Partly allowed

D Hanumanthappa v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022MFA/3890/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court allowed the appeal in part. The Court enhanced the award compensation from `5,50,000 to `6,75,000 per acre for agricultural land acquired for railway purposes, citing comparable awards in the same village and evidence of market value.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award fixing compensation at `5,50,000 per acre was modified, and the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of `6,75,000 per acre with all statutory benefits.

D Hanumanthappa Vs the Chief Engineer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3890 OF 2014 (LAC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

D. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O SMT. MALLAMMA, AGED 41 YEARS,

¶12

NAGARAJA, S/O SMT. MALLAMMA AGE 33 YEARS,

¶13

BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577706.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE 560046.

¶19

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BEHIND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

¶20

¶21

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶22

1^ST FLOOR, JANATHA BAZAR BUILDING, DAVANAGERE.

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, KOTTUR-HARIHAR RAILWAY, BROADGUAGE LINE SCHEME, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶24

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOTTUR-HARIHAR RAILWAY, BROADGUAGE LINE SCHEME HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶25

BASAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA RAMANAGOUDAR, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶26

MALLESHAPPA, S/O MAHADEVAPPA RAMANAGOUDAR, DEAD BY HIS LR’s

¶27

6(a) SMT. BASAMMA, W/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, LINGARAJU,

¶28

6(b) LINGARAJU, S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶29

OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

¶30

6(c) SMT. KAVITHA, D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶31

¶32

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶33

7 SHIVAPPA, S/O MAHADEVAPPA RAMANAGOUDAR, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶34

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE R/O AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4; R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2016 NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶37

¶38

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2014 PASSED IN LAC No.8/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The appellants/claimants have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2014 made in LAC No.8/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Harihara, awarding `5,50,000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits.

¶42

¶43

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶44

It is the case of the claimants that they are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 19½ guntas in Sy.No.35/P situated at Amaravathi village, Harihara Taluk, which was acquired by the respondents by issuing preliminary notification dated 09.02.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of formation of railway broad gauge line. In pursuance of the acquisition, possession of the lands was taken by the railways on 12.04.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer, by the award dated 13.12.2007, awarded compensation fixing the market value of the land at 1,29,400/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed reference before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to 5,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Therefore, the claimants have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal contending that the market value fixed by the Reference Court is much less than the existing market value of the property.

¶45

The respondents have not filed any Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

¶46

¶47

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶48

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the

¶49

lis.

¶50

Sri Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court awarding 5,50,000/- per acre is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to appreciate that 16,00,000/- per acre claimed by the claimants itself is on lower compared to the actual market value prevailing during the relevant point of time. It is further contended that the appellants are agriculturists owning agricultural lands situated at Amaravathi village which is situated at a distance less than 2 kms from Harihara city. The land is acquired by the Railways for the formation of railway line passing from Kotturu-Harihara. Respondents also directed the claimants not to take up any developmental work in 100 feet on either side of railway line, which is required to be reserved for future development of railway line. The respondents obtained undertaking to that effect from the claimants. Learned counsel further contended that, in view of the acquisition of the lands in question, the claimants are losing

¶51

¶52

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶53

additional extent of land and are not in a position to cultivate the entire land. Thereby, the claimants and their family members are deprived of their livelihood. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to notice that the lands in question fall within the limits of Davanagere-Harihara Development Authority and thus the land falls within the urban limits. Thus, the lands have higher value. Learned counsel further contended that the evidence on record clearly depicts that the acquired land is very near to Harihara Town and Amaravathi village. Shivamogga-Hospet Highway is at a distance of ½ km from the acquired lands and further Laskhari (Military road) is adjoining the acquired lands and Thunga Bhadra River is at a distance of 2½ kms from the acquired lands. Learned Counsel further contended that the sale deed dated 30.04.2003 produced as per Ex.P.1 depicts that an extent of 1 gunta of agricultural land was sold for 49,000/-. Ex.P.2–sale deed dated 23.01.2004 depicts that 5 guntas of agricultural land was sold for 1,95,000/- and Ex.P.3-sale deed dated 16.01.2006 depicts that 10 guntas of agricultural land was sold for `1,26,000/-. The said documents have not been considered by the Reference Court and thereby, erroneously

¶54

¶55

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶56

proceeded to award lesser compensation. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified and therefore, sought to enhance the compensation by allowing the Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶57

Per contra, Sri V.K.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, while justifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court contended that, in similar circumstances, for the very same purpose of Kotturu-Harihara Railway Broad gauge line project, when the lands situated at Doggali village, Harihara, were acquired by the notifications dated 11.05.2006, 08.03.2007 and 13.08.2009, and when the claimants approached this Court in MFA No.718/2014 and connected matters, the Division Bench, by the Judgment dated 09.07.2021 awarded `6,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Therefore, the claimants herein also are entitled to same compensation and nothing beyond that.

¶58

Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that the compensation awarded by the Reference

¶59

¶60

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶61

Court is just and proper and therefore, sought to dismiss the Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶62

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

¶63

“Whether the appellants/claimants have made out a case for further enhancement of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?”

¶64

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully.

¶65

It is not in dispute that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of Kotturu-Harihara Railway Broad gauge Line Project, by issuing preliminary notification dated 09.02.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and possession of the land was taken on 12.04.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer, by the award dated 13.12.2007 awarded compensation at the rate of `1,29,400/- per acre. It is also not in dispute that the Reference Court, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and the material documents Exs.P.1 to 16, has come to the

¶66

¶67

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶68

conclusion that the claimants have established that the market value fixed by the SLAO is improper and the claimants are entitled to higher compensation. Though much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the claimants on Ex.P.10 i.e., the award passed by the KHB wherein preliminary notification was dated 09.08.2001, that was a consent award and the price was fixed at the rate of `5,50,000/-.

¶69

The Reference Court, relying upon Ex.P.15, an award dated 04.06.2009 passed by respondent No.1 therein for acquisition of lands at Amaravathi village for the same purpose wherein the preliminary notification was dated 08.02.2007, passed award fixing the market value at 7,50,000/- per acre. The owners gave consent for such fixation of market value. There is a gap of one year between 4(1) notification passed under Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.15. Under Ex.P.8, owners have not given consent and whereas, under Ex.P.15, the owners have given consent. Thereby, relying on material documents-Exs.P.3 and 10, the Reference Court, fixed the market value of the land in question at 5,50,000/- per acre. However, the fact remains that, in respect of the preliminary notifications issued on

¶70

10 -

¶71

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶72

11.05.2006, 08.03.2007 and 13.08.2009, this Court, in MFA No.718/2014, enhanced the compensation from 5,50,000/- to 6,50,000/- and the said Judgment has reached finality.

¶73

It is not in dispute that the appellants/claimants have lost the land in the acquisition made by the respondents for Kotturu-Harihara Railway Broad-gauge line and their dream for the lands remain shadow forever. The Reference Court, while awarding `5,50,000/-, has ignored the fact that Amaravathi village includes all benefits and ought to have awarded compensation accordingly. There cannot be any discrimination while awarding compensation in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose. The said material aspect has not been properly considered by the Reference Court.

¶74

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and the material documents Exs.P.1 to 16, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence produced by the respondents, clearly established that the market value of the land in question has to be awarded at `6,75,000/- per acre.

¶75

On meticulous reconsideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants/ claimants have made out a case for

¶76

11 -

¶77

MFA No.3890 of 2014

¶78

further enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, we answer

¶79

the point raised for consideration in the affirmative.

¶80

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part .

¶83

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2014 made in LAC No.8/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Harihara, fixing the market value of the land in question at `5,50,000/- per acre, is hereby modified.

¶84

(iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of `6,75,000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶85

(iv) Office to draw the decree accordingly.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

kcm

D Hanumanthappa v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Hanumanthappa v. the Chief Engineer

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

Smt Pramodhini S Y Vs K L Suresh

Mr Channabasappa Vs Mr Naveen Kumar D

Sri Sreenatha S v Vs the Lokayukta

B Malleshappa Vs the Chief Engineer Constructions

N Savitha Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Yapaiah T Vs Sri Vineet Pandey