Partly allowed

C Narayanagowda v. the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024MFA/7222/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation appeal. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.8,32,000 to Rs.12 lakhs per acre with statutory benefits for 36 guntas acquired, holding there cannot be two yardsticks for land losers, while denying interest for the delay of 1544 days in filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.12 lakhs per acre with statutory benefits; respondents directed to deposit within eight weeks; no interest for delayed filing period.

C Narayanagowda Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47242 MFA No. 7222 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7222 OF 2019 (LAC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C.NARAYANAGOWDA, S/O.CHANDRAMALLEGOWDA @ SANNAMARI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. CHAKENAHALLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 130.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU-HASSAN RAILWAY BOARD, Digitally signed GUAGE LINE CONSTRUCTION, by DEVIKA M TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS CONTONEMENT, BENGALURU-560 046.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47242 MFA No. 7222 of 2019

¶18

AWARD DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.178/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.3739/2017 dated 16.02.2024, wherein in respect of similar acquisition, this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against Rs.8,32,000/- per acre in favour of the appellant and also held that the appellant is entitled for other statutory benefits. In the above said case, the extent of land is 61 guntas and in the case on hand, the extent of land is 36 guntas i.e., 26 guntas in Sy.No.48/4 and 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B.

¶24

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 disputes

¶25

that it is only for 10 guntas. But on perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, in paragraph No.17 the Trial Court has taken

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47242 MFA No. 7222 of 2019

¶27

note of both the survey numbers. In respect of Sy.No.48/5B, out of 20 guntas it is held that the khatha stands in the name of two persons i.e., Channamallaiah and this petitioner and hence comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled only to an extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B and in Sy.No.48/4 to an extent of 26 guntas. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. There is a clear finding with regard to the extent of ownership of the appellant to an extent of 10 guntas in Sy.No.48/5B and 26 guntas in Sy.No.48/4. This Court in M.F.A.No.3739/2017 enhanced the compensation to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against Rs.8,32,000/- per acre. Hence, the appellant is also entitled for the same amount of compensation and there cannot be two yardsticks for the land losers. The appellant is entitled for Rs.12 lakhs per acre with other statutory benefits and hence the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court requires to be modified.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47242 MFA No. 7222 of 2019

¶33

(ii) The judgment and award of the Trial Court dated 26.02.2015 passed in LAC No.178/2010 is modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as against Rs.8,32,000/per acre with other statutory benefits.

¶34

(iii) However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 1544 days in filing the appeal.

¶35

(iv) The respondents are directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today.

¶36

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶37

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

C Narayanagowda v. the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Narayanagowda v. the Spl 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

Smt. Saramma Vs Union of India

Smt Patalamma Vs Sri Anjanappa

Ramakrishna Dutta Trust (Regd) Vs Smt Shantamma

Mothisingh Vs Somachari

Mr S Vikram Singh Vs M/S Disha Loharuka Infra Projects

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Vs Smt. Prema