Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangavva W/O Hanumantappa ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31 July, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
MSA No. 100125 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100125 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA NADUVINAHALLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591111.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR AND SRI.P. V. SAMBARGI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT III, DHARWAD,
NOW AT SECTOR NO. 60, NAVANAGAR,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT - 587103.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KNNL NAVILUTHREETH NO.2,
DAM SITE, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
YASHAVANT DIST: BELAGAVI - 591126.
NARAYANKAR ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
Location: SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA MSA FILED U/S 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894,
PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.
5,08,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC
NO.270/2011 DTD 03.02.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI AND LAC APPEAL NO.2/2018 DTD
17.09.2022 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COST.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
MSA No. 100125 of 2022
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant is claiming enhanced compensation on
the basis of judgment and award passed by the
co-ordinate bench of this Court arising out of the same
notification.
2. With the consent of learned counsels on both
sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. The respondent/Government of Karnataka
acquired large extent of land by issuing notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the
Act'). Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was issued. The SLAO passed the award determining the
market value at Rs.37,325/- per acre with statutory
benefits. The appellant sought enhancement of the
compensation by seeking reference to the Civil Court. The
reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the
Civil Court for determination of the market value. The
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
reference Court allowed the reference in part and fixed the
market value of the acquired property at the rate of
Rs.1,80,000/- per acre with statutory benefits.
4. The appellant being not satisfied, filed an
appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act before the first
appellate Court. There being a delay in filing the appeal,
the application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. The appellate Court having dismissed the application
filed seeking condonation of delay and consequently,
dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal under Section
54(2) of the Act is filed.
5. It is the case of the appellant that on account of
her financial condition, illiteracy and dependency on
others, there was delay in filing the appeal before the
District Court. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant is
peasant and illiterate and that by the belated filing of the
appeal, she did not gain anything.
6. It is further submitted that delay being
bonafided and for the reasons beyond their control, it is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
liable to be condoned. It is further submitted that the
Court below is unjustified in refusing to condone the delay
and has erred in dismissing the appeal, despite the appeal
filed by other claimants having been allowed and
compensation payable determined at Rs.3,50,000/- per
acre with statutory benefits. Reliance was placed on the
common judgment passed in MSA No.100012/2016 with
connected matters, decided on 19.07.2016 i.e., for grant
of enhanced compensation and also for condonation of
delay.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submitted that the delay being
inordinate, having not been satisfactorily explained and
there being negligence and latches on the part of the
appellant, the first appellate Court is justified in refusing to
condone the delay and consequently, dismissing the
appeal. The learned counsel submits that if this Court
comes to the conclusion that opportunity should be given
to the appellant to lead evidence on delay condonation
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
application, the matter be remanded to the appellate
Court.
8. Considering the rival submissions and perusing
the record, the points for consideration are:
i. Whether the appellate Court has erred
in refusing to condone the delay and
dismissing the appeal?
ii. Whether the appellant is entitled for
payment of enhanced compensation?
9. Re-point No.1: No doubt, there is long delay in
filing the appeal before the District Court. However, it is to
be seen that the first appellate Court has passed awards in
respect of the appeals filed by other claimants involving
the lands acquired under the same notification and for the
same project. The appellate Court has allowed the appeals
and enhanced the compensation payable at the rate of
Rs.3,50,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits.
10. In the second appeal preferred by the other
claimant, co-ordinate Bench has fixed the market value of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
the acquired property at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with all
statutory benefits. Thus, there being prima facie case for
consideration, the appellate Court should have kept in
view the fact that the appellant is an agriculturist and
could not prefer the appeal within the period allowed
under law, should have allowed the appeal taking note of
weak financial condition and valuable piece of land held by
the appellant, having been acquired, the compensation in
accordance with law is required to be paid also keeping in
view Article 300-A of the Constitution. At this stage, it
would be appropriate to notice that almost in similar
situation, in the case of Market Committee Hodal V/s
Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has condoned delay of 3240 days.
11. The appellant being a woman and not well
educated and being dependent upon others even to put
forth her claim, a lenient approach has to be adopted and
she should not be deprived the just compensation for
acquisition of her land i.e., the payment of compensation
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
on par with similarly situated land owners. The appellate
Court has not adopted a pragmatic approach.
12. In the circumstances, equities can be balanced
by denying interest for the period for which she did not
approach the District Court. There can be denial of interest
for the delay period in preferring the first appeal. The
appellate Court ought to have kept in view the principles
enunciated by the Apex Court regarding condonation of
delay, in the case of Collector (Land Acquisition) V/s
Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, which was
followed in the case of DDA V/s Bhola Nath Sharma
(2011) 2 SCC 54, wherein, the matter related to the land
acquisition.
13. Having regard to the above, the appellate Court
has committed an error in refusing to condone the delay.
The co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of
Razaqsab M. Kamalsabanavar and Another V/s The
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprapha
Project-3, Dharwad and connected matters decided on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
19.07.2016 has considered the above aspects and
condoned the delay in filing the appeal denying the
interest for the period of delay.
14. Keeping in view of the above, the delay in filing
the appeal filed before the appellate Court stands
condoned by denying the interest for the period of delay.
It is made clear that there shall be no liability on the
respondents to pay interest to the appellant on the
enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the
appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act. Point No.1 stands
answered accordingly.
15. Re-point No.2: In respect of similar lands
acquired for same project, the appellate Court has
determined compensation payable at Rs.3,50,000/- per
acre and allowed statutory benefits. The co-ordinate bench
in the case of Razaqsab (supra), in respect of similar
lands acquired for same project following the judgment
and award dated 26.08.2013 passed in MFA
No.24037/2012 and MFA No.21438/2012 and connected
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
appeals, the compensation payable was determined at
Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits. Hence,
the appellant being identically placed and the land being of
similar nature acquired for the same project, the appellant
is entitled to the market value of Rs.5,08,000/- per acre
along with statutory benefits and costs, as was determined
by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.21438/2012
and connected appeals disposed of on 13.11.2014.
16. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed with cost and the impugned
judgments and awards are set aside.
ii) The market value of acquired property of the
appellant is fixed at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with all
statutory benefits and costs.
iii) The appellant is not entitled to interest for the
delay period in preferring of the first appeal. The
enhanced award amount shall be deposited in the
reference Court within a period of three months.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10797
iv) The office is directed to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:ANB
