Karnataka High Court
Venkatadas vs The Spl Lao on 27 June, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 277" DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
PRESENT > ee
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE No KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE. ARAVIND KUMAR
MFA NO.4691/2C03(LAG).
M.F.A.NO.S169/2003{LAC}
M.F.A.NO.4691/2003; 0.
BETWEEN:
y
Venkatadas =
S/o Achut Kamath.
Aged about 6O years, .
Occ: Business'and ©
Agriculturist :
Rio. Ankola, .
Karwar, Distri ot APPELLANT
(BY SRISACHIN.S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE}
oo. 2.India Navy
. Department of Defence of
"Government of india
Represented by Defence
Bo
Estate Officer,
Karnataka & Goa Circle, eS
Bangalore ~ 560 042. RESPONDENTS --
(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, AGA POR RESPC ONDENT . NO.1, SRI.LMRUTHYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, « "GSC > FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) This MFA is filed under-.Section 54th of Land. Acquisition Act against the Judgment wand Decree dated 11.04.2003 passed in LAC. No.109/ J991 on the file of the Additional Civil. Judge (Sr. Dny. "Karwar, partly allowing the reference 'petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation. a es M.F.A.NO,5169/2093: -
BETWEEN:
The Speci al Land Acq uisition Officer, a Sea Bird Project "A, . ne Karwar. 7 LO Oe APPELLANT (BY SRE-MAH ESH WODEYAR, AGA) Poon gy Lines ay oh le ge Amt es ESO AL 7 fut Kamat eo Ma : nhakeri, ykéla= SSLi3B14 "Littar Kannada.
~ 2) Indian Navy Department of Defence of Government of India I oe Represented by Defence Estate Officer, Karnataka & Goa Circle, Bangalore ~ 560 042, RES SPONDENTS.
(BY SRLSACHIN S.MAGADUM: FOR. ResbanpEnt NO.1, SRILMRUTHYUNJAYA TATA BANGi, CGSC FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) BON This MFA is filed under, Section 3411 1) of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgmenr- and. Decree dated 11.04.2003 passed in-LAC No.109/1991 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Karwar, partly allowing the ref ference: petition for enhanced compensation. - a These appeals coraing.on for Final Hearing this day, N. Kumar J.) delivered the following:
"JUDGMENT M.F.A.No. 4691/2 2003 is filed by claimant seeking enh ancem emt of -.compensation in so far as compensation ie "respect of structures and trees are concerned, Where as M.FLA.S169/2003 is preferred by State che allenging the award of %5,500/- per gunta forthe lend which is acquired,
"2. AS both these appeals arise out of the same judgme it and award passed by trial Court, they are i .
taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Claimant is the owner of land. bearing Sv.No.i3/4-A measuring 3 acres. 240 guntas and] a guntas of phut kharab. Said lands were 'notifred for-- acquisition for the benefit" cof Indian = Navy for establishing project called "Sea Bird". A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) ef Land Acquisition \.
Act was issuéd on 20. 10.1986 and Final notification was issued o in. v4 08: 1 OST a nd a n award came to be passed on 04.04 6o- awarding a sum of €400/- per gunta so far as land" is concerned, a sum of R17 1,550 fa was aw arded so far as structures are conce mn ed. and .& sum of 210,993/- was awarded ~ browa rds trees / malkis. It is relevant to point out at eh) S$. ju ne t ure that and in question is non- ag rie Gliaral land. Aggrieved by the said award, ¢ aimant sought for reference to Civil Court. Reference Court after recording evidence enhanced + the compensation and in respect of land in place of ~ requires to be dismissed, Accordingly
- Oo e400/- per gunta, it awarded %5,500/- per gunta. In so far as structures were concerned it enhanced the compensation to €2,25,000/-, and in so far as trees. | were concerned it was enhanced to J13,000/-.....
4. State has preferred an appeal challenging enhancement of com pensation i nv respect sof land. Claimant has preferred _ an - appeal seeking enhancement in respect of struct res'and trees. It is not in dispu te betwe e He parties that State preferred Special Leave Petition against the award of %5,500/- per guntain connected inaiters before Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.1 5080272007 and leave was granted and. it was renumbered as Civil Appeal 330/2009., After' he a rin g the parties, civil appeal came to be "dismissed and. Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the award vol 5,500/5 per gunta as compensation for non-
" apriculte in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble c MPANG.S169/2003 is dismissed.
9. Insofar as the grievance of claimant <in respect of structures is concerned, Reference Court has discussed at length in its Judgment at paragraph 9, and material on record discloses 'that "structures were constructed during the period A 982 86, "Tnfact one of the building was completed only tothe extent of 60%. Claimant adduced cra | evidence by examining a consultant en gin eer, wh ob as-tu r n ished estimate of construction. It is 'on that, b asis a.sum of £2,25,000/- is claimed as compensation . "When the acquisition proceedings were initiated even prior to completion of building though : the ~estim ate shows cost of oy mee éonstruction 4, 10°335 /- claimant had to establish said " chain, by" producing acceptable evidence, me laims n t BR a S$ not produced any account books or oy eceip ts Lo show money spent for the said Ponstruction. PW-2 has admitted that he had not Carried out the werk of construction and therefore "his evidence would not be of assistance in determining compensation pavable. As far as PW-3 : ohan and 4 are concerned they have seen the buildin Z a f ter construction. Hence their evidence is alsg.
iS in those circumstances, a sum - of 1 -71,550/- was awarded as coampensatio a to wa rds str uc t ul re 8 7 However, Reference Court "after ; reviewing the aforesaid evidence on -evord and-also takin g note of the fact that state also. has not produced reports of PWD auth orities™ ; whi ch sb ows the cost of construc tio n of said st ructures by way of honest guess work has awa rded _%2,25,000/- towards said construc tor. . No we the gtieva nee of the appellant that compe ns ation to wa ; ds Structures is inadequate and that he is. entitled for £4,10,235/- restricted to 239 7,000 / >and for enhancement in a sum. of : ; vr, 02,00 OQ; me i owever, if the very same material is te ok edi nto over again it does not support the case o "Claimant. Compensation cannot be awarded on the ~-. basis of estimates. Compensation is payable on the
-actual amount spent for construction of these buildings. When the buildings were not completed on the date of acquisition and when it was comstructed immediately prior to acquisition, there. was no.
difficulty for the claimant to bave -produced documents showing the cost of con struction. : "Ho™ acceptable reasons are forthcoming for not producing such important evidenceto su hstantia te his 'claim. It is in these circumstances only on the basis of guess work, compe nsation h as. be e n" award ed. Infact Reference | Co art has 'enh ance d com pensation even without "there \being. "any - supporting evidence. Further enhancement "is impermissible without acceptable evidence. Therefore, we do not see any justification to-enhance the compensation.
5. In so far as enhancement of compensation With respect to trees are concerned coconut trees juvenile trees they were not fruit yielding. Keference Court enhanced compensation to €13,000/-
"on the basis of concession made by Government Le Advocate without there being any evidence. <lisfact Reference Court had categorically awarded 21 which itself is on the higher side and _as-it-has no | power to reduce the compen sation, a i rm ed-awarding of £13,000/- because of conicessivn made. cin these circumstances, we do not ste any. justif ca tion to interfere with the award : No "imerit in th €é appeal preferred by the _. ciaimant. : ~ - Accordingly MPFA.No.4691/2003 is algo dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs...