Allowed

Manjula v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022MFA/6780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to enhance compensation. Following a co-ordinate bench's determination, the market value of land acquired for the Yagachi Reservoir Project was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

What did the court decide?

The award fixing market value at Rs.15,000/- per gunta was modified; market value fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta carrying remaining statutory benefits.

Manjula Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶8

MFA NO. 6780 OF 2018 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Manjula W/o Komarigowda Aged about 45 years R/at Ethinakatte Village Kandali Post, Kasaba Hobli Hassan Taluk & District-573201.

¶11

... Appellant

¶12

(By Sri. Girish B. Baladare - Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hemavathi Reservoir Project-2 Hassan Office of Deputy Commissioner Hassan District Hassan-573201.

¶15

... Respondent

¶16

(By Sri. Abhijit K.S - HCGP)

¶17

This MFA is filed u/s 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying this Hon’ble court to modify the judgment and award dated 11.08.2014 in LAC No.120/2011 on the file of

¶18

¶19

the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan and thereby enhance the compensation with interest.

¶20

This MFA coming on for Hearing this day, C.M. Joshi .J ., delivered the following:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’, for brevity), challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, in LAC No.120/2011 dated 11.08.2014 and seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

The brief facts are as under:

¶24

The appellant was the owner of the land bearing

¶25

Sy.No.5 to the extent of 12 guntas at Etthinakatte Village of Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, which has been acquired by the Government by a Preliminary Notification dated 09.06.2005 under Section 4(1) of the LA Act and under a Final Notification dated 10.03.2006 under Section 6(1) of

¶26

the LA Act, for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project.

¶27

¶28

The respondent has passed an Award on 26.05.2007 fixing the market value of the land as Rs.26,000/- per acre and awarded a total sum of Rs.11,934/- to the appellant herein. As against the said award, the appellant approached the Reference Court under Section 18(1) of the LA Act in LAC No.120/2011. After considering the relevant material available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the said land to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per gunta along with statutory benefits as applicable.

¶29

As against the said finding, the appellant has approached this Court in appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned HCGP for the respondent.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.8703/2018 dated 25.09.2021 has determined the market value of the

¶32

¶33

acquired land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in connection with similarly placed lands acquired for the said Yagachi Reservoir Project. It is also submitted that LAC No.53/2016 C/w. LAC No.52/2016 were also disposed of on the same valuation by the Reference Court, by fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is also submitted that, in MFA No.8873/2018 arising out of LAC No.34/2014 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and therefore, the present appeal also deserves to be allowed on the same grounds. It is also submitted that the valuation of the land on the said project has already been covered by several decisions including the Division Bench of this Court as well the Single Bench and also some of the Land Acquisition matters under Section 18(1) have been disposed of by the Reference Court on the same valuation.

¶34

This aspect that similar matters have already been disposed of by this Court fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, has not been disputed by the

¶35

¶36

learned HCGP. The only point that is canvassed by the learned HCGP is that the date of the notifications are slightly different but the land having been acquired for Yagachi Reservoir Project is not in dispute.

¶37

When a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

¶38

disposed of the matter by fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in respect of the land which was also acquired for the same Yagachi Reservoir Project, we do not see any reason to differ with the determination of the market value arrived at by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. We also notice that once the project is implemented, the acquisition by way of submergence becomes simultaneous and there is no force in the argument of the learned HCGP.

¶39

Under these circumstances, the present appeal also deserves to be disposed of by fixing the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Hence, the award passed by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

¶40

¶41

JMFC, Hassan, in LAC No.120/2011 holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per gunta, is modified and the market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) per gunta. It is needless to say that the said modified market value will carry the remaining statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1892.

¶42

In view of the disposal of the main matter, the application I.A.No.2/2018 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of additional documents stands disposed of, as the same does not survive for consideration.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Manjula v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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

State of Karnataka Vs Prashanth

State of Karnataka Vs Hanumesha

The State of Karnataka Vs Murali

R Puttarangaiah Vs Dheeraj Krishna @ Dheeri

Smt Reshma W/O T S Ashok Gowda Vs M/S the Royal Sundaram Alliance

The State by New Extension Vs Dheeraj Krishana @ Dheeri