Karnataka High Court
National Highway Authority Of India vs Durgappa Bharamappa Sannagudi, on 18 July, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18 t h DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
M.F.A. No.23385 OF 2013 [A & C]
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
BY ITS MANAGER (TECH) & COMPETENT
AUTHORITY & PROJECT DIRECTOR,
FOR LAND ACQUISITION (CA FOR LA)
DHARWAD, CH.RAMANJULA RAO DHAMAD
NOW AT NEAR JMIT, NH-4, (KM.201),
CHITRADURGA-577 502.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri SHIVASAI M PATIL ADV.)
AND:
1. DURGAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNAGUDI,
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF KARUR VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581 143.
2. SRI. MALLAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNAGUDI,
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF KARUR VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT- 581 143.
3. AJAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNAGUDI,
41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF KARUR VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
:2:
HAVERI DISTRICT- 581 143.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ARBITRATOR,
HAVERI, AND ARBITRATOR FOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, HAVERI-581 110.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.37 OF
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996,
AGIANST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:
08.04.2013 PASSED IN ARB. SUIT NO.122/2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AT HAVERI,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED U/SEC. 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shivasai M.Patil, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the record.
2. Pursuant to preliminary notification dated 15.01.2001 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and final declaration dated 20.12.2001, issued under Section 3D of the Act, the lands belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 3 was acquired. As a consequence, an award dated 12.01.2004 was :3: passed by the Manager (Technical) and Competent Authority for land acquisition under Section 3G of the Act.
3. The land-losers having approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Arbitrator for relief, award dated 23.12.2009 was passed, allowing the claim petition in part and directing the appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.158.14 per sq.mt. to the extent of 1062 sq.mtrs. in t he acquired lands in Sy.No.172/1+2 and also to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession under Section 3(D) of the Act till the date of payment or the actual deposit thereof, as per Section 3-H(5) of the Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved, Arbitration Suit No.122/2000 was filed by the appellant in the District Court at Haveri. The suit having been dismissed and thereby the award made by the learned Arbitrator having been confirmed, this appeal was filed to set aside the judgment dated :4: 08.04.2013 passed in Arbitration Suit No.122/2010 by the learned District Judge, Haveri and the award dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India, Haveri District.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the land involved in this case being an agricultural land, having been erroneously assessed as having non-agricultural potential, the learned Deputy Commissioner and the Arbitrator, having passed an erroneous award, the learned District Judge is unjustified in dismissing the suit. He submitted that there being no deduction made towards conversion of land for non-agricultural use, the sum awarded being excessive, interference with the impugned judgment and award is warranted.
6. Perused the record. Learned advocate did not dispute the fact that the land belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 3 being situated adjacent to :5: the lands acquired for the project in question and the lands acquired also being situated adjacent to the National Highway and having been acquired for widening of the existing road, had the non- agricultural potential and in the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Arbitrator is justified in considering the acquired property as having non-agricultural potential and in determining the compensation payable at Rs.158.14 per sq.mt. along with interest. There being no dispute that the appellant has made payment to the similar lands in favour of other land-owners at the rate of Rs.158.14 per sq.mt. i.e., in respect of lands adjacent to the acquired lands in question, the learned District Judge is justified in dismissing the suit, since there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of payment of compensation in respect of the acquired lands which are situated adjacent to each other and acquired for the same project and under the same notification.
:6:
7. In view of the elaborate consideration by the learned Arbitrator and also the learned District Judge, the case of the appellant being devoid of merit, I do not find any justification to entertain this appeal, as learned advocate for the appellant was unable to point out any perversity on the part of either the Arbitrator or the learned District Judge, in the matter of appreciation of the materials brought on record of the case by both sides. The findings recorded in the impugned judgment and award being with reference to credible evidence brought on record by the land- losers, there being justification to award compensation at the rate of Rs.158.14 per sq.mt., in view of the appellant having honoured similar awards passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the suit has rightly been dismissed by the learned District Judge.
Since, the appeal is devoid of merit is rejected.
:7:
Consequently, I.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE RK* Ct: byg/-