Karnataka High Court
C Narayanagowda vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 21 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47242
MFA No. 7222 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7222 OF 2019 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. C.NARAYANAGOWDA,
S/O.CHANDRAMALLEGOWDA
@ SANNAMARI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. CHAKENAHALLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 130.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BENGALURU-HASSAN RAILWAY BOARD,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M GUAGE LINE CONSTRUCTION,
Location: HIGH TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION),
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS CONTONEMENT,
BENGALURU-560 046.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47242
MFA No. 7222 of 2019
AWARD DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.178/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, KUNIGAL,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.3739/2017 dated
16.02.2024, wherein in respect of similar acquisition, this Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against
Rs.8,32,000/- per acre in favour of the appellant and also held
that the appellant is entitled for other statutory benefits. In the
above said case, the extent of land is 61 guntas and in the case
on hand, the extent of land is 36 guntas i.e., 26 guntas in
Sy.No.48/4 and 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 disputes
that it is only for 10 guntas. But on perusal of the judgment of
the Trial Court, in paragraph No.17 the Trial Court has taken
NC: 2024:KHC:47242
note of both the survey numbers. In respect of Sy.No.48/5B,
out of 20 guntas it is held that the khatha stands in the name of
two persons i.e., Channamallaiah and this petitioner and hence
comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled only to an
extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B and in Sy.No.48/4 to an
extent of 26 guntas. Hence, the contention of the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. There is a
clear finding with regard to the extent of ownership of the
appellant to an extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B and 26
guntas in Sy.No.48/4. This Court in M.F.A.No.3739/2017
enhanced the compensation to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against
Rs.8,32,000/- per acre. Hence, the appellant is also entitled for
the same amount of compensation and there cannot be two
yardsticks for the land losers. The appellant is entitled for Rs.12
lakhs per acre with other statutory benefits and hence the
judgment and award passed by the Trial Court requires to be
modified.
4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:47242
(ii) The judgment and award of the Trial Court
dated 26.02.2015 passed in LAC No.178/2010
is modified enhancing the compensation to
Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against Rs.8,32,000/-
per acre with other statutory benefits.
(iii) However, it is made clear that the appellant is
not entitled for interest for the delayed period
of 1544 days in filing the appeal.
(iv) The respondents are directed to deposit the
amount within eight weeks from today.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
