Allowed

Smt Geethamma v. the Asst Commissioner and Lao

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024MSA/110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation enhancement case for irrigated agricultural land acquired for Aluru tank construction. Court reappreciated evidence on crops grown and raised compensation from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.1,25,000 per acre, allowing the appeal in part.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Geethamma Vs the Asst Commissioner and Lao — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 110 OF 2018 (LA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GEETHAMMA, 62 YEARS, MAJOR, W/O LATE B.M. RUDRAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MELLEKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 004.

¶8

B.M. LINGARAJU, 61 YEARS, MAJOR S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MELLEKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 004.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER & LAO, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶14

THE EXECUTING ENGINEER, ZILLA PARISHATH, ENGINEERING DIVISION, OPP: RH CHOULTRY, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. T.P. MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶18

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN MA.NO.224/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.19/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. FOR THE DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.T.P.Malipatil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶23

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

Appellant’s land in Sy.No.66 has been acquired for the construction of Aluru tank. 13 acres of the land has been lost for the said project. Acquisition and determination of the compensation at the rate of

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶27

Rs.16,000/- by the Land Acquisition Officer is not in dispute.

¶28

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

¶29

compensation, appellants herein filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶30

Learned Judge in the reference Court considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record including the records of rights extracts, the other material documents namely existence of borewell, the electricity consumption charges and estimate given by the APMC, Davangere for the relevant period of time and enhanced compensation from Rs.16,000/- to Rs.80,000/per acre.

¶31

Being not satisfied by the determination of the compensation, appellants herein filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in MA No.224/2011.

¶32

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

¶33

reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶36

redetermined the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/as against sum of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the reference Court.

¶37

Being not satisfied with the said enhancement, appellants are before this Court, in this appeal.

¶38

Sri.Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the land in question was admittedly a fertile and irrigated land and appellants herein were growing DCH cotton as the main crop, apart from growing ragi, maize, vegetables and sunflower. Therefore, determination of the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the First Appellate Court is on the lower side and sought for reasonable enhancement.

¶39

He also pointed out that according to the relevant market value in and round the vicinity and also the profit that the appellants were deriving from the lands, atleast sum of Rs.2,45,000/- is to be determined as the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶41

compensation to the acquired land and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

Sri.T.P.Maliptail, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara, learned counsel supports the order passed by the First Appellate Court by contending that material evidence placed on record has been properly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶44

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that at an undisputed point of time, original land owners namely Rudrappa and Lingaraju issued a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ex.P.17.

¶45

In Ex.P.17, there is no mention of growing cotton, ragi, sunflower, vegetables and other crops. Ex.P.17 contains only existence of coconut, mango trees and areca nut trees in the land.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶47

Ex.P.17 also mentions about the growing of

¶48

mulberry for the purpose of sericulture.

¶49

However, while adducing the evidence before the reference Court, all together a different stand has been taken by the appellants herein to the effect that in the acquired land, crops like DCH cotton, ragi, maize, vegetables and sunflower were raised. The acquired land had the facility of the water source by way of a tube well and the electricity connection to the said tube well was obtained and necessary documents were placed on record.

¶50

Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned Judge in the reference Court enhanced the compensation insofar as land value is concerned by adopting the capitalization method from Rs.16,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.

¶51

There is a detailed discussion in the order passed by the learned Judge in the reference Court to the effect that the oral testimony of P.W.1 to 3 would only go to show that they could raise only one crop in a year

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶54

though they deposed before the Court that they were growing two crops in a year.

¶55

Apart from the RTC extract, no other

¶56

documents were placed on record for having sold the raised crops in the APMC.

¶57

However, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reappreciated the material evidence on record and enhanced the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against sum of Rs.80,000/-.

¶58

Sri.Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel contended that in the absence of proper proof being placed on record with regard to the second crop being grown, taking note of the fact that second crop could only be grown in summer, at least 50% of the value of the first crop to be adjudged here and same be taken note of and sought for enhancement in a sum of Rs.40,000/- over and above sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the First Appellate Court.

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶60

22. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed

¶61

for the same.

¶62

Taking note of the rival contentions of the parties and reappreciation of the material on record, if not to the entire extent, having regard to the fact that the land had the irrigation facility, some crops or vegetables would have been grown in the summer as well, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre as against sum of Rs.16,000/awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, enhanced to Rs.80,000/- by the reference Court and further enhanced to sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by the First Appellate Court.

¶63

Further, since it is an isolated acquisition, for the purpose of construction of the tank, respondents would not also be affected by suitably enhancing the compensation in the case of the appellants.

¶64

25. Accordingly, the following:

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32989 MSA No. 110 of 2018

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii. Claimants are entitled to sum of Rs.1,25,000/- *per acre as compensation with all consequential benefits and costs.

¶69

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶70

KAV

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK

¶72

*Corrected vide Court order dated 21.09.2024

Smt Geethamma v. the Asst Commissioner and Lao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Geethamma v. the Asst Commissioner and Lao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H. Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Kiran Kumar

M/S Annapurna Enterprises Vs M/S Capronics Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Ambedkar Mission Education Vs Mrs. v. Sunitha Bai

Sri.N. Parashuram Vs Sri. Srinivasa Murthy

Karigowda Vs Sri. Puttegowda

T. S. Venkateshaiah Vs the Chief Secretary