Allowed

Sannegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2021MFA/8760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent it fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta based on parity with other lands acquired for the same project. The court modified the reference court's award, granted solatium, and denied interest on delay fees.

What did the court decide?

Market value fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta; solatium and statutory sums granted; appeal allowed partially.

Sannegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.8760 OF 2018 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SANNEGOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BYADARAHALLY, SALAGOPPALU VILLAGE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT AND TALUK-573201 ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, H.R.P-II, HASSAN-573201

¶14

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

YAGACHI PROJECT

¶16

HASSAN-573201.

¶17

CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶18

BENGALURU-01. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2015 in LAC No.44/2014 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are as follows:

¶26

The land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 20 guntas of Byadarahally village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project by issuing a preliminary notification which was published on 11.2.2009 culminating into passing an award dated 23.11.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.77,200/- per

¶27

¶28

acre by treating it as dry land. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed a reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The appellant before the Reference Court

¶30

examined himself as PW1 and produced documents at Exs.P1 to P26. The respondent did not choose to lead any evidence nor produce any documents.

¶31

The Reference Court by relying on Exs.P21 and P22 which are copies of the judgment passed in LAC Nos.133/2013 c/w 135/2013 and 142/2013 pertaining to lands acquired for the same purpose, but under different notifications fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.20,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. The claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has submitted that the Reference Court in LAC Nos.90/2014 and 91/2014 pertaining to lands situated in the same village and

¶33

¶34

acquired for the very same purpose and under the same notification by judgment and award dated 28.9.2015 has fixed the market value of the dry lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Hence, he submitted that the market value of the land in question may be determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents though justified with the impugned judgment award passed by the Reference Court, however, was not in a position to dispute the fact that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the lands situated in the same village and acquired under the same notification at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by

¶37

the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

The only issue which arises for consideration is that the claimant is entitled for fixing of the market value of

¶39

¶40

the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in the light of the judgment passed in LAC Nos.90 and 91 of 2014

¶41

A perusal of the judgment and award passed in LAC Nos.90 and 91 of 2014 discloses the land bearing Sy.Nos.13/1 and 12 both situated at Byadarahally village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District were acquired under preliminary notifications dated 31.10.2009 and 11.2.2009 respectively. The Reference Court has fixed the market value of the said lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Bal Ram and another reported in 2010 (5) SCC 747 has held that when the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. This view is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and others -vs- State Jammu and

¶42

Kashmir reported in 2017 (4) SCC 717 .

¶43

¶44

In the case on hand, the land in question and the land involved in LAC Nos.90 and 91 of 2014 are all identical and situated in the same village and acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases (supra), the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶45

For the aforementioned reasons, the market value of the land in question is determined at Rs.1,00,000/per gunta. In addition, the appellant/claimant is entitled to solatium as well as other statutory sums as are admissible under the provision of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Reference Court is modified. The excess amount of court fee, if any, be refunded to the appellant. The parties shall bear the proportionate costs subject to payment of deficit court fee within a period of two weeks from today.

¶46