii. Office is directed to pass appropriate modified
award with consequential benefits.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CT: BHK
