Karnataka High Court
Shri. Ramanagouda S/O Nandagouda Patil vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
MSA No. 100060 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100060 OF 2017 (LA)
BETWEEN:
1. NANDAGOUDA PARAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
SHRI. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. NANDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARALIMATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. ADIVEPPA S/O. NANDAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARALIMATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDAKAL DAM, HIDAKAL, A/P: HIDAKAL, TQ: ATHANI.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD,
Digitally signed G.R.B.C. DIVISION NO.5, KOUJALAGI.
by MANJANNA
E ...RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
COURT OF SRI UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
KARNATAKA
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, BELAGIVI, SITTING AT GOKAK DATED 10-02-2016 IN LAC
APPEAL NO.47/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, AT GOKAK, IN LAC
NO.20/2011 DATED 26/03/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE PETITION, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
MSA No. 100060 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by land losers seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the reference
Court i.e., 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Gokak, At
Gokak in LAC No.20/2011 dated 26.03.2012 and LAC
No.47/2013 dated 10.02.2016 passed by First Appellate
Court i.e., XII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, sitting at Gokak.
2. The land in question in Sy.Nos.94/1, 94/2, 94/3
and 94/4 measuring 2 acre 24 guntas situated at
Aralimatti Village, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District, was
acquired for the purpose of Hidakal Dam project by the
respondents in terms of the notification dated
26.06.2006 and award was passed on
03.05.2010/03.01.2010 determining the market value of
the acquired land at a sum of Rs.1,12,308/- per acre.
Aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded,
the land losers sought reference under Section 18(1) of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
the Land Acquisition Act, which was registered in LAC
No.20/2011 by the reference Court. Based on oral and
documentary evidence placed before the reference Court,
the compensation was enhanced to a sum of
Rs.2,20,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits etc.
The land losers being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation preferred an appeal before first Appellate
Court in L.A.C. A. No.47/2013. The same was dismissed
on 10.02.2016 by confirming the order passed by the
first Appellate Court. The land losers being aggrieved by
the quantum of compensation filed an appeal contending
that the land in question was an agricultural land, which
was being cultivated for sugar cane. The land losers
claimed that the market value of the land at the time of
acquisition was Rs.2,47,500/- per acre and therefore, the
award passed by the reference court and first Appellate
Court was unjust and the compensation awarded by the
reference Court and first Appellate Court is very meager,
thus, required to be enhanced.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
3. Sri. Umesh C. Ainapur, learned counsel
appearing of KNML-respondent submitted that the
enhanced compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer is just and proper and he has taken up the
contention that the reference Court as well as first
appellate Court have taken into account the revenue
records and the market value, which indicated that the
land in question was a dry land and it had determined the
compensation based on the capitalization method. Hence,
he submits that the reference Court and the first
appellate Court were justified in determining the market
value at Rs.2,20,000/- per acre. Accordingly, he prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
4. It is not in dispute that the land in question was
acquired by the respondent for Hidakal Dam project.
From the perusal of Exs-P3 to P7-Record of Rights of the
acquired land bearing Sy.Nos.94, 94/1, 94/2, 94/3 and
94/4 for the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002, wherein the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
source of water is river and the name of the crop grown
in the acquired land for those years was recorded as
sugarcane. In support of the claim of the land losers,
they have relied upon Exs-P10 to P12- sugarcane
weighing slips to show that sugar cane was grown on the
acquired lands. It shows that the acquired lands were
irrigated lands and considering the market value and the
present hike in the value of the agricultural land, the first
appellate Court ought to have enhanced the
compensation from Rs.2,20,000/- to Rs.2,47,500/-.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the material available on record, it is just and
proper to award a sum of Rs.2,47,500/- as sought for by
the appellants.
Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7523
2. The judgment and award in LAC No.20/2011
dated 26.03.2012 passed by Reference Court
i.e., 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Gokak, At
Gokak and LAC No.47/2013 dated 10.02.2016
passed by First Appellate Court i.e., XII
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, sitting at Gokak is modified and the
market value of the acquired lands is
determined at a sum of Rs.2,47,500/- per
acre.
3. The appellants/land losers are entitled to
statutory benefits and interest in accordance
with law, excluding the interest for the delayed
period, if any, in filing this appeal.
4. The appellants shall make good the deficit
court fee, if any, within four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
5. Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10.
