Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar Ningappa Chikkannavar vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 27 February, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27 t h DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
MFA NO.20085 OF 2008 (LAC)
BETWEEN
CHANDRASHEKAHR NINGAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ:DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V G BHAT, ADV.)
AND
1. THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB DHARWAD.
2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KIADB BANGALORE.
3. SMT BASAVVA
W/O NINGAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
4. KARIYAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5. MALLAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA CHIKANNAVAR
:2: MFA No.20085/2008
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
6. GANGAVVA
W/O GIRIYAPPA BOGAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
7. SHOBHA
W/O RAMAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ: DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
8. MANJULA
W/O MALLESHAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
9. MADEVI
W/O UMESH KARIGAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: RAYAPUR, TQ DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
10. SMT.IRAVVA
W/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
10(a) YALLAPPA
S/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMMINAKOPPA,
TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.
10(b) BASAPPA
S/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
:3: MFA No.20085/2008
R/O AMMINAKOPPA, TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST:UTTARA KANNADA
10(c) SIDDAPPA
S/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMMINAKOPPA, TQ:HALIYAL,
DIST:UTTAR KANNADA
10(d) FAKKIRAPPA
S/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMMINAKOPPA, TQ:HALIYAL,
DIST:UTTAR KANNADA
10(e) HANUMANTA
S/O MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O AMMINAKOPPA, TQ:HALIYAL,
DIST:UTTAR KANNADA,
10(f) MARUTI DONNENAVAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O.AMMINKOPPA, TQ:HALIYAL,
DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.
11. IRAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA CHIKKANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: GOVANAKOPPA,
TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
12. MUDAKAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA CHIKANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: GOVANAKOPPA,
TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
13. IRAVVA
W/O YALLAPPA YALIGAR,
:4: MFA No.20085/2008
AGE: MAJOR, R/O:SHIRAGUPPI,
TQ: HUBLI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH N. MISALE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. R.V.GOULAY, ADV. FOR R3 TO R9;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV FOR R10(a),
R10(b), R10(d) TO R10(f);
NOTICE TO R10(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. G.S.SAVADATTI, ADV. FOR R11 TO R13)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF LAC
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
20/03/2002 PASSED IN L.A.C.NO.41/1993, ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
APPLICATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal of the claimant arises out of the judgment and ord er d ated 20.03.2002 in LAC.No.41/1993 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judg e, Dharwad . By the impugned award, the trial Court has granted compensation of Rs.45,000/- per gunta for acq uisition of land bearing Block No.40/2 of Rayap ur villag e with the add itional b enefits and held that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to half shares and :5: MFA No.20085/2008 respondent Nos.5 to 7 along with the claimants take half share as leg al rep resentatives of Ning appa.
2. Respondent No.1 acquired land bearing block No.40/2 measuring 9 Acres 23 Guntas situated within the limits of Rayapur villag e for the purpose of respondent No.2 estab lishing industrial area.
3. The p reliminary notification for acquisition was issued on 03.03.1975 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act (For short the 'Act'). Final notification und er Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 18.11.1976. The possession of the property was taken on 18.04.1977.
4. Land Acquisition Officer under his award g ranted compensation of Rs.9,000/- per gunta. Original claimant Ning appa S/o. Siddapp a Chikkannavar @ Sheatasanadi received the said :6: MFA No.20085/2008 comp ensation amount under protest and filed application under Section 18 for reference of the matter to the Civil Court. On his application, the matter was referred to II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad and registered in LAC No.41/1993. When the matter was pending before the reference Court, original claimant Ning appa d ied and appellant Nos.1(A to H) came on record as the leg al representatives of deceased Ning ap pa and prosecuted the matter.
5. The reference petition was filed ag ainst respondent Nos.1 and 2 the acquiring authority and the beneficiary. When the matter was p end ing before the reference Court, respondent Nos.3 and 4 got themselves imp leaded in the case claiming that they were LRs. of Mallapp a who also had an interest in the prop erty. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also came on record filing imp ead ing application claiming that they were the legal rep resentatives of :7: MFA No.20085/2008 Sidd app a who also had an interest in the property.
6. At the time of acquisition the name of Ning appa was ap pearing in the revenue records. There was no dispute that the p rop erty in question was the Inaam Land and that was reg ranted to Ningapp a under Ex.P.3 the ord er of the Commissioner d ated 26.06.1974. Basing on the said order, Ning app a claimed that it was his absolute prop erty and he received the comp ensation before the first respondent.
7. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 contended that land originally b elonged to one Kariyapp a who was officiating as Inaamd ar, on his death, the property devolved on his sons Sidd appa and Mallapp a. On the death of Sidd app a and Mallapp a, Ning appa, son of Sidd appa was cultivating the land as inamd ar. Therefore, they claimed that the land was reg ranted in favour of Ning appa, on behalf of the family of Sidd app a :8: MFA No.20085/2008 and Mallappa and they were entitled to shares in the p roperty, consequently in the compensation award ed.
8. The claimants contend ed that the comp ensation awarded was not fair and reasonab le having reg ard to the potentiality of the land etc.,
9. The parties adduced evid ence. The trial Court by the impugned award held that the amount in the name of Ning ap pa was for the benefit of entire family and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 being the heirs of Sidd app a and Mallapp a were entitled to shares in the property and conseq uently, in the compensation.
10. The trial Court referring to Exs.R.2 and 3 the judgment and decree in O.S.No.566/1997 in favour of respond ent Nos.11 to 13 herein for partition and sep arate possession of their shares in the p roperties :9: MFA No.20085/2008 includ ing the subject land held that they were entitled for apportionment of their shares in the comp ensation amount. Since app eal ag ainst judgment and decree in O.S.No.566/1997 was pend ing , the trial court held that the said order of apportionment of shares was subject to final result in O.S.No.566/1997.
11. Reg arding the enhancement of comp ensation, the reference Court relied on EX.P.17, the judgment of this Court in MFA.No.2033/91 and granted compensation of Rs.45,000/- per acre with other b enefits.
12. Sri.V.G.Bhat, learned counsel for the app ellant seeks to assail the impugned judgment and award of the trial Court on the following grounds:
i) The reference was only on the b asis of the petition filed by Ning app a the original : 10 : MFA No.20085/2008 claimant for enhancement of compensation, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 had not filed any petition for reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of the award amount. Therefore, reference Court in granting shares to respond ent Nos. 3 to 7 acted beyond the scop e of the reference which was imp ermissible;
ii) The reference Court failed to award comp ensation on the head of price escalation.
The reference Court should have added 10% price escalation per year to the comp ensation award ed.
13. In support of his contention he relies upon the following judgments:
1
1) Ambey Devi V/s. State of Bihar
2) Prayag Upanivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., V/s. 1
AIR 1996 SC 1513 : 11 : MFA No.20085/2008 Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and 2 another
3) The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., V/s.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. 3
14. Sri. Ramesh N Misale, learned counsel for respond ent Nos.1 and 2 seeks to support the imp ugned award on the following grounds:
1) The claimants did not raise the question of price escalation before the trial Court;
2) The land situated in rural area. Only conseq uent to the acquisition, there was develop ment in the area.
Therefore, there is no question of price escalation.
2 AIR 2003 SC 2302 3 (2008) 14 SCC 745 : 12 : MFA No.20085/2008 3) The reference Court has awarded comp ensation relying on Ex.P.17 claimants' own document.
Therefore it is not open to them to claim that the comp ensation award ed was on the lower sid e.
4) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation's case relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants themselves, held that rule of p rice escalation refers to the g eneral trend in the nineties and the acquisition in the case on hand was in 1975. Therefore, the said judgment d oes not advance the case of the claimants.
15. Sri Jag adish Patil, learned counsel for respondents seeks to support the impugned award so far it relates to apportionment on the ground that there was already decree in favour : 13 : MFA No.20085/2008 of respondent Nos.11 to 13 which was up held in the appeal holding that the p roperty was the inam land granted to the family of Kariyapp a their ancestor and therefore regrant in favour of Ning appa enures to the benefit of the whole family.
16. On considering the rival contentions and the material on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:-
1. Whether the Reference Court was justified in apportioning the shares to respondent Nos.3 to 7;
2. Whether the compensation award ed by the Reference Court is just and reasonab le?
Reg Point No .1:
17. There is no dispute between the parties that Ningappa the original claimant received the compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer und er p rotest and sought the : 14 : MFA No.20085/2008 Reference of the matter to the Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation. It was on his reference, the matter was placed b efore the Reference Court. It is nob ody's case that the matter was pending before the Reference Court on app lication of respondent Nos.3 to 7 for apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
18. It was no doubt true that the respondent Nos.11 to 13 had filed OS No.566/1997 ag ainst the present appellant and others seeking p artition and sep arate possession claiming that the subject matters of the said suit were the ancestral joint family properties of Kariyapp a, Sidd appa and Mallapp a and as legal representatives of Sidd appa, they also have a share in the prop erty. That the suit was d ecreed on 16/4/2001. However, that was subsequent to the reference. When the matter was p ending before the Reference Court, an : 15 : MFA No.20085/2008 app eal ag ainst the judgment and decree in O.S.No.566/1997 was p end ing .
19. The Hon'b le Sup reme Court in Ambey Devi case and Prayag Upanivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., case referred to sup ra, clearly held that the Reference Court cannot traverse beyond the scope of the Reference. In Ambey Davi case, in a similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act is inconsistent with Order I Rule 10 of CPC., therefore, by ap plying the said provision, the Reference Court cannot traverse beyond the scope of the reference. Therefore, the ord er of Reference Court apportioning the compensation amount in favor of respond ent Nos.3 to 7 was contrary to the ratio in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'b le Supreme Court.
20. Since O.S.No.566/1997 filed by respondent Nos.11 to 13 for partition was : 16 : MFA No.20085/2008 decreed even in the event of reference court not apportioning their share, no p rejudice would b e caused to them. They could workout their remed y in the proceed ings arising out of decree in O.S.No.566/1997. If respondent Nos.3 to 10 claim that they also have a share, it is op en to them to approach Civil Court seeking app ropriate remedy. Therefore, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Reg Point No .2:
21. The first respondent under his award granted compensation of Rs.9,000/ per acre. The claimants contended that the said amount was totally inadequate having reg ard to the potentiality of the land etc. As rightly pointed out by the Reference Court, Exs.P18 to 23, the sale deeds did not pertain to the period proximate to the time of notifications und er Sections 4(1) and 6(1). Therefore, the Reference Court rightly did not rely on them. : 17 : MFA No.20085/2008
22. The claimants themselves relied on Ex.P17-the copy of the judgment of this Court in MFA No.2033/1991 which related to the lands acquired in the same villag e in resp ect of the same project. In that matter, the preliminary notification was dated 3/4/1975. The preliminary notification relating to this case was dated 3/3/1975. Consid ering all the relevant aspects, this Court in MFA No.2033/1991 fixed the compensation at Rs.45,000/- per acre, with other benefits under Section 23(2) and 23(1A) of the Land Acq uisition Act. Ex.P17 was the claimants' own documents. The reference court relying on Ex.P33 award ed compensation of Rs.45,000/ per acre and other benefits.
23. The records of the Reference Court show that the claimants had not claimed comp ensation on the head of price escalation. Even in the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., relied upon by the learned : 18 : MFA No.20085/2008 counsel for the app ellants themselves, the Hon'b le Supreme Court in p ara 11 held that the Rule of thumb of escalation refers to g eneral trend in the nineties, and to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in p rices.
24. As alread y pointed out, the claimants had not p laced any found ation in their p leadings reg arding price escalation. They did not lead evid ence in that reg ard. For the first time before this Court, they have raised the said contention. Therefore, the challeng e to the reference Court's award on that ground is not sustainab le. Therefore, the appeal is p artly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award on the quantum of compensation is confirmed. The imp ugned judgment and award only in so far it relates to apportionment in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 7 is hereby set aside. It is : 19 : MFA No.20085/2008 mad e clear that setting asid e the award reg arding apportionment of the shares of respondent Nos.3 to 7 is subject to the final result in O.S. No.566/1997.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-