Remanded

Mallikarjun v. the Special

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2021MFA/101439/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants and the South-Western Railway both appealed against Reference Court awards enhancing compensation for lands acquired for the Munirabad-Mahaboobnagar railway line. The High Court held that the Reference Court erred in fixing market value solely by parity with consent awards, without evaluating the evidence on fertility and non-agricultural potentiality, and remitted the matters for fresh

What did the court decide?

Judgments and awards of the Senior Civil Judge at Gangavati set aside and remitted to the Reference Court for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made.

Mallikarjun Vs the Special — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101445 of 2015 (LAC) C/W MFA NOS.101439, 101440, 101441, 101442, 101443, 101444, 101446, 101447, 101448, 103138, 103139, 103140, 103141, 103142, 103143, 103144, 103145, 103146, 103147/2015, 103804, 103810, 103812, 104352, 104353, 104354/2017 101665/2019 AND 102611/2019

¶8

IN MFA 101445/2015:

¶9

Between:

¶10

AMBANNA S/O. MUDUKAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT 2ND WARD, BILUGARA ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY

¶15

¶16

LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR.

¶17

2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶18

3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶19

4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO R3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH ADV. FOR R4.)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 04/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

IN MFA NO. 101439/2015:

¶24

BETWEEN

¶25

SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA CHINIWAL AGE 40 YEARS, R/AT. KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT KOPPAL.

¶26

...APPELLANT

¶27

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶28

¶29

AND

¶30

1 . THE SPECIAL LAN ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR.

¶31

2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU.

¶32

3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶33

4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION - III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPURA, HUBBALLI. (BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 02/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶36

MFA NO 101440 OF 2015:

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SHASHIDHAR S/O. SHIVASIDDAPPA AGED: 50 YEARS R/AT. MALLIKARJUN NILAYA NEAR SBM BANK, R.G. ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. ...APPELLANT (By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

...APPELLANT

AND

1.	THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE, CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR.
2.	THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3^RDFLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU.
3.	THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU.
4.	THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION - III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI.	…..RESPONDENTS

¶43

IN MFA NO.101441/2015:

¶44

Between SRI. GUNDAPPA S/O.PAMPANNA C/O. YAMUNAPPA BUDI, AGED: 60 YEARS, R/AT J.P.NAGAR, BEHIND PADMAVATHI TAKIES, KARATAGI, TQ GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL ...APPELLANT (By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶45

¶46

AND

¶47

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶48

3 . THE PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU

¶49

4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHWAPURA, HUBBALLI …RESPONDENTS (BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶50

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 13/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶51

IN MFA NO.101442/2015:

¶52

Between

¶53

SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED . 60 YEARS, R/AT J.P.NAGAR, BEHIND PADMAVATI TALKIES, KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL (By Sri.JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

...APPELLANT

AND

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 3 . THE PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU 4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHWAPURA, HUBBALLI

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶60

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 14/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶61

IN MFA NO.101443/2015:

¶62

Between

¶63

1 . SRI. LINGAPPA S/O. YAMUNAPPA AGE: 27 YEARS, 2 . SRI. LINGAMMA W/O. YAMUNAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS,

¶64

¶65

BOTH R/AT R/AT WARD NO.3, BUDIYARA ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶66

...APPELLANTS

¶67

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.) AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR. 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU. 4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI.

¶68

…RESPONDENTS

¶69

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶70

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 17/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶71

IN MFA NO.101444/2015:

¶72

Between

¶73

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. GAVISIDDAPPA

¶74

¶75

AGE: 41 YEARS, R/AT DEEPTHI ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS, SOMALAPUR SANKIRANA, R.G.ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. (By Sri.JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶76

...APPELLANT

¶77

AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANUR. 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶78

4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI.

¶79

…RESPONDENTS

¶80

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶81

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 03/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶82

¶83

IN MFA NO.101446/2015

¶84

Between

¶85

SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O. J.M.JAGADEESH AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL, NOW RESIDING AT HOSAPETE.

...APPELLANT

…RESPONDENTS

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶90

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 08/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶91

¶92

IN MFA NO. 101447/2015:

¶93

Between

¶94

1 . SRI. LINGAPPA S/O. MARIYAPPA KURI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,. 2 . SRI. PARASAPPA S/O. MARIYAPPA KURI AGED ABOUT 47YEARS. 3 . SRI. HUCHCHAPPA S/O. MARIYAPPA KURI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ALL R/AT. KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. … APPELLANTS (By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.) AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE, CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINGHANUR. 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU. 4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION - III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHVAPURA, HUBBALLI.

¶95

…RESPONDENTS

¶96

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶97

¶98

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 11/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶99

IN MFA NO. 101448/2015:

¶100

Between

¶101

SRI. E. CHIDANANDAPPA S/O. URUKUNDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL … APPELLANT

¶102

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶103

AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE, CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINGHANUR. 2 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU. 4 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION - III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHVAPURA, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1 TO 3 Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4.)

¶104

¶105

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 27/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶106

IN MFA NO.103138/2015

¶107

Between THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020 (By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S HIREMATH) AND

¶108

...APPELLANT

¶109

1 . MALLIKARJUN S/O VEERABHADRAPPA CHINIWAL AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O:KARATAGI, TQ:GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL

¶110

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR

¶111

3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶112

4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING

¶113

¶114

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶115

…RESPONDENTS

¶116

(BY Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1. Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R2 TO 4.)

¶117

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 02/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶118

IN MFA NO.103139/2015:

¶119

Between

¶120

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶121

...APPELLANT

¶122

(By Sri.MALLIKARJUN S HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶123

AND

¶124

1 . VIJAYALAXMI W/O J.M.JAGADEESH AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN, R/O:KARATAGI NOW RESIDING AT HOSAPETE. TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR 3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶125

¶126

4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶127

…RESPONDENTS

¶128

(BY Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1. Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R2 TO 4.)

¶129

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 08/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 8,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶130

IN MFA NO. 103140/2015

¶131

Between

¶132

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020

¶133

...APPELLANT

¶134

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶135

AND

¶136

1 . LINGAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA KURI AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN

¶137

2 . PARASAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA KURI AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,

¶138

3 . HUCHCHAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA KURI AGED:45 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,

¶139

ALL ARE R/O: KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶140

¶141

4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR,

¶142

5 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶143

6 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUR DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS

¶144

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARAD, I ADV. FOR R1 TO R3. Sri. SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R4 TO 6)

¶145

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 11/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 8,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶146

IN MFA NO.103141/2015:

¶147

Between

¶148

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020

¶149

...APPELLANT

¶150

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶151

AND

¶152

1 . SHASHIDHAR S/O SHIVASIDDAPPA AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O:MALLIKARJUN NILAYA, NEAR SBM BANK, R.G.ROAD, KARATAGI , TQ:GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL

¶153

¶154

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANOOR

¶155

3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUR DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS

¶156

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1 . Sri. SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO 4)

¶157

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 12/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶158

IN MFA NO. 103142/2015:

¶159

Between THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020

¶160

...APPELLANT

¶161

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶162

AND

¶163

1 . GUNDAPPA S/O PAMPANNA AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O:J.P.NAGAR, C/O YAMUNAPPA BUDI, BEHIND PADMAVATHI TALKIES, KARATAGI, TQ:GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL

¶164

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE

¶165

¶166

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANOOR

¶167

3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUR DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶168

…RESPONDENTS

¶169

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR R1 Sri. SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO 4)

¶170

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 13/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶171

IN MFA NO. 103143/2015:

¶172

Between THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020

¶173

...APPELLANT

¶174

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.) AND

¶175

1 . BASAVARAJ S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOAUT 59 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: J.P.NAGAR, BEHIND PADMAVATHI TALKIES, KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶176

¶177

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR

¶178

¶179

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR R1 Sri. SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO 4)

¶180

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 14/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶181

IN MFA NO. 103144/2015

¶182

Between

¶183

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020

¶184

...APPELLANT

¶185

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶186

AND

¶187

1 . LINGAPPA S/O YAMUNAPPA AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN

¶188

2 . LINGAMMA W/O YAMUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶189

¶190

OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O:WARD NO.3, BUDIYARA ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ:GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL, 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR 4 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 5 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 RESPONDENTS

¶191

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR R1 RESPONDENT NO. 2 SERVED. Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH ADV. FOR R3 TO R5.)

¶192

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 17/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶193

IN MFA NO. 103145/2015:

¶194

Between

¶195

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020

¶196

...APPELLANT

¶197

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶198

¶199

AND

¶200

1 . E.CHIDANANDAPPA S/O URUKUNDEPPA AGE:45 YEARS , OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O:KARATAGI, TQ:GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR 3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUR DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶201

…RESPONDENTS

¶202

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1 Sri. SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO 4)

¶203

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 27/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 8,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶204

IN MFA NO.103146/2015:

¶205

Between

¶206

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR HUBBALLI-580020 (By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

...APPELLANT

AND

1 . CHANDRASHEKAR S/O GAVISIDDAPPA AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: DEEPTHI ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS, SOMALAPUR SANKIRNA, R.G.ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR 3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUR DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS

¶211

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1 Sri.SHIVAPRABJU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R4)

¶212

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 03/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE. IN MFA NO.103147/2015:

¶213

Between

¶214

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020 (By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

...APPELLANT

AND

1 . AMBANNA S/O MUDAKAPPA, AGE: ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: 2ND WARD, BILUGARA ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶219

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANOOR 3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶220

…RESPONDENTS

¶221

(By SRI. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1 Sri.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶222

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2015, PASSED IN LAC NO. 04/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 15,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶223

IN MFA NO.103804/2017:

¶224

Between

¶225

N. SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI W/O SATYAKIRAO AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O KARATAGI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.-583227

¶226

¶227

...APPELLANT

¶228

(By Sri. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶229

AND

¶230

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTIONS PROJECT SINDHANUR.-584128 2 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTINS-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAIWALY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBUBALLI.-580032

¶231

…RESPONDENTS

¶232

(By Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA. FOR R1. Sri. AJAY V. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶233

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO. 08/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT.

¶234

IN MFA NO. 103810/2017:

¶235

Between

¶236

1 . N. SEETHA MANALAKSHMI W/O N. SATYAKIRAO AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, 2 . N.MURALI KRISHNA S/O SATYAKIRAO AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KARATAGI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.583277

¶237

...APPELLANTS

¶238

¶239

(By Sri. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶240

AND

¶241

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRIABAD-MAHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANUR.584128 2 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTINOS-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI.580032

¶242

RESPONDENTS (BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 Sri. AJAY V. PATIL ADV. FOR R2.)

¶243

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO. 07/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT. 1894.

¶244

IN MFA NO. 103812/2017:

¶245

Between

¶246

1 . NANDINI VENKATESHWARA RAO @ N. VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O SATYAKIRAO, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HOUSE NO:73, MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, POST: GANDHINAGAR, TQ:SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR

¶247

2 . NANDINI MURALI KRISHNA @ N.MURALI KRISHNA S/O SATYAKIRAO, AGE 40- YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HOUSE NO:73, MAIN RAOD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, POST: GANDHINAGAR, TQ:SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584128.

¶248

¶249

...APPELLANTS

¶250

(By Sri. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶251

AND

¶252

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANUR-584128.

¶253

2 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBBALLI - 580032.

¶254

RESPONDENTS

¶255

(BY Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 Sri. AJAY V. PATIL ADV. FOR R2.)

¶256

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO. 14/2015 ,ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT.

¶257

IN MFA NO. 104352/2017:

¶258

Between

¶259

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020 NOW REP.BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SWR DAVANAGERE-577001

¶260

...APPELLANT

¶261

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶262

AND

¶263

1 . N. SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI W/O N.SATYAKIRAO AGE:60 YEARS,

¶264

¶265

OCC:NOT KNOWN, R/O:KARATGI VILLAGE-583229 TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL

¶266

2 . N.MURALI KRISHNA S/O N.SATYAKIRAO AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN, R/O:KARATGI VILLAGE-583229 TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANOOR-584128

¶267

…RESPONDENTS

¶268

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1-2 Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3)

¶269

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO. 07/2015 ,ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION AT RS.280/- PER SQUARE FEET.

¶270

IN MFA NO.104353/2017:

¶271

Between

¶272

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020 NOW REP. BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SWR, DAVANAGERE-577001

¶273

...APPELLANT

¶274

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶275

¶276

AND

¶277

1 . N. SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI W/O N.SATYAKIRAO AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:NOT KNOWN, R/O:KARATGI VILLAGE-583229 TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL,

¶278

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANOOR-584128

¶279

RESPONDENTS

¶280

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI ADV. FOR R1 Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2.)

¶281

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO. 08/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.350/- PER SQUARE FEET.

¶282

IN MFA NO. 104354/2017:

¶283

Between

¶284

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020, NOW REP. BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SWR, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶285

...APPELLANT

¶286

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH,ADV.)

¶287

¶288

AND

¶289

1 . NANDINI VENKATESHWARA RAO @ N. VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O SATYAKIRAO, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: H.NO. 73, MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, POST. GANDHI NAGAR, TQ. SINDHNUR, DIST. RAICHUR.

¶290

2 . NANDINI MURALI KRISHNA N. MURALI KRISHNA S/O N. SATYAKIRAO, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: H.NO. 73, MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, POST. GANDHI NAGAR, TQ. SINDHNUR, DIST. RAICHUR.

¶291

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR, RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SINDHANOOR-584128.

¶292

RESPONDENTS

¶293

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR R1-2 Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R3.)

¶294

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.06.2017, PASSED IN LAC NO. 14/2015 ,ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 280/-.

¶295

¶296

IN MFA NO. 101665/2019:

¶297

Between

¶298

SMT.VENKATALAKSHMI W/O SRI SATHYANARAYANARAO G. AGE:51 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO 686/3, SRIRAMA NIVASA, 8TH MAIN ROAD, P J BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE-577002.

¶299

...APPELLANT

¶300

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV.)

¶301

AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINDHANUR-584128.

¶302

2 . THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI-580020

¶303

RESPONDENTS Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH AGA FOR R1. Sri. AJAY V. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶304

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:14.03.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT.

¶305

IN MFA NO.102611/2019

¶306

Between

¶307

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

¶308

¶309

CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI, NOW REP. BY DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, SWR, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶310

...APPELLANT

¶311

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶312

AND

¶313

1 . VENKATLAKSHMI W/O SATYANARAYANARAO G. AGE: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: HOUSE NO.686/3, SRIRAMA NIVASA, 8TH MAIN ROAD, P.J. BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶314

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SHINDHANOOR-584128.

¶315

RESPONDENTS

¶316

(By Sri. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADV. FOR R1. Sri. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2.)

¶317

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:14.03.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,00,000/- PER ACRE.

¶318

IN THESE APPEALS ARGUMENT BE HEARD, JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, INDIRESH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶319

J U D G M E N T

¶320

These appeals are filed by the claimants (land losers) and

¶321

South-Western Railway (beneficiary of the land) challenging the

¶322

¶323

judgment and awards dated 09^th January, 2015, 15^th June, 2017 and 14^th March, 2019 passed in LACs No.2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 27 of 2013 & 3 and 4 of 2014; LACs No.7, 8 and 14 of 2015; and LAC No.55 of 2016 respectively, by the Senior Civil Judge at Gangavati.

¶324

The claimants (land-losers) have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation and the corresponding appeals are filed by the beneficiary of the acquisition (South-Western Railway) seeking reduction of compensation. The details of appeals are as follows:

¶325

Sl		MISCELLANEOUS	FIRST APPEALS
. No.	LAC No. & Date	Claimants Appeal	Appeals by the beneficiary
1.	2 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101439 of 2015	103138 of 2015
2.	8 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101446 of 2015	103139 of 2015
3.	11 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101447 of 2015	103140 of 2015
4.	12 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101440 of 2015	103141 of 2015
5.	13 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101441 of 2015	103142 of 2015
6.	14 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101442 of 2015	103143 of 2015
7.	17 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101443 of 2015	103144 of 2015

¶326

¶327

8.	27 of 2013 Dt.09.01.2015	101448 of 2015	103145 of 2015
9.	3 of 2014 Dt.09.01.2015	101444 of 2015	103146 of 2015
10.	4 of 2014 Dt.09.01.2015	101445 of 2015	103147 of 2015
11.	7 of 2015 Dt.15.06.2017	103810 of 2017	104352 of 2017
12.	8 of 2015 Dt.15.06.2017	103804 of 2017	104353 of 2017
13.	14 of 2015 Dt. 15.06.2017	103812 of 2017	104354 of 2017
14.	55 of 2016 Dt. 14.03.2019	101655 of 2019	102611 of 2019

¶328

Since these appeals touch a common point dealt with by the Reference Court, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶329

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to with their status and rank before the Reference Court.

¶330

It is the case of the claimants that they are the owners in possession of various bits of lands (hereinafter referred to as “the acquired land”) situated at Karatagi village, Gangavati Taluk. The claimants pleaded that the respondent-authorities issued preliminary notification on 30^th July, 2009 under Section

¶331

¶332

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short hereinafter

¶333

referred to as ‘the Act’) for the purpose of laying railway line between Munirabad-Mehboobnagar. The Special Land

¶334

Acquisition Officer determined market value for wet land at Rs.1,42,000/- per acre and at Rs.72,727/- per acre for semi-wet land. The claimants, being not satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed respective applications seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Civil Court for fair determination of market value and same were registered before the Reference Court as mentioned above.

¶335

After service of notice, Respondent-authorities entered appearance before Reference Court and resisted claim petitions. In order to prove their case, claimants examined two witnesses viz. PW1 and PW2. The claimants produced 94 documents before the Reference Court and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P94. The respondents did not adduce oral evidence, however, they got marked Exhibit R1 by consent. The Reference Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and award dated 09^th January, 2015, 15^th June, 2017 and 14^th

¶336

¶337

March, 2019, ordered that the claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement on the ground that acquired lands are having potentiality for conversion into non-agricultural purpose, as industries are situated within the close proximity of the acquired lands and as such compensation needs to be further enhanced.

¶338

The respondent-beneficiary of the land, assailed the

¶339

judgment and award passed by the Reference Court on the ground that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the fact that the lands in question are agricultural lands and without considering the finding recorded by the SLAO and the material evidence on record, it has passed the impugned judgment and awards based on wrong conclusions.

¶340

We have heard Shriyuths Jagadish Patil and Linagaraj Maradi, learned counsel appearing for claimants; Mallikarjun S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary-

¶341

¶342

Railways; and G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶343

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted

¶344

that the Reference Court failed to consider the fact that the acquired lands have potentiality for conversion into nonagriculture lands as already some industries are situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands. And in view of improvement of connectivity through State Highway and railway line, there would be further growth of industries in and around the lands and the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Reference Court. It is further contended that the acquired lands are situated within the Town limits of Gangavati. It is further argued that the lands are fertile and Tungabhadra Canal has irrigated the lands. The claimants were growing three crops per year and therefore, the learned counsel for the claimants emphasised that the land losers deserve higher compensation in these appeals.

¶345

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary of the land (Railways), submitted that the SLAO had personally visited and inspected the acquired lands and had

¶346

¶347

arrived at conclusion that the market value of the lands was Rs.1,42,000/- per acre for wet-land and Rs.72,727/- per acre for semi-wet land. However, the Reference Court taking into consideration the resolution passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal as per Exhibits 73 and 76, fixed the market value of wet-land at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and for semi-wet land at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre and the said compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on the higher side compared to the award made by the SLAO and therefore, he argued that the Reference Court, taking into account the material on record, ought to have confirmed the award made by the SLAO in entirety. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary that the SLAO has rightly adopted the sales statistics of the land situated adjacent to the acquired lands, from the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangavati for the relevant period and therefore the award passed by the SLAO requires to be confirmed.

¶348

¶349

Learned Principal Government Advocate supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary.

¶350

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the respondentauthorities have acquired lands belonging to claimants for the purpose of laying railway line between MunirabadMehboobnagar, by issuing preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 30^th July, 2009. The SLAO determined the market value for wet- land at Rs.1,42,000/- per acre and at Rs.72,727/- per acre for semi-wet land. The Reference Court, adopted the consent award entered into between the similarly placed claimants and the respondent-authorities as per Exhibit P73-proceeding conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, and fixed the market value of the wet-land at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for semi-wet land. It is not in dispute that Exhibit P73 and Exhibit P76 are consent awards passed by the respondents determining the market value of similar and identical lands situated in Karatagi village, Gangavati

¶351

¶352

Taluk. The lands acquired in these appeals are also for similar purpose. A plain reading of the impugned award shows that the claimants in these appeals are entitled for compensation equal to the claimants in those cases, where the consent award has been passed, including all statutory benefits. It is relevant to refer the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BALRAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2010)5 SCC 747, wherein it is held that:

¶353

“ It would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to other when purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different village. ”

¶354

In the recent judgment of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2018)13 SCC 96 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to lay down guidelines with regard to accepting the award made in the previous award/judgment of similar lands in question. Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that the Court has to apply judicial mind and is not supposed to follow previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and

¶355

¶356

evidence adduced in the case in question. It is further observed that the previous award/judgments are piece of evidence on par with comparative sale transaction and similarity of the land covered by previous award/judgment is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when some mistake has been done in awarding compensation by the Court, it cannot be followed as a ground of parity, and thus illegality cannot be perpetuated. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Reference court in the instant case, placing reliance solely on the consent awards passed in respect of similar lands, cannot be a basis to determine fair compensation on the ground that “consent award” is a mutual agreement between the parties and sometime includes statutory benefits. As per Law Lexicon Fifth Edition, 2020, “Consent Award” means the award rendered as a result of a negotiated settlement between the parties at the interlocutory stage or during the hearing. The arbitrator would set out the terms of the settlement and incorporate them in his award. In that view of

¶357

¶358

the matter, an independent assessment is to be made to determine the fair compensation in the instant appeals.

¶359

Careful examination of the evidence of PW1 reflects that the acquired lands are irrigated agriculture land. PW2 deposed that the lands in question are situated around one and a half kilometers away from Rice Mills/Karatagi village. It is further deposed that Tungabhadra canal is running adjacent to certain lands in these appeals. Therefore, we may conclude that the lands in question do not lose character of agriculture land. We have also noticed from the records that materials were produced by the claimants to believe that the acquired lands have nonagriculture potentiality. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Reference Court would substantiate existence of Tungabhadra canal in Gangavati belt and there are paddy fields around the lands in question and Gangavati belt is known for paddy/rice in the State of Karnataka. It cannot be ignored that Gangavati Rice is sold at higher a price in the market not only in Karnataka but also in other parts of the Country. No adjacent land is converted into non-agriculture purpose. Therefore basic

¶360

¶361

requirement to adopt the method of comparable instances of sale of lands situate near the acquired lands, would be an indicator for assessing their market value (Exhibit P80 to P84). The acquired lands are fertile having potentiality to yield three crops of paddy in a year, so also, many rice mills are located within the vicinity of the acquired lands. As per Exhibits P69 and P70, power station and residential layouts are also situated within the limits of Karatagi Grama Panchayat. Exhibits P67 and P68 reflect that State Highway runs within 800 meters from one of the claimants land situated in Survey No.110/1. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, it is relevant to refer the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments.

¶362

In the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, POONA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652, Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 4 of the judgment has observed as follows:

¶363

“4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:

¶364

¶365

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.

¶366

(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.

¶367

(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

¶368

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials

¶369

¶370

placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

¶371

(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

¶372

(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.

¶373

(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.

¶374

(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).

¶375

(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the

¶376

¶377

purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.

¶378

(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:

¶379

(i) proximity from time angle,

¶380

(ii) proximity from situation angle.

¶381

(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.

¶382

(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.

¶383

(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors

¶384

(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a

¶385

¶386

prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:

¶387

Plus factors	Minus factors
1. smallness of size.	1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road.	(15) 2. situation in the interior at a
	distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road.	3. narrow strip of land with very small
	frontage compared to depth.
4. nearness to developed area.	4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape.	5. remoteness from developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.	6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very special advantage

¶388

(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule.

¶389

¶390

Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.

¶391

(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these

¶392

¶393

factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself.

¶394

(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. ”

¶395

In the case of SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER v. KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO AND OTHERS reported in (1997)6 SCC 41, at paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:

¶396

“On the basis of the above factual material collected, the land Acquisition officer passed his award. The question arises: whether the acquired lands possessed of potential value for being used as building sites? The High Court has found, as pointed out by Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel for the claimants, that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the land Acquisition officer, which is only an offer. If the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct,

¶397

¶398

even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in beadroll of decisions. In Periya rand Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. V/s. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195], this Court considered the entire case law as on that date, on the principle of determination of market value and the relevant test laid in that behalf. The burden of proof that the amount awarded by the land Acquisition Officer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimant. The burden is to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value than the amount awarded by the land Acquisition officer/Collector or that the land Acquisition Officer/Collector proceeded on a wrong premise or applied a wrong principle of law. The object of the enquiry in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is to bring on record the price which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in the open market as on the date of the notification. The relative situation of the acquired land which is the subject of the sale transaction, the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are put to on the date of the notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of and the sale transactions in respect of lands covered by the same notification, are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is, therefore, the paramount duty of the courts of facts to

¶399

¶400

subject the evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper consideration thereof in correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. it is equally relevant to consider the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. The Court is required to Keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involve, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the land Acquisition officer or the beneficiaries the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. ”

¶401

¶402

In the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MANGATU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (1997)6 SCC 59, at paragraph 3, 6 and 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:

¶403

“3. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the view of the High Court in not making any belting and granting uniform rates of compensation for all the lands is correct principle of law? We find that the High Court has adopt absolutely incorrect principle of law. It is seen that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken through PW-3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs.1,40,000/- It is settled legal position that it is the duty of the court to sit in the arm chair of a willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though determination involves some guess work, it must have reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is salutary duty of the court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. The plan has been placed before us. The Land Acquisition officer has marked the lands in red colour the lands classification as 'A' and 'B' class lands in green colour.

¶404

4 and 5. xxx xxx xxx

¶405

¶406

6. It is equally settled law that Article 14 has no application vis-a-vis determination of the compensation for the obvious reason that it is hardly possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; Therefore, all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market.

¶407

7. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of equality in the matter of payment of compensation under Article 14 is inapplicable. Accordingly, we hold that for 'B' Class lands, the compensation would be at the Rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The claimants are entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to interest @ 9% from for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% on the enhanced compensation. In addition, they are entitled to additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The High Court had not kept this perspective in view in determining the compensation and thereby it had committed manifest error of law warranting interference. ”

¶408

In the case of BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND

¶409

ANOTHER reported in (2014)11 SCC 307, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 10 to 14 of the judgment, has held thus:

¶410

¶411

“ 10. … in case the parties do not lead any evidence on record it is difficult for the court to award compensation merely on the basis of imagination/conjectures, etc. The Act provides for compensation for acquisition of land and deprivation of the property which is reasonable and just. The court must avoid relying on a sham transaction which lacks bona fide and which had been executed for the purpose of raising the land price just before the acquisition to get more compensation for the reason that fraudulent move or design should not be considered as a proof in such cases though such a conclusion can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶412

11. The market value of the land should be determined taking into consideration the existing geographical situation of the land, existing use of the land, already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or notionally or intentionally renowned tourist destination or developed area, and market value of other land situated in the same locality or adjacent or very near to acquired land and also the size of such a land. (Vide: Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2214; Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 781; Bilkis & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2709).

¶413

¶414

12. Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the same is not continuous, the court has always emphasised on applying the principle of belting system for the reason that where different lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations, cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land having frontage on the highway would definitely have better value than lands farther away from highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 412).

¶415

13. In Ashrafi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 3654, this Court emphasised on belting system and observed that while determining the market value of the land, the court must be satisfied that the land under exemplar is a similar land.

¶416

14. In Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 60, this Court held that in towns and urban areas, distance of half kilometer to one kilometer makes considerable difference in price of the land. Therefore, the court has to determine the market value on the basis of the material produced before it keeping in mind that some of the lands were more advantageously situated. ”

¶417

¶418

Further, at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment, it is observed thus:

¶419

“ 16. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the market value of the land is to be assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed in certain exceptional circumstances under Section 23 of the Act. A guess work, though allowed, is permissible only to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the existing use of the land, geographical situation/location of the land alongwith the advantages/disadvantages i.e. distance from the National or State Highway or a road situated within a developed area etc. In urban area even a small distance makes a considerable difference in the price of land. However, the court should not take into consideration the use for which the land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal obligation to determine the market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant.

¶420

17. There may be a case where a huge tract of land is acquired which runs though continuous, but to the whole revenue estate of a village or to various revenue villages or even in two or more states. Someone’s land may be adjacent to the main road, others’ land may be

¶421

¶422

far away, there may be persons having land abounding the main road but the frontage may be varied. Therefore, the market value of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the geographical situation and in such cases belting system may be applied. In such a factsituation every claimant cannot claim the same rate of compensation. ”

¶423

In view of the observation made by us above that the acquired lands are having non-agriculture potentiality as well as not lost the character of agriculture potentiality, it cannot be countenanced that these lands are having potential for conversion. Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to discuss the issue regarding the potentiality of the land while determining the market value in the case of BIJENDER AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018)11 SCC 180. At paragraphs 41 to 48, it is observed thus:

¶424

“ 41. It is held that in comparable sale, the features are (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification (2) it should be a bona fide transaction (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and (4) it should possess similar advantages.

¶425

¶426

42) These factors should be established by adducing material evidence by examining the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or not.

¶427

43) It is further held that it is the paramount duty of the Courts of facts to subject the evidence to close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper considerations thereof in its correct perspective to arrive at a reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case always furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. The neighbourhood lands possessed of similar potentialities or same advantageous features/circumstances available in each case are also to be taken into account.

¶428

44) Indeed, it is held that the object of the assessment of the evidence is to enable the Courts to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the lands and in that process, sometimes the Courts are required to trench on the border of the guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be eschewed.

¶429

45) It is also held that Judges are required to draw from their experience and the normal human conduct of the parties as to which transaction is bona fide and

¶430

¶431

genuine sale transaction because that is one of the guiding factors in evaluating the evidence.

¶432

46) It is also held that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer and that it is for the landowners to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and that he proceeded on wrong principle.

¶433

47) This Court also examined the question as to how the Courts should judge the potentiality of the acquired land and what are the relevant consideration, which should be taken into consideration for deciding the potentiality of the land.

¶434

48) It is held that potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. The question as to whether the land has a potential value or not is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and whether it has any proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities such as water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development need to be taken into consideration.”

¶435

¶436

Having taken note of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases and on application of the same to the facts on hand, we are of the considered view that these appeals have to be remitted to the Reference Court for fresh consideration for the following reasons:

¶437

Firstly, PW1 deposed that the acquired lands are irrigated agriculture lands and the claimants are growing paddy regularly. PW1 further deposed that hospitals, schools, residential layouts, rice mill, State Highway etc. are situated about one kilometer away from the lands in question. The said testimony of PW1 was not tested during cross-examination by the respondent-beneficiary. The Reference Court has failed to evaluate the deposition of PW1 which is more significant to determine the fair compensation;

¶438

Secondly, perusal of the testimony of PW2 also substantiates the fact that the lands in question are situated about 1-1½ kilometers away from Rice Mills as

¶439

¶440

per Exhibit P21 to P66 and same was not disputed by the respondent-authorities. The Reference Court, though has referred to all these documents, but has failed to arrive at a conclusion based on these documents;

¶441

It is clear from the aforementioned deposition of PW2 that the acquired lands have the fertility to yield three crops of paddy in a year, so also, non-agricultural potentiality since the lands are situated near to State Highway. Perusal of Exhibit P70 further reveals that the lands bearing Survey No.205 and 210 (LAC No.12 of 2013, and 3 and 4 of 2014) have been developed and consist of residential layout, rice-mills and therefore, the Reference Court ought to have appreciated these undisputed facts while determining the market value of the lands in question. The Reference Court has failed to notice these facts. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER AND LAO

¶442

¶443

reported in (2010)15 SCC 60, where it is held that, “ in towns and urban areas, distance of half kilometer to one kilometer makes considerable difference in price of the land. ” It is further held that “ the court has to determine the market value on the basis of the material produced before it keeping in mind that some of the lands were more advantageously situated. ” In view of the enunciation of law by the Apex Court, referred to above in regard to lands having characteristic feature of urban area, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court ought to have considered these factors while determining the market value of the lands in question;

¶444

Thirdly, the Reference Court, at paragraph 38 of its judgment, has opined that there are no materials to believe that the lands of these appeals have nonagriculture potentiality and the said finding recorded by the Reference Court is undoubtedly contrary to the factual aspects and evidence on record and omitted to evaluate the evidence placed on record by the parties;

¶445

¶446

Fourthly, the Reference Court, solely based on Exhibits P73 and P76, has arrived at a conclusion that the claimants are entitled for similar market value as fixed in the consent award. The Reference Court has failed to consider that these claimants had not agreed for entering into an agreement with the respondent-authorities and preferred the claim petitions before the Reference Court under protest. The claimants in consent award received the compensation on 01^st December, 2012, but, the claimants in these appeals continued the proceedings up to the Reference Court and as such, they had to be compensated fairly, effectuating the object of Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court’s conclusion to apply the analogy of consent award for granting compensation to the claimants has caused hardship to them.

¶447

In the light of the discussion made above, what is required to be considered is whether remand of these appeals are justifiable under Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil

¶448

¶449

Procedure? Here is a case where the Reference Court has totally ignored the evidence placed before it and followed the consent award relating to acquisition of other land. The Reference Court has not assigned any reason for not considering the evidence. It is not as though consent award cannot be followed, but if the landlosers do not agree for it, and adduce evidence producing other materials for determining the market value, the court is expected to evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. Since the impugned judgment and award does not disclose appreciation of evidence, we find that here is a case for remand according to Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶450

We may also state that if the appellate Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that there should be a fresh trial, it can remand the matter for fresh disposal. In this connection, the discretion of the appellate Court to order retrial is unfettered. However, the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously, and without any arbitrary manner. While doing so, the appellate Court should be guided by sound judicial principles. In a catena of decisions relating to interpretation of Order XLI

¶451

¶452

Rule 23 and 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a remand cannot be ordered to enable a party to fill up the lacuna in the case. But, where the party was denied an opportunity of producing the material evidence before the trial Court for fair adjudication, then the Appellate Court, in exercise of the discretionary powers, may order for remand of the case. Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure gives wider power to the Appellate Court to remit the case for re-trial, even on merits of the case. Of course, we are fully conscious of the fact that remand of these LACs to the Reference Court at this juncture, would cause delay in disposal of the LACs and hardship would be caused to the land losers. On the other hand, in the peculiar circumstance of the case where the impugned award is challenged both by the claimants and the beneficiary, if remand is not made by looking to the evidence on record, more hardship would be caused to the landlosers. In this connection, it is apt to refer the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. KRISHNA REDDY v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITON UNIT-II, LMD KARIMNAGAR, ANDHRA PRADESH reported in AIR 1988 SC

¶453

¶454

The said decision was with regard to award of compensation under Land Acquisition Act. At paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

¶455

“ 12. We can very well appreciate the anxiety and need of claimants to get compensation here and now. No matter what it is. The lands were acquired as far back in 1977. One decade has already passed. Now the remand means another round of litigation. There would be further delay in getting the compensation. After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed payment may, lose all charm and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without loss of time. The appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly

¶456

¶457

unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhance in compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships. The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award. "

¶458

In the light of discussion made above, we are of the view that these appeals are to be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. Preliminary notification was issued on 30^th July, 2009 and lands in question were taken possession on 09^th May, 2011 for the purpose of laying railway line on Munirabad-Mehboobnagar. The claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 to the Civil Court and it was registered on 04^th June, 2014 before the Reference Court. It is the legitimate right of the land-losers to be compensated fairly within a reasonable period and therefore, we request the Reference Court to dispose of the claim petitions at the earliest without any further delay. Hence we pass the following:

¶459

O R D E R

¶460

Appeals are disposed of;

¶461

¶462

Judgment and award dated 09^th January, 2015, 15^th June, 2017 passed in LACs No.2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 27 of 2013, LACs No.3 and 4 of 2014; Judgment and award dated 15^th June, 2017 passed in LACs No.7, 8 and 14 of 2015; and judgment and award dated 14^th March, 2019 passed in LAC No.55 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge at Gangavati are set aside and are remitted back to the Reference Court for disposal afresh keeping in mind the observations made herein above.

¶463

Sd/JUDGE

¶464

Sd/JUDGE

¶465

Lnn

Mallikarjun v. the Special

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjun v. the Special

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

Dr.Roopali Desai Vs State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Vinoda W/O Gangaram Goudra

Smt. Vinoda W/O Gangaram Goudra Vs Shri. Anikumer S Gupta

Shashidhar Vs the Special

Sri. Mulla Hussain Baig, Vs the Land Tribunal

The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Vs the State of Karnataka