Sri B T Shivashankar Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.04.2015 PASSED ON LAC NO.332/2014 ON THE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2015 passed in LAC No.332/2014 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶25

referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.

¶26

The brief facts leading to filling of this appeal are that the claimant's lands measuring 0.13 guntas in Sy.No.04 and measuring 21 guntas in Sy.No.12 situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶29

District was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal.

¶30

Sri.Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the lands in question without considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands arise out of the preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009. The Reference Court in LAC Nos.86/2014, 87/2014, 88/2014 and 89/2014 clubbed with LAC No.85/2014, enhanced the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and the acquisition of the lands in these cases are from the same Hobli and acquired for the same purpose. Hence, he seeks to re-determine the market value at

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶33

Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits in this appeal also.

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court.

¶35

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶36

The undisputed facts are that the claimant's lands measuring 0.13 guntas in Sy.No.04 and measuring 21 guntas in Sy.No.12 situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶38

vide preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on 23.12.2011 by determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.77,200/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the acquisition is for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project and the lands are situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of LAKSHMEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS¹ and SANNEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS² has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION

¶40

OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER³ and held that

¶41

when the acquired lands are more or less situated nearby,

¶42

1 MFA No.8703/2018 dt. 25.09.21

¶43

2 MFA No.8760/2018 dt. 24.09.21

¶44

3 (2010) 5 SCC 747

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶46

when the acquired lands are identical and similar and acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more compensation to some of the land owners and less compensation to the others. The Bench has also recorded that the said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶47

Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH

¶48

AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR⁴

¶49

and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the aforesaid case, the preliminary notification

¶50

was issued in the year 2009 and the acquisition was for the same purpose as in the case on hand. In the instant appeal, preliminary notification for acquisition is of the year 2009 and the nature of land and their potentiality are similar to that of the subject matter of the lands covered in the aforesaid judgments. Hence, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the land loser in this appeal is also entitled to similar benefits. In addition the Reference Court in LAC

¶51

4 (2017) 4 SCC 717

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶54

Nos.86/2014, 87/2014, 88/2014 and 89/2014 clubbed with LAC No.85/2014, vide common judgment dated 28.09.2015 has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The judgments of the Reference Court clearly indicate that the subject matter of the acquisition arise from the preliminary notification dated 04.02.2009 which is in the same year, and the acquisition was for the purpose of the same project as in the instant case. The lands covered under the aforesaid judgments of the Reference Court were also from the same Hobli. It is also not in dispute that the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra and the judgments of the Reference Court referred supra have attained finality and there is no challenge to the said judgments by the respondent. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench and the Reference Court have determined the market value of the lands covered under the aforesaid judgments which were acquired for the same purpose at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5585-DB M.F.A. No.9057/2017

¶56

This Court is conscious that the acquisition proceedings are initiated in the year 2009 and the claimant is the farmer who has lost his lands to the extents of 0.13 guntas in Sy.No.4 and 21 guntas in Sy.No.12. Considering the fact that the lands covered under this appeal and the lands covered in the aforesaid judgments are identical and similar, acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, it would be unfair to discriminate the land owners. Hence, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed by re-determining the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58