Partly allowed

Padmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023MFA/6713/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court appellate court modified a reference award in a land acquisition case. The court aligned the market value from Rs.1,20,000/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, relying on co-ordinate bench determinations for similar projects, while disallowing interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

The judgment fixing compensation at Rs.1,20,000 per acre is modified; market value fixed at Rs.1,00,000 per gunta with remaining statutory benefits.

Padmamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A. No.6713 OF 2018 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . PADMAMMA

¶10

W/O.LATE.PUTTEGOWDA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶12

R/AT.GOLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶13

KATTAYA HOBLI,

¶14

HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶15

...APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI.GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

¶20

HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-2

¶21

HASSAN

¶22

OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶23

HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI.H.K.BASAVARAJ, AGA)

¶26

¶27

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED IN LAC NO.121/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT KALABURAGI, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.10.2012 passed in LAC No.121/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, whereby the reference petition came to be partly allowed and the market value is fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, the appellant has approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement by urging various grounds.

¶31

The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶32

The brief facts are as below:

¶33

¶34

The lands of the claimant bearing Sy.No.5 measuring 24 guntas, Sy.No.1/6 measuring 06 guntas and Sy.No.1/7 measuring 06 guntas situated at Golenahalli, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, were acquired by the Government for Yagachi Reservoir Project under Preliminary Notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 10.3.2005. The respondent has passed award dated 9.12.2006 by fixing the market value at Rs.79,000/- per acre for dry lands. The claimant has received the said compensation amount under protest before the respondent demanding enhancement of compensation and for referring the matter under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Civil Court for determining the correct market value stating that the acquired land was fertile land and was worth Rs.40,00,000/- per acre and that she was growing two crops per year in the said lands. There were several valuable trees in the said lands and the respondent has not taken into consideration all these factors before arriving the market value and the market value determined by the respondent is very meager and inadequate. The matter

¶35

¶36

was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 (1)

¶37

of Land Acquisition Act and numbered as LAC 121/2011.

¶38

After receipt of notice from the Reference Court, the learned DGP has appeared on behalf of the respondent

¶39

and filed objections contending that the contents of application is false and not maintainable in the eye of law. The reference application is barred by time. The compensation amount so awarded is just, proper and reasonable and all the relevant factors were taken into consideration while determining the market value of land prevailing at the time of 4(1) notification of the Act. Hence prayed to dismiss the reference petition.

¶40

Before the Reference Court, the claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8 and respondent has not chosen to adduce any evidence on its behalf.

¶41

The Reference Court after hearing the arguments

¶42

and considering the materials placed on record, allowed the petition in part and fixed the market value of the

¶43

¶44

acquired dry lands at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits.

¶45

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award,

¶46

the claimant has approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶47

We have heard Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for appellant and Sri H.K. Basavaraj, learned AGA for respondent.

¶48

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 acquired lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in connection with similarly placed lands acquired for the said Yagachi Reservoir Project under preliminary notification dated 11-2-2009 of Byadarahalli village. It is also submitted that LAC No.53/2016 c.w. LAC No.52/2010 were also disposed of on the same valuation by the reference Court by fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶49

¶50

It is also submitted that this Court in MFA No.6780/2018 (LAC N.120/2011) has determined the market value of the acquired land pertaining to Yettinakatte village which was acquired for the same purpose under preliminary notification dated 9-6-2005 at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶51

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in LAC No.90/2014, pertaining to the acquisition of the land under preliminary notification dated 11-2-2009 of Byadarahalli village, the Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, which was also for the acquisition relating to Yagachi Reservoir project.

¶52

The Reference Court in LAC No.231 to 235/2015 concerning the preliminary notifications dated 14-3-2008, and 6-5-2010 pertaining to Golenahalli and Bommenahalli villages under which lands were acquired for Yagachi Reservoir project, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta was fixed.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

When a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this Bench has disposed of the matters by fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in respect of the land which were 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 Coordinate Bench and this Bench in similar matters. We also notice that once the project is implemented, the acquisition by way of submergence become simultaneous and there is no force in the argument of the learned AGA for respondent.

¶56

¶57

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.

¶58

Bal Ram and another¹ 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 Kashmir² .

¶59

Under these circumstances, the present appeal

¶60

also deserves to be disposed of by fixing the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶61

Hence, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

The judgment and award passed by the learned

¶63

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan in LAC No.121/2011 on 16-10-2012 holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is modified and the market

¶64

1 2010 (5) SCC 747

¶65

2 2017 (4) SCC 717

¶66

¶67

value of the acquired land is determined at

¶68

Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶69

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, 1894. (However, the claimant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 2037 days in filing the appeal as per order dated 27-10-2012).

¶70

In view of the disposal of the main matter, the application IA 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

tsn*

Padmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmamma v. State of Karnataka

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Sunitha P

Smt Anjali @ Geethamma Vs Thalavar Siddappara Devaraj

The Claim Manager Vs Karlina

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Ayisha B B

The Legal Manager Vs Sri Shivakumar S

Mr. H. Jayawantha Shenoy Vs Mrs Channamma