Sri. B.G. Siddeshappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.52/2001 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGA. MODIFY THE AWARD AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2010 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGA IN LAC NO.52/2001 AND ALLOWS THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) challenging the judgment and award dated 10.11.2010 passed in LAC No.52/2001 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' ) seeking for higher compensation.

¶28

Sri.Sangamesh G Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47414-DB M.F.A No.612/2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Eshwarappa and Others vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another¹ has enhanced the market value at Rs.105/- per square feet. It is further submitted that the acquisition of land in the said case and the acquisition of land in the present case were for the same purpose, of the same village and under the same notification. Hence, the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the similar benefit and seeks to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per contra, Smt.Mamatha Shetty, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has determined the market value based on the evidence

¶33

1 M.F.A. No.8200/2015 c/w M.F.A No. 5782/2015 dtd 13.01.2020

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47414-DB M.F.A No.612/2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

available on record, which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. It is also submitted that the appellant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is :

¶38

"Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47414-DB M.F.A No.612/2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The pleadings and evidence on record indicate

¶42

that the appellant's land measuring 3 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.73 situated at Basavanaganguru Village, Holaluru Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 11.09.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon reference, the Reference Court redetermined the market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Eshwarappa referred supra wherein, the market value of the lands situated in the very same locality i.e. Basavanaganguru Village, Holaluru Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, acquired for the same purpose and under the same

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:47414-DB M.F.A No.612/2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

notification was re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet.

¶47

Having perused the said judgment, we find that the lands involved therein and the appellant’s land in the present case are similar in nature, location, and potentiality, and were acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. It would therefore be unjust and inequitable to treat the appellant dissimilarly in the matter of compensation. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the same rate of compensation as awarded in the earlier case, i.e., at Rs.105/- per square feet.

¶48

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with costs.

¶49

The market value of the land measuring 3 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.73 situated at Basavanaganguru Village, Holaluru Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, is re-determined at

¶50