Karnataka High Court
Sri. Swamygowda vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
MFA No. 6899 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6899 OF 2017 (LAC)
Between:
Sri Swamygowda,
S/o Kalegowda,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Channangihalli Village,
Kattaya Hobli,
Hassan Taluk & District-571201.
- Appellant
(By Sri Rajaram Soorayambail, Advocate)
And:
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Hemavathi Reservoir Project-II,
Office at D.C.Office Building
Digitally signed by
VEERENDRA Hassan-571201.
KUMAR K M
Location: HIGH 2. Executive Engineer
COURT OF
KARNATAKA Cauvery Niravari Nigama,
Holenarasipura,
Hassan-571201.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for R1;
Sri B.R.Prashanth, Advocate for R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894, against the judgment and award dated
24.06.2015 passed in LAC No.173/2014 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hassan, and etc.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
MFA No. 6899 of 2017
Date on which the appeal was
12.09.2024
reserved for judgment
Date on which the judgment was
22.10.2024
pronounced
This appeal, pertaining to Bengaluru Bench, having been
heard and reserved, coming on for pronouncement this day at
Dharwad Bench, judgment was delivered therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
Judgment and award dated 24.06.2015 in LAC
No.173/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Hassan is assailed in this appeal by the
land loser, who was the claimant for compensation.
2. Background for this appeal is, 0-33
guntas of land in Sy.No.9/p27 of Channangihalli
village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk was notified
under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for
acquisition for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir
Project. The date of preliminary notification is
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
04.02.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer passed
award on 04.01.2012 by fixing the market value at
Rs.52,000/- per acre. Upon a reference under
Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, the
Reference court relying on Ex.P16, the certified
copy of the judgment and award in LAC
No.133/2013 and other connected cases, enhanced
the compensation by determining the market value
at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Not satisfied with this
enhancement, the claimant has preferred this
appeal.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri
Rajaram Sooryambail, learned advocate for
claimant/appellant, Sri Mahantesh Shettar,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent
No.1 and Sri B.R.Prashanth, learned advocate for
respondent No.2.
4. Sri Rajaram Sooryambail relied on
judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in MFA
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
No.3703/2018 and submitted that the land therein
was notified for the same project, and this court
enhanced the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta. This appeal therefore may be allowed in
terms of the said judgment.
5. Sri B.R.Prashanth, learned advocate for
respondent No.2 opposed the enhancement to any
extent. His submission was that in MFA
No.3703/2018, land was of another village.
Though the purpose of acquisition was same,
compensation cannot be enhanced by merely
following judgment in other cases as every case
stands on its own facts and circumstances. He has
placed reliance on the judgment in MANOJ KUMAR
AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS 1. Sri Mahantesh Shettar, Additional
Government Advocate also opposed the appeal.
(2018)13 SCC 96
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
6. What is found in Manoj Kumar is a word
of caution that previous awards cannot be simply
followed without application of mind to the given
set of facts and circumstances. Therefore the
judgment in MFA No.3703/2018 can be followed
provided facts and circumstances are akin to the
facts of this case.
7. Here the preliminary notification was
issued on 04.02.2009. The land is situated in
Channangihalli, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk. In
MFA No.3703/2018, it is stated that the lands of
Byadarahalli village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk
was notified under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition
Act on 11.02.2009. That means the claimant's
land and the land of the claimant in MFA
No.3703/2018 belonged to different villages, but of
same Hobli and Taluk. They must be neighboring
villages, otherwise acquisition for same purpose
would not have been possible. In the case on
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
hand, notification was issued on 04.02.2009, and a
week later i.e., on 11.02.2009, lands of
Byadarahalli were notified.
8. Sri Rajaram Sooryambail has relied on
another judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in MFA
No.3760/2018 where market value was enhanced
to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in respect of
acquisition of another piece of land of Byadarahalli
village under notification dated 11.02.2009 for
Yagachi Reservoir Project. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. BAL RAM AND
ANOTHER 2, has made it very clear that there is no
justification if distinction is made between one
land and another whenever lands of different
villages were notified for same purpose. Only
thing to be noted is that nature of all the lands
must be identical.
(2010)5 SCC 747
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
9. Here the claimant's land is of
Channangihalli village, but the land referred to in
MFA No.3703/2018 belongs to Byadarahalli, both
are in same hobli and the nature of the lands is
also same. The learned counsel for respondent
No.2 did not distinguish the nature of lands of two
villages. In view of this factual position, market
value can be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta
by following judgment in MFA No.3703/2018 and
MFA No.3760/2018. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Therefore appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award impugned in
this appeal is modified. Market value
for the acquired land of the claimant
is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta.
NC: 2024:KHC:42499-DB
(iii) The claimant is entitled to all other
statutory benefits and interest. But
in view of order dated 01.04.2022 in
this appeal, the claimant/appellant is
not entitled to interest for 711 days.
(iv) There is no order as to costs. If the
claimant has paid excess court fee,
the same shall be refunded to him.
SD/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KMV/bvv
