Allowed

Sri Haleshappa v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/848/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged the Land Acquisition Award, arguing the acquired land was irrigated and should be classified as wet land rather than dry land. The Court classified the land as wet based on award particulars showing bore well usage. It modified the decision to award compensation at the wet land rate with solatium.

What did the court decide?

The appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment is modified to classify lands as wet lands and calculate compensation at Rs. 2,62,500 per acre plus solatium.

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

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 848 OF 2015 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

Sri. Haleshappa S/o Basappa Aged about 67 years R/at Kodachagondanahalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Honnalli Taluk Davanagere District – 577217.

¶12

... Appellant

¶13

(By Sri. Nagaraja Ijari - Advocates)

¶14

AND

¶15

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Upper Tunga Project Shimoga City, Shimoga Taluk Shimoga District – 577201.

¶16

The Executive Engineer Upper Tunga Project Honnali City, Honnalli Taluk Davangere District-577217.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(By Sri. H. K. Basavaraj – AGA for R-1; Sri. Prashanth B.R – Advocate for R-2)

¶19

This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying this Hon’ble court may be

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶22

pleased to modify the award and judgment dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge at Harihara in LAC No.116/2006 and allow the claim petition of the appellants by allowing the present appeal with costs.

¶23

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

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

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 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Harihar, in LAC No.116/2006 dated 03.12.2011 and seeking for

¶26

enhancement of compensation.

¶27

The facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as under:

¶28

The 1st respondent – SLAO acquired the land in Sy.No.47/3 to an extent of 08 guntas, Sy.No.48/1 to an extent of 05 gunta, Sy.No.49/4 to an extent of 01 gunta and Sy.No.49/3 to an extent of 05 gunta in total 0-19 acre situated in Kodachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Honnali Taluk for the purpose of formation of channel of

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶31

Upper Tunga Project. The aforesaid lands belongs to appellant. The 2nd respondent is the beneficiary of the acquired land. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 05.06.2003 in Official Gazette. Thereafter final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was published on 27.01.2004 in the Official Gazette. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 10.04.2004 by the SLAO and after completion of acquisition proceedings, the SLAO passed award on 30.05.2005 determining the compensation to the acquired land.

¶32

Appellant contends that the aforesaid lands are classified as Kushki land but it is irrigated land where the appellant raised maize and other crops with the help of bore well facility situated in Sy.No.47/3 of Kodachagondanahalli and this aspect has been noted by the SLAO in the award. Therefore, it is contended that the compensation determined for acquisition of land in respect of dry land is not applicable but lands have to be considered as wet land and compensation determined for wet land should have been

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶35

applied. It is contended that claimants sought reference to the civil Court and LAC.No.116/2006 was initiated under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court conducted joint trial in respect of the lands acquired under same notification and determined compensation of Rs.1,04,500/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.2,62,500/- per acre for wet lands instead of Rs.29,333/- per acre for dry land and Rs.44,000/- per acre for wet land as determined by the SLAO.

¶36

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the lands pertaining to the claimant therein are to be considered as wet lands in view of the observation of SLAO though they are irrigated lands with bore well.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri.Prashanth B R for respondent –

¶38

2 submits that in view of similar findings made by the coordinate bench in MFA.No.No.393/2015 (LAC) dated 17.04.2021, on the ground of parity the present appeal has to be held as covered by said judgment. We have gone through the judgment passed in MFA.No.393/2015 where

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶41

also land which was considered as dry land was held to be wet land in view of certain documents produced in the said LAC proceedings.

¶42

In the instant case on hand, on careful perusal of the award particulars in page No.38 wherein item No.13 the description in respect of Sy.Nos.47/3, 48/1, 49/3, 49/4 depicts that in said lands crops like maize, peanuts are grown with the help of bore well. The description also shows there are two bore wells in these lands and therefore lands acquired under present appeal are to be termed as wet lands and therefore the appellant herein is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,62,500/- per acre.

¶43

We also considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and in view of the decision in the case of Union of India Vs.Balram (2010) 5 SCC 747 wherein it was held that if the purpose of acquisition is the same and the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay the more

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 848 of 2015

¶46

compensation to some of the land owners and less compensation to others.

¶47

Therefore, in view of the said principles laid down and contentions that lands acquired are dry land is incorrect in view of the recital in award itself, the appeal succeeds to the extent of lands acquired are to be treated as wet lands and compensation has to be calculated at the rate of Rs.2,62,500 per acre. In addition to this appellant is also entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits as applicable under the provision of the Act. The appeal succeeds and impugned judgment is modified accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Haleshappa v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Haleshappa 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 Bhoju Kulal

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Smt Puttananjamma

Smt Gangasiddamma Vs Suma

State by Devaraja Police Station Vs Srikantaprasad @ Changumani

E C Asha Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Mariyamma Vs Sri Suyambulingam v.