Partly allowed

Shiddappa S/O Bhimappa Yamagar v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023MFA/103689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A land acquisition dispute where the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.2 lakhs per acre with a multiplier. The High Court held the Reference Court erred in rejecting higher compensation based on adjacent village sale deeds. The award was modified to Rs.45 lakhs total, granting 100% solatium and interest.

What did the court decide?

Partly allowed; impugned award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/- including 100% solatium; respondents directed to pay within one month.

Shiddappa S/O Bhimappa Yamagar Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103689 OF 2023 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHIDDAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA YAMAGAR AGE. 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BUDNI TQ. JAMKAHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UKP, JAMKHANDI – 587 301.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT – 587 201.

¶16

Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR K M SOMASHEKAR Date: 2024.02.03 11:30:18 +0530

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.KESHAV REDDY, ADDITIONAL ADOVCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO. 106/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, JAMKHANDI, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2023 MADE THEREIN AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE AT RS. 15,25,000/- PER ACRE TOGETHER WITH ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUAMR J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal by the unsuccessful claimant in LAC

¶24

No.106/2018 on the file of the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi (for short ‘the Reference Court’) is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.06.2023, whereby the said claim / reference petition filed by the appellant – claimant under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the said Act of 2013’) was rejected by the Reference court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AAG for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶26

The material on record discloses that the subject matter of the reference proceedings before the Reference court as well as in the present appeal are lands bearing Sy.No.40/12 measuring 25 guntas situated at Budni village, Jamakhandi taluk, Bagalkot district, acquired for the backwaters of Upper Krishna Project. The subject lands were notified for acquisition vide Preliminary

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶28

Notification dated 05.12.2013 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 21.12.2013 in the Karnataka State Official Gazette. In pursuance of the same, a final notification was issued on 05.02.2015 and an award dated 14.01.2016 was passed under the provisions of the said Act of 2013 in the light of Section 24(1) (a) of the said Act of 2013, which mandates that awards in respect of proceedings initiated prior to commencement of the said Act w.e.f. 01.01.2014 have to be passed under the said Act of 2013. Accordingly, as per the impugned award dated 14.01.2016, the SLAO fixed the compensation of the subject lands as wet lands determining their market value at Rs.2 lakhs per acre and applied a multiplier of 2 as per the First Schedule of the said Act of 2013 and awarded compensation together with 100% solatium, interest and other statutory benefits.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said award of the SLAO, the appellant sought for reference before the Reference court, which formulated two points for consideration viz., (i) whether the reference petitions were within time and (ii) whether the petitioner – claimant was entitled to enhancement. The Reference court answered point

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶31

No.1 in favour of the appellant. However, the Reference court answered point No.2 against the appellant and declined to enhance the compensation by passing the impugned judgment and award, which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in

¶33

the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference court committed an error in refusing to enhance compensation payable in favour of the appellant by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and consequently, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference court deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶34

(i) Chimanlal Haragovind Das vs. SLAO, Poona and another – AIR 1988 SC 1652;

¶35

(ii) Karnataka Neeravari Neegam vs. SLAO & Another – MFA No.103229/2015 – Dated 29.06.2020;

¶36

(iii) State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Daan Singh & others – RFA No.2069/2021- Dated 10.05.2022;

¶37

(iv) State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Rajbir and Another - RFA No.309/2021 Dated 19.04.2022;

¶38

(v) Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr.LRs. vs.State of Jharkhand - Civil Appeal No.1762/2022 Dated 10.03.2022;

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶40

(vi) State of Karnataka vs. Mallappa - 2003 AIR KANT.H.C.R. 445; and

¶41

(vii) Union of India vs. Smt. Shantabai and others - MFA No.201775/2018 & connected matters – Dated 24.09.2020.

¶42

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would support the impugned judgment and award and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and award will indicate that the Reference court has come to the conclusion that the sale deeds at Exs.P7 and P8 in relation to the lands situated in the adjacent Gani village and the sale deed at Ex.P11 in respect of lands situated in the adjacent Mundaganur village, can be looked into for the purpose of assessment of compensation. In this regard, the Reference court also noticed that sale deeds in respect of adjacent villages can be considered and looked into for the purpose of awarding compensation in view of Section 26(1)(b) and Explanation – 1 to Section 26 of the said Act of 2013, which permits average sale price to be determined by taking into account the sale deeds in the near village or near vicinity area. Despite having come to the said

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶45

conclusion, the Reference court has erroneously refused to take into account the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deeds which clearly indicate that the appellant was entitled to higher compensation than what was awarded by the SLAO.

¶46

In this context, the details of the sale deeds in respect of the adjacent Gani and Mundaganur villages are as under:-

¶47

Ex.P7 – 12.12.2013 - Gani village – Rs.21,71,428/- per acre Ex.P8 – 29.01.2014 – Gani village – Rs.25,00,000/- per acre Ex.P11 – 20.08.2013 – Mundaganur village – Rs.14,50,000/per acre;

¶48

The village map at Ex.P12 also establishes that Gani village and Mundaganur village referred to supra, share a common boundary with Budani village where the subject lands are situated and that the lands are adjacent and in the same vicinity / area as the lands sold under the aforesaid sale deeds. Further, as stated supra, both the SLAO and Reference court have accepted the aforesaid sale deeds and village map and have come to the conclusion that the value of the lands in the aforesaid neighbouring villages can be looked into and considered for the purpose of awarding compensation. Under these circumstances, we are of the

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶50

view that the Reference court committed a grave and serious error of law and fact in rejecting the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation.

¶51

A perusal of the impugned judgment and award will indicate that the Reference Court declined to place reliance upon Ex.P7 dated 12.12.2013 on the ground that the same was subsequent to the preliminary notification dated 05.12.2023, which was published on 21.12.2023. The said finding is erroneous and contrary to the undisputed material on record, which clearly indicates that it is not the date of the Notification which has to be reckoned but the date of publication of the Notification which was on 21.12.2023 and since the sale deed at Ex.P7 dated 12.12.2013 was prior to date of publication of the Preliminary notification on 21.12.2013, the said sale deed was to be taken into account for the purpose of determining compensation and failure on the part of the Reference court to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion. So also, the sale deed at Ex.P8 was executed on 29.01.2014 about one month after publication of the preliminary notification on 21.12.2013 and having regard to the short gap of time between the same, the Reference court erred in not relying

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶53

upon the said sale deed for the purpose of determining compensation. Similarly, the Reference court committed an error in failing to take into account Ex.P11 dated 20.08.2013 in respect of the adjacent Mundaganur village without appreciating that the said sale deed being anterior in point of time, there was no impediment to rely upon the said sale deed by the Reference court.

¶54

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference court deserves to be set aside and the impugned award passed by the SLAO deserves to be modified by taking into account the sale deeds at Exs.P7, P8 and P11 referred to supra and enhancing the compensation as hereunder:-

¶55

Compensation payable per acre (40 guntas) – Rs.18 lakhs Subject land – 25 guntas – Rs.11,25,000/-

¶56

Multiplier of 2 as applied by the SLAO in terms of the First Schedule to the said Act of 2013 – Rs.11,25,000/- x 2 = Rs.22,50,000/-.

¶57

Solatium at 100% - Rs.22,50,000/- x 2 = Rs.45,00,000/-

¶58

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000,000/- together with interest, costs, statutory benefits

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12523-DB MFA No. 103689 of 2023

¶60

etc., by suitably modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference court.

¶61

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) Appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶64

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.06.2023

¶65

passed by the Reference court in LAC No.106/2018 as well as the impugned award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the SLAO is hereby modified.

¶66

(iii) The claim petition filed by the claimant - appellant is partly allowed by holding that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- together with interest, costs, statutory benefits etc.,

¶67

(iv) The respondents are directed to pay / deposit the entire amount as directed in this order within period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR/SRL

Shiddappa S/O Bhimappa Yamagar v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiddappa S/O Bhimappa Yamagar 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

Rep. by Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru 560001. Vs the Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association R Kumareshwar Nagar Near Court Circle Hangal

Rep. by Its Secretary,Public Works Department,Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru 560001 Vs Hanumanthappa S/O.Balappa, Age. 53 Years, Occ. Contractor, R/O.Ward No. 26, Kotreshwar Camp

Rep. by Its Principal Secretary,Urban Development Department,M.S. Building, Bengaluru 560001 Vs the Sirsi Taluka Civil Contractors Association R Totgar S Kalyan Mantap Court Road, Sirsi

Sri.Gangadhargouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil Vs Smt.Mahalaxmi W/O Gangadhargouda Patil

Smt. Hattibelagal Roopa W/O Prabhakar Vs Sri. Prabhakar S/O. Hanumanthappa Hungund

Gangadhargouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil Vs Smt.Mahalaxmi W/O Gangadhargouda Patil