Allowed

Sri. Kalakamleshi S/O Gavisiddappa v. the Assistant Commission

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2021MFA/100760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal against judgment and award in a land acquisition reference. The court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 3,80,000 per acre, aligning it with the rate awarded in a related appeal (LAC.A.No.15/2019) involving lands under the same project.

What did the court decide?

Market value fixed at Rs. 3,80,000 per acre; appellant entitled to statutory benefits, cost, interest; office directed to draw award.

Sri. Kalakamleshi S/O Gavisiddappa Vs the Assistant… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

M.F.A.NO.100760/2018 (LAC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI KALKAMALESHI S/O GAVISIDDAPPA @ ANDANAPPA PATANSHETTER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HALAHALLI, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL-583201.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KUSHTAGI-583201.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL-583201.

¶14

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED IN LAC.NO.3/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOPPAL.

¶18

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

: JUDGMENT :

¶21

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶22

the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the counsels, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The captioned appeal is filed by the land owners challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAC.No.3/2014. The appellant land bearing Sy.No.88/1 measuring 15 guntas situated at Halahalli village was acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at Gabbur village in Koppal Taluk under preliminary notification dated 10.04.2008. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.34,770/- per acre.

¶24

Being aggrieved by the inadequate price fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant sought reference. Before the Reference Court the appellant led in ocular evidence and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.42. The reference Court having clubbed several reference

¶25

¶26

applications has passed common order by re-fixing the market value of Rs.2,04,767/- per acre. The present appeal is filed seeking further enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on record, the judgment rendered by this Court in LAC.A.No.15/2019. Placing reliance on the said judgment, he would submit to this Court that the lands are acquired under the same project and under the same notification. The market value is fixed at Rs.3,80,000/- per acre. By relying on this judgment, he would submit to this Court that the appellant’s land which is identical in fertility are also entitled for the same market value i.e., fixed by the Appellate Court in LAC.A.No.15/2019.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit to this Court that the State has not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in LAC.A.No.15/2019.

¶29

¶30

Since it is not in dispute that the subject matter of the land covered under the present appeal are identical and similar in nature to the lands referred to in LAC.A.No.15/2019, I am of the view that the appellant is also entitled to the market value fixed at Rs.3,80,000/per acre as awarded in LAC.A.No.15/2019.

¶31

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and Another¹ has held that,

¶32

where similar lands are acquired under the same project, the same market value has to be uniformly paid, irrespective of the fact that the lands are situated at different villages by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, I am of the view that, the appellant is also entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs.3,80,000/- per acre. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

: ORDER :

¶34

a. Appeal is allowed.

¶35

1 AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3981

¶36

¶37

b. Market value of the land bearing Sy.No.88/1 measuring 15 guntas situated at Halahalli village acquired in the present case is fixed at Rs.3,80,000/- per acre.

¶38

c. The appellant is entitled for statutory benefits, cost and interest.

¶39

d. Since the appellant is restricted their claim at Rs.3,50,000/-, the deficient Court fee shall be paid.

¶40

e. Office to draw award accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

EM/-

Sri. Kalakamleshi S/O Gavisiddappa v. the Assistant Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kalakamleshi S/O Gavisiddappa v. the Assistant Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Rangappa Badami Vs Sri.Shiggaon Math

Dr.Buddhiraj Vs the Spl.Land

Anil S/O. Nirmalkumar Mahajanshet Vs Nagesh S/O. Vithoba Shet

Shri.Vallabhakrishna Pradeep Gonda Vs Sri.Ashok Gopal Gulaganvi

Joseph S/O Martin Dsouza Vs the Executive Officer

Sri. Yellappa S/O Basappa Vs the Land Acquisition Officer