Dismissed

The Assistant Commissioner v. Shri.Uttam Govind Savant

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2019MFA/100062/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal against the compensation award. The court observed that the land of the respondent was acquired for airport extension similarly to a reference case at Balekundri village, which received higher compensation (Rs.40,320 per gunta) and was settled by the State government without an appeal

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to establish grounds to interfere given the settlement of a similar reference case.

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Uttam Govind Savant — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

M.F.A.NO.100062 OF 2019 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELAGAVI SUB DIVISION, BELAGAVI.

¶10

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.24, GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶11

THE PRL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶14

AND

¶15

SHRI.UTTAM GOVIND SAVANT, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBRA, TQ & DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶16

¶17

THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF AERODROMES, SHANTACRUS, BOMBAY-99.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAMESH N.MISALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.35,700/- PER GUNTHA.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Mr.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the

¶24

appellants. Mr.Ramesh N.Misale, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.M.B.Kanavi, learned CGSC for respondent No.2.

¶25

Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

¶26

¶27

In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants have assailed the validity of the award dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Reference Court by which a sum of Rs.35,700/- per gunta has been determined as market value of the land of respondent No.1.

¶28

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in the instant case, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of the land of respondent No.1 for extension of the Airport was issued on 14.08.2008 and the Reference Court has determined Rs.35,700/- per gunta as market value of the land of respondent No.1. However, it is pointed out that reference to the judgment dated 28.04.2018 rendered in LAC No.45/2011 that, in the aforesaid case, in respect of a land

¶29

¶30

situated at Balekundri village, which is situated at a distance of 2 k.m. away from the airport, compensation of Rs.40,320/- per gunta has been granted and against aforesaid judgment passed by the Reference Court instead of filing an appeal, the State Government has satisfied the amount awarded by the Reference Court by making payment of the same to the land owners. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

The aforesaid factual assertion made

¶32

by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has not been disputed by learned HCGP.

¶33

We have considered the submissions made on both sides. Admittedly, the lands situated at village Balekundri and the land of respondent No.1 were agricultural lands. Admittedly, the land of respondent No.1 is situated at village Sambra and has been

¶34

¶35

acquired for the purposes of extension of the airport, whereas the land at village Balekundri is situated at a distance of 2 k.m. away from the land of respondent No.1. In respect of the land situated at village Balekundri, compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.40,320/- per gunta, whereas in case of respondent No.1, the compensation has been awarded only in respect of Rs.35,700/- per gunta. Therefore, prima facie, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal as the appellants in respect of the lands situated at Balekundri village has not filed any appeal and even though the amount of compensation has been awarded at the enhanced rate at Rs.40,320/- per gunta, instead of filing an appeal, the aforesaid amount has been paid to the land owners.

¶36

¶37

In view of preceding analysis, we do

¶38

not find any ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

CLK

The Assistant Commissioner v. Shri.Uttam Govind Savant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Commissioner v. Shri.Uttam Govind Savant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Infotech Computer Educatuion Vs the Karnataka Institute of Medical Science

Chandrashekar Sridhar Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs the Principal Secretary

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mahaboobsab S/O Sannaharjarathsab Makandar, Vs State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Basavanni Ramu Chogule