Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 6 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
MFA No. 22820 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 101336 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22820 OF 2013 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101336 OF 2020 (LAC)
IN MFA NO. 22820 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANAND DUNDAPPA MOORAMATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. VEERANA DUNDAPPA MOORAMATTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T 3. SHANKARAPPA GUNDAPPA MOORAMATTI,
R
Location: High
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Court of
Karnataka,
ALL ARE R/O. BAGALKOT,
Dharwad Bench
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT,
MIP, NO.3, DHARWAD.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KNNLTD., DN NO.1, MUCHAKHANDI CROSS,
TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
MFA No. 22820 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 101336 of 2020
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN LAC
NO.143/2010 DATED 04.03.2013 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.4,55,180/- PER ACRE TO RS.
162 PER SQ FEET WITH THE STATUTORY BENEFITS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO. 101336 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MLBC, DIVN.NO.1, GADDANAKERI,
KNNL, BAGALKOT-587101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. M. TONNE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT NO.3,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DIST: BAGALKOT-580001.
GANGAPPA HEMALAPPA LAMANI @ NAYAK,
(SINCE DECEASED THOUGH HIS LRS),
3. GURUBAI W/O. GANGAPPA LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4. POMAPPA S/O. GAGAPPA LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETD SERVICE.
5. RAMESH S/O. GAGAPPA LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
MFA No. 22820 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 101336 of 2020
6. KAMALABAI W/O. UMESH LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
7. JAGADISH S/O. UMESH LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.
8. NAGESH S/O. UMESH LAMANI @ NAYAK,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
9. USHA W/O. RAJU RATHOD,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
10. GULABI W/O. RAMESH LAMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O: MUCHAKHADI, L.T.NO.2,
TQ: BAGALKOT-587101.
HEERAPPA HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
11. SONABAI W/O. HEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
12. GOPAL S/O. HEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE.
13. ASHOK S/O. HEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
14. LALITA W/O. PEERAPPA RATHOD,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O: BAGALKOT,
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, R8, R9, R11 TO R14;
NOTICE TO R3, R7 & R10 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BAGALKOT, IN LAC NO.85/2015 BY ALLOWING THIS M.F.A WITH
COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
MFA No. 22820 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 101336 of 2020
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as
beneficiary of acquisition challenging the judgment and award
dated 4.3.2013 passed in LAC No.143/2010 and dated
9.7.2019 passed in LAC No.85/2015 by the learned II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Bagalakot1.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Reference Court has passed the award with all statutory
benefits, which is as under:
Sl. LAC No. SLAO Award Reference Court
No. award
1. 143/2010 Rs.53,213/- per acre Rs.4,55,180/- per acre
2. 85/2015 Rs.75,103/- per acare Rs.70,56,720/- per acre
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Reference Court.
4. The brief facts of the case of the land loser in both
cases are as follows:
'Reference Court', for short
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
Respondent No.1 -Special Land Acquisition Officer, MIP
No.3, Malaprabha Project, Dharwad had acquired the
petitioners' lands bearing RS No.181/2 measuring 29 guntas &
RS No.160/3/1A measuring 35 guntas respectively situated at
Muchakhandi village, Bagalakot Taluka & District along with
other lands by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the
L.A. Act dated 15.09.2005, for the purpose of construction of
Malaprabha canal. After acquisition of the lands, respondent
No.1 awarded the compensation of Rs.53,213/- per acre for dry
lands and Rs.75,103/- per acre for Khushki lands respectively
and issued award notices and after receipt of award notices,
the petitioners have received the amount with protest and also
sought reference under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act, for
enhancement before the Reference Court, contending that
lands acquired are non-agricultural lands and it is adjoining to
APMC, Bagalkot town. At the time of issuance of notification
under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, the market value of subject
property was more than Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. The claimants
also contended that there are several residential houses
constructed surrounding the acquired land. The acquired land
is Horticulture land wherein 36 coconut trees, teakwood and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
nilgiris trees are grown in the land. There is one RCC building in
the land. Therefore, compensation awarded by the Reference
Court is too low, nominal and it is proportionate to the existing
market value of the land and inadequate and confiscatory in
nature.
5. The claimants/land losers have also relied upon the
earlier award passed in L.A.C. No.83/2013 and submitted that
the lands involved in this matter and the subject matter of LAC
No.83/2013 are acquired for same project and situated at
adjoining villages, wherein, the Reference Court awarded
Rs.162/- per sq.ft. The reference Court has not considered the
potentiality of the land, its situations etc. The award passed is
arbitrary and unjust and prayed to enhance the compensation.
6. After receipt of the records from respondent No.1
and in pursuance of the notice issued by the Reference Court,
claimants and beneficiary appeared through their counsel.
7. The appellant/Beneficiary filed his objections
statement strongly opposing claim petitions contending that
respondent No.1 has passed the award by considering all the
relevant factors and the market value fixed by respondent No.1
is in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
that the petitioners filed reference application under Section
18(1) of the L.A. Act are barred by limitation and prayed to
dismiss the same.
8. In order to prove their case, the claimants in LAC
No.143/2010 examined PA Holder of claimant No.3 as P.W.1
and got marked Exs.P1 to P26, and on behalf of the beneficiary,
Ex.R1-award copy got marked. In LAC No.85/2015, claimant
No.2(C) examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P11, and on behalf of the beneficiary, Ex.R1-award copy got
marked.
9. The Reference Court, on the basis of the rival
contentions, has framed necessary points for its consideration
and after hearing both the parties and considering the oral and
documentary evidence and other materials available on record,
has partly allowed the petitions and fixed the market value of
the lands in question at Rs.4,55,180/- per acre in LAC
No.143/2010 and Rs.70,56,720/- per acre in LAC No.85/2015
respectively along with all other statutory benefits.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants
preferred an appeal in MFA No.22820/2013 seeking further
enhancement, contending that the Reference Court has failed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
to consider the NA Potentiality of the acquired land, which is
situated within the town limits of Bagalakot and so also
surrounded by residential houses etc. Hence, the determination
of the market value as determined by the Reference Court is at
meager side and unreasonable, though the acquired land is
being treated as having NA potentiality, the Reference Court
has failed to consider Ex.P23-award passed in LAC
No.143/2009 in respect of acquisition of very same project
relating to adjacent village. Thus, it clearly indicates the
compensation amount determined by the Reference Court is
inadequate and unreasonable.
11. It is contended that the lands acquired are situated
at Muchakhandi Village of Bagalakot Taluk and District and the
same were acquired for the same project and those lands were
adjacent to each other. The subject matter of LAC No.83/2013,
were acquired for the same project and situated at adjoining
village, wherein the Reference Court awarded Rs.162/- per
sq.ft. Hence, the Reference Court ought to have granted
similar compensation on the ground of parity to the claimants.
12. It is further contended that the Reference Court has
committed an error in determining the market value based on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
the earlier decision rendered in L.A.C. No.276/2001 & LAC
No.418/2001 (Ex.P18). The Reference Court has failed to apply
its mind that the acquired land was of the year 2005 and value
of land is raised to 20 times than the market value determined
in L.A.C. No.276/2001 & LAC No.418/2001. Hence, the market
value at the rate of Rs.4,55,180/- per acre is unfair and
unreasonable, which requires to be determined as per the sale
transaction taken place as on the date of notification issued
under 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by Respondent No.1.
Hence, the Reference Court ought to have been dealt with the
matter independently rather than relying on the earlier decision
rendered in L.A.C. No.276/2001 & 418/2001. Lastly, the
counsel for the appellants contended that the acquisition of the
lands was for the purpose of construction of canal in the town
limits of Bagalkot and the surrounding lands were fully
developed with government offices and commercial buildings,
and therefore, no deductions are permissible and hence, the
lands in question are highly potential and thus, seek for
enhancement of the compensation.
13. In MFA No.101336/2020, the appellant/Beneficiary
has taken contention that, the judgment and award passed by
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
the Reference Court enhancing the compensation of the
acquired lands is contrary to law and evidence on record. The
Reference Court has failed to consider the market value fixed
by the SLAO at the rate of Rs.53,213/- per acre in respect of
the land acquired was just and proper and the claimants have
not made out any case for enhancement of compensation in
excess to the market value fixed by the SLAO. The Reference
Court is not justified in enhancing the compensation by relying
upon Ex.P2 i.e., the judgment and award passed in LAC
No.45/2008, without assessing the value of the land acquired in
the present acquisition proceedings based upon the nature of
the land and the materials on record. The compensation
awarded in respect of the land acquired in the same village
cannot be a ground to fix the same market value. The acquired
lands are Khushki yari lands only and their nature is growing
only one crop. The Reference Court was wrong in holding that
the claimants are entitled for compensation when it has failed
to note that Ex.P2 lands are not similarly situated and further
committed an error in holding that the lands under Ex.P2 and
acquired lands are in adjacent villages and to maintain parity,
uniform rate of compensation has to be awarded without any
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
de-escalation. The Reference Court has failed to make any
deduction towards developmental charges. Under the facts
and circumstances of the case, the market value of the
acquired land in question fixed at Rs.162/- per sq.ft. by the
Reference Court is unjust and unreasonable. The Reference
Court has committed an error in relying upon the judgment
reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2336 and held that uniform rate
should be given as that of in Ex.P2 and further committed an
error in holding that the land in question are having non-
agricultural potentiality without there being any material on
record, nor claimants produced any cogent evidence to
establish that the lands are having NA potentiality. Thus, the
impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in law.
14. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
15. The perusal of the records disclose that the subject
lands are agricultural lands situated within the limits of
Bagalkot town, are having similar features of NA potentiality.
The SLAO by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A.
Act dated 15.09.2005, acquired the subject lands for the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
purpose of construction of Malaprabha canal. After acquisition
of the subject lands, respondent No.1 awarded the
compensation at the rate of Rs.53,213/- per acre to dry lands
and Rs.75,103/- per acre to Khushki lands respectively and it
was enhanced by Reference Court to a sum of Rs.4,55,180/-
and Rs.70,56,720/- per acre respectively.
16. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award of
the Reference Court, it shows that the Reference Court had
relied upon Ex.P9-Copy of Gazette Notification dated
16.06.1975 issued by Government of Karnataka under Section
4(A) of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961.
Under Ex.P10-certified copy of Notification dated 28.06.1976,
the Government has declared the area comprising the city of
Bagalkot and other area shown in Schedule 1 comes under the
limits of Bagalkot City Planning area, wherein the revenue lands
of Muchakhandi village including gavathana area has been
included in Bagalkot Town Planning area. Under Ex.P11-
certified copy of Government notification, villages shown in
Schedule-1 comes under Bagalkot Town Planning area, wherein
revenue village of Muchakhandi and ganvathana area have
been included in Bagalkot Town Planning area. Taking into
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
consideration of all these factors, the Town Planning Authority
from time to time goes on extending its limits for expansion of
city. Therefore, the Reference Court considered Exs.P9 to P11
and held that the acquired lands are in the nature of non-
agricultural potentiality.
17. From perusal of Ex.P2-Certified copy of judgment in
LAC No.45/2008 in respect of RS No.102/2 of Bagalkot village,
the Reference Court determined the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.162/- per sq.ft., which was
acquired under 4(1) Notification dated 26.5.2006. The said
lands were acquired for the purpose of Malaprabha Project.
From the perusal of Ex.P4-Certified copy of the judgment and
award in LAC No.3751/2014 dated 6.12.2018, wherein the
Reference Court awarded compensation for the acquired lands
at the rate of Rs.275.40 per sq.ft. in respect of RS No.190/10
of Muchakandi village of Bagalkot town and the lands were
acquired under 4(1) Notification dated 3.1.2011 and the said
lands were acquired for the purpose of Bagalkot-Kudachi
railway line. Therefore, it clearly establishes that the lands
acquired under Ex.P2 and the lands of the claimants in the
present case are situated in adjacent villages and the purpose
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
of acquisition is one and the same i.e., construction of
Malaprabha Canal. The lands have been acquired under two
different notifications and time gap between two notifications is
3 months 28 days. Therefore, the properties which are
acquired for the similar purpose having same advantage and
disadvantage, the same compensation has to be awarded in
order to maintain parity. Considering the material on record
and discussion made above, we are of the considered view that
it is just and appropriate to determine the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft., considering
the date of issuance of 4(1) notification.
18. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are disposed off.
ii) The compensation awarded by the
Reference in both cases is modified to an
extent that the market value of the
acquired land in both cases is re-
determined at the rate of Rs.150/- per
sq.ft. with all statutory benefits, cost
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16248-DB
including solatium, additional market value
and the interest.
iii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Reference Court in both appeals are
modified to that extent.
iv) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
JTR/ct-an
