Karnataka High Court
Smt. Deergh Kaur vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 September, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
MSA No. 114 of 2018
C/W MSA No. 113 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2018 (LA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2018 (LA)
IN MSA No. 114/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT RAJKUMARI GANGA @ ROHINI KOUR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. R. GREWAL,
R/AT NO.8-A, PANCHSHEEL MARG,
CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110 021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
Digitally ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
signed by C
HONNUR MYSORE SUB DIVISION,
SAB AT MYSORE-570 008.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI T P MALIPATIL, AGA (PH))
KARNATAKA
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR RELEVANT
RECORDS IN L.A.C.NO.260/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE AND ALSO
RELEVANT RECORDS IN L.A.C.A. NO.72/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MYSURU,
EXAMINE THE SAME AND BE PLEASED TO: (A) MODIFY THE
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MYSURU, IN L.A.C.A
NO.72/2016 DATED 14-11-2016 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION TO AN EXTENT OF RS.25/- PER SQ. FT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
MSA No. 114 of 2018
C/W MSA No. 113 of 2018
IN MSA NO. 113/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEERGH KAUR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. HANUWANT SINGH,
R/AT NO.6, PANCHSHEEL MARK,
CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110 021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE [PH])
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, AT MYSORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. P. MALIPATIL, AGA [PH])
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS IN
L.A.C.NO.261/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE AND THE
RELEVANT RECORDS IN L.A.C.A.NO.71/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MYSURU,
EXAMINE THE SAME AND BE PLEASED TO:
(a) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MYSURU, AND ENCHANCE THE
COMPENSATION TO AN EXTENT OF RS.25/- PER SQ.FT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
MSA No. 114 of 2018
C/W MSA No. 113 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, Sri Sushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellants. Perused the written submissions filed on behalf
of the appellants and heard Sri T.P. Malipatil, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
2. Present appeals are by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land
acquired by the respondent for the purposes of Indian Air
force Selection Board having its office in Mysore.
3. Facts which are not in dispute in the case are that
the land of the appellants are acquired for the purpose of
expansion of the office of the Indian Air force Selection Board
at Mysore by issuing necessary notification. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer determined the compensation in a sum of
Rs.44/- per square feet for the acquired land. Being
aggrieved by the same, claimants preferred appeals before
the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
Mysore by filing an application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
4. Learned judge in the Reference Court, after a
thorough enquiry, considered the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the parties, enhanced the
compensation in a sum of Rs.125/- per square feet as
against the sum of Rs.44/- determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
5. Not satisfied with the enhancement made by the
Reference Court, claimants filed an appeal before the III
Additional District Judge at Mysuru in L.A.C.A. No.71/2016
and L.A.C.A. No.72/2016.
6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, took
note of the principles of law enunciated in the case of R.L.
Jain v. DDA, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79, dismissed the
appeal of the claimants holding that the determination of a
compensation by the Reference Court by enhancing it from
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
Rs.44/- per square feet to Rs.125/- per square feet is just
and proper.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants are
in appeal before this Court. Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for
the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeals
memorandum contended that learned judge in the Reference
Court and the learned District Judge have misguided
themselves in determining the compensation in a sum of
Rs.125/- per square feet ignoring the documentary evidence
placed on record by the claimants whereunder, the similar
property was acquired and the determination of the
compensation was made in a sum of Rs.207/- per square
feet and sought for allowing the appeals.
8. Per contra, Sri Malipatil, learned Additional
Government Advocate supports the impugned judgments.
He further points out that the document that is sought to be
relied upon by the appellants is a subsequent acquisition of
the year 1991 which is 10 months later to the acquisition
proceedings in the present case and therefore, determining
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
the value at the rate of Rs.207/- per square feet is rightly
rejected by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the
appeals.
9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the materials on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the materials on record, it is crystal clear that
there is no dispute that the land of the appellants to the
extent of 1062 & 1500 square meters respectively in both
the appeals has been acquired by the respondent for
expansion of office of the Indian Air force Selection Board.
Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate of
compensation at the rate of Rs.44/- per square feet.
Reference Court has enhanced it to a sum of Rs.125/- per
square feet after taking into consideration all the relevant
aspects of the matter.
10. The First Appellate Court concurred with the said
enhancement made by the Reference Court. The document
that is sought to be relied upon by the appellants is in
respect of the awarding of compensation at the rate of
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
Rs.207/- per square feet in respect of the adjacent land
which has also been acquired for the same purpose.
11. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that a person who is similarly placed cannot be
treated discriminately while determining the compensation
especially when the land is acquired for the same project.
12. Therefore, in all fairness, the First Appellate
Court ought to have enhanced reasonable sum over and
above the amount of compensation determined by the
Reference Court.
13. Be it what it may, the fact remains that the land
that has been acquired which has been placed on record as
Ex.P16, was 10 months later and therefore, reasonable
amount could have been reduced from the said
determination taking note of the fact that the acquisition of
the appellants was little earlier. Moreover, in one year there
would not be such a large difference in determining the
compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.207/- per square feet. It
is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
that the respondent has not challenged the determination of
compensation in a sum of Rs.207/- in respect of the adjacent
land which is evident from Ex.P16.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the appellants have made out a case for enhancement
of the compensation reasonably.
15. This would take this Court to the next question as
to what is the proper enhancement to be made in the facts
and circumstances of the case. In this regard, this Court
perused the materials on record wherein, the appellants
themselves have claimed the compensation in a sum of
Rs.150/- per square feet. Therefore, the determination of the
compensation for the land that has been acquired in both the
appeals needs to be re-determined at Rs.150/- per square
feet as against Rs.125/- per square feet awarded by the
Reference Court which has not been challenged by the
respondent.
16. Hence, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:36102
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation is fixed at
Rs.150/- per square feet in both the appeals
with the consequential statutory benefits.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CHS
