Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 September, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441
MSA No. 100249 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100249 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MLBCC DIV. NO.2, NAVILUTEERTH,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT, SAUNDATTI,
NOW AT SECTOR NO.60, NAVANAGAR-587 103,
BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. MALLESHAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HOSA VATNAL, POST: KAVALAWAD,
TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR.
BHARATHI 3. (IRAPPA MUDEPPA PUJER,
HM AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI)
SINCE DECEASED HENCE, AMENDED
Location: AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO.IV TO VI,
HIGH DATED 17-10-2011.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3A. SMT. SHIDDAVVA W/O. IRAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
"Amended as per order dated 14.06.2016.
Since deceased by her LRs 3(B) to 3(I)
are already on record".
3B. SRI. MUDEPPA S/O. IRAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441
MSA No. 100249 of 2015
3C. SRI. RAYAPPA S/O. IRAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3D. SMT. TULASAWWA W/O. PANCHAPPA KURI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3E. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. SHIDDAPPA PATRAVALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3F. SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. DYAMAPPA GUDENNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3G. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. IRAPPA PUJER,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3H. SRI. SHIDDAPPA S/O IRAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
3I. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. FAKIRAPPA PUJER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIREKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3(B) TO R3(I);
R3(B) TO R3 (I) ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R3(A).
THIS MSA FILED U/SEC.54(2) OF LA ACT 1894, PRAYS TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.219/2010, DATED 25.06.2012
ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE COURT, SAUNDATTI AND
CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF LAC APPEAL NO.392/2012 DISPOSED
ON 11.08.2015 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE
COURT, BELAGAVI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN BOTH LAC APPEAL NO.392/2012 DISPOSED
ON 11.08.2015 AND NO.219/2010, DATED 25.06.2012.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441
MSA No. 100249 of 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. praying to set aside judgments passed in LAC Appeal No.392/2012 dated 11.08.2015 and LAC No.219/2010 dated 25.06.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land bearing Sy.No.6/1, measuring 3 acres 2 guntas and Sy.No.6/2, measuring 5 acres 22 guntas of Kadahalli village in Saundatti taluk for Malaprabha irrigation project i.e., construction of Naviluteerth reservoir. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 21.05.1964. The SLAO passed two separate awards:
i. LAQ/SR-448(I) dated 25.03.1972 in respect of Sy.No.6/2 measuring 5 acres 22 guntas.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 ii. LAQ/SR-448(XVII) dated 06.06.1972 in respect of land under Sy.No.6/1 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas.
3. In response to publication of notice under Section 9 dated 11.08.1972 pertaining to Sy.No.6/1, Sri. Malleshappa Nagappa Pujer filed application dated 03.09.1971, claiming Rs.1,500/- per acre and also the value of the bund. In respect of Sy.No.6/2, none filed any application claiming any compensation in response to the notice published and served under Section 9. The SLAO passed detailed award fixing the market value of Rs.1,400/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.2,500/- per acre for wet lands. The subject lands bearing Sy.No.6/1 and 6/2 being dry lands awarded market value at Rs.1,400/- per acre which is reflected in the award statement at Ex.R2 and Ex.R4. The SLAO has specifically observed that lands being Devasthan Inam lands of Class-III tenure, the compensation is to be credited to the Government and the Cash allowance to the interested wahiwatdars was proposed. The SLAO has proposed apportionment of -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 compensation to the tenant in cultivation of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.6/1. The acquired lands stood submerged in the year 1972-73 as reflected in the RTCs. The claimants have filed LAC Misc.No.13/2001 against SLAO, which was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti by order dated 03.12.2003. The SLAO challenging the said order preferred in CRP No.1182/2004 and the same was allowed by this Court on 04.02.2008 and the impugned order passed in LAC Misc.No.13/2001 was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The reference Court allowed LAC Misc.No.13/2001 and directed the SLAO to refer the application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act by order dated 27.04.2001. The reference was numbered as LAC No.219/2010. The reference Court allowed the reference by judgment and award dated 25.06.2012 and fixed market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. The appellant aggrieved by the same, filed LAC Appeal No.392/2012. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the III Addl. District Judge, Belagavi by -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 judgment dated 11.08.2015. The said judgments passed in LAC Appeal No.392/2012 and LAC No.219/2010 are challenged in this second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/claimants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is a delay in filing reference petition and that has not been considered by the reference Court. He contends that appellant-Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., is wholly owned Company of the Government of Karnataka incorporated as a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 09.12.1998 and entire assets and liabilities of the Malaprabha Project were transferred to appellant as they existed on 14.06.1999 and therefore, as on the date of filing of the proceedings, the appellant- Company was a beneficiary under Section 20(c) of the Act and it is having right to file this appeal. He further contends that the lands under acquisition are Inam lands and they stands vested in the State and the claimants who -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 are wahiwatdars who have no title to the lands and therefore, they are not entitled to compensation for the lands acquired. He further contends that the reference Court only placing reliance on the judgment passed in LAC No.60/1998 which is at Ex.P-12 has awarded compensation taking the market value fixed in that judgment. Even though, there is no evidence regarding distance between the lands acquired in that case and the lands acquired in the present case, similarity of the lands etc. There is no evidence as to the distance between Hanchinal village and Kadahalli village to consider market value of the lands in both the villages. Therefore, the market value fixed by the reference Court and affirmed by the appellate Court has no basis. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and Others V/s State of Haryana and Others1, wherein it is held as under: 1
(2018) 13 SCC 96 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015
12. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that.
The court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant.
6. The judgment - Ex.P-5 can only be considered as a piece of evidence and not beyond that. It cannot be taken as a previous decision as binding. He further contends that the reference Court has given all statutory benefits available under provisions of Land Acquisition Act. He contends that Section 23(1)(A) and 23(2) have been amended by Act No.68/1984 and the award passed by the SLAO is prior to commencement of the said amended provision and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to benefit of amended provision containing Section 23(1)(A) and Section 23(2) of the Act. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others V/s Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama2. On these grounds, 2 (1990) 1 SCC 277
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments passed by the reference Court and appellate Court.
7. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 would contend that this appellant has no authority to challenge the impugned judgments as it has been incorporated on 26.11.1998 and the Malaprabha project has been handed over to it on 31.05.2001. He contends that assets and liabilities of the project are transferred to the appellant-Nigam. He placing reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.12997/2006 between Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited V/s Shivanagouda and Others would contend that the appellant-Neeravari Nigam has no locus to file appeal as it was not in existence as on the date of acquisition of the lands. He further contends that this appeal being a second appeal has to be decided only on question of law and the same has not been proposed in the appeal memo. He contends that facts cannot be agitated and appeal has to
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 be decided only on substantial question of law. He contends that the Government has satisfied awards which are at Ex.P-3. The claimants being wahiwatdars of the lands acquired are entitled to claim compensation and in the judgment which is at Ex.P-3, the reference Court has awarded compensation to the wahiwatdars. Even though, their application seeking grant of land has been rejected twice by the land tribunal. The learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 would fairly submit that amended provisions contained in Section 23(1)(A) and 23(2) of the Act are not retrospective. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and the records of the Reference Court.
9. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 54 of the Act reads thus:
" 54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. - (1) Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 decrees, an appeal shall lie from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court in any proceedings under this Act to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decision of that Court.
(2) from any decree of a Court, other than the High Court, passed on an appeal under sub-section(1) an appeal shall lie to the High Court, if, by only if, the amount of value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal exceeds two thousand rupees or the case involves any question of title to land.
(3) From any decree of the High Court passed on an appeal under sub-section (1), an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV of the First Schedule to the said Code".
10. This appeal being filed under sub-section(2) of Section 54 of the Act, has to be entertained if it involves any question of title of land and if the amount of value of subject matter of the suit in appeal exceeds Rs.2,000/-.
11. The contention of the appellant that there is a delay in sending the reference petition cannot be considered in view of the fact that the order passed in LAC Miscellaneous 13/2001 whereunder the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to send reference petition to the reference Court has not been challenged by the appellant even though there was knowledge on the part of the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 appellant of the said order passed in LAC Miscellaneous No.13/2001.
12. The appellant is duly registered company of the Government of Karnataka incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide certification of incorporation dated 09.12.1998. The entire assets and liabilities of the Malaprabha Project were transferred to the appellant as they existed on 14.06.1999. After the said date, the appellant company became the beneficiary as it has a duty to satisfy the awards in respect of the lands acquired for Malaprabha Project. The appellant being a beneficiary has filed appeal challenging the order passed by the Reference Court in LAC Appeal No.392/2012. In the said appeal, there is no contention of the respondents regarding the maintainability of that appeal as filed by the appellant- Nigam.
13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2. and 3 placing reliance on the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.12997/2006 contends that this appellant Neeravari
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 Nigam cannot prefer an appeal. In the said writ proceedings, the judgment passed in LAC No.965/1996 has been sought to be quashed by this Neeravari Nigam. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the fact that the appellant-Neeravari Nigam was not in existence at all as on the date of the judgment and therefore, there was no necessity for issue of notice to the appellant-Nigam. The appellant Neeravari Nigam was not a party in the said LAC No.965/1996. Considering the said aspect, the challenge by this Neeravari Nigam to the judgment passed in LAC No.965/1996 has been dismissed.
14. The facts of the said case and the facts of the case on hand are different. In the case on hand, the appellant-Neeravari Nigam was party before the Reference Court and it has also filed appeal challenging the award passed by the Reference Court.
15. The lands under acquisition of the claimants are Inam Lands and it is contended that they are vested with the State. On perusal of Records of Rights of the subject
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 lands under acquisition, the name of the claimants are mentioned in Column Nos.9 and 12(2) for the year 1965- 66 to 1973-74 as the cultivators. There is no mention of any vesting of land in the said RTC which is at Ex.R-6. What is the date of vesting of the lands acquired has not been brought on record. Section 4(1) Notification has been issued on 21.05.1965. As on that date when the lands acquired were vested with the State is not brought on record. The claimants were Wahiwatdars of the lands acquired. The Reference Court considered the fact that Wahiwatdars are also entitled for compensation has passed the award. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the lands acquired are vested with the State and the claimants being Wahiwatdars are not entitled to compensation, does not hold any substance.
16. ExP-5 is the judgment in LAC No.60/1998 in which the properties were acquired during the year 1972. Ex.P-4 is the judgment in LAC No.175/2001 in which the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 properties were acquired during the year 1975 and the Court referring to the judgment in LAC No.60/1998 has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre. The properties acquired in the said judgment are at Hanchinal village of Saundatti taluk. The subject lands are situated in Kadihalli village. The said Kadihalli village is nearer to Saundatti town and the distance between Hanchinal village and Kadihal village is about 14 kms. As the Kadihalli village is near to Saundatti town than the Hanchinal village, it is having more value than the lands situated at Hanchinal village. The Reference Court and the Appellate Court have not relied the on the said judgments which are at Ex.P.4 and 5 as a precedent but have taken into consideration in which village the subject lands are situated. The Reference Court has also taken into consideration the crop grown on the subject lands situated in Hanchinal village which are the subject matter of LAC Nos.175/2001 and LAC No.60/1998. The crops grown in both the lands are cotton, jowar and wheat. Taking into consideration the said aspects, the Reference Court has
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 rightly fixed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.15,000/- per acre.
17. Considering the said aspect, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Manoj Kumar (supra) does not apply to the case on hand, as the Reference Court has taken into consideration all relevant factors which are noted supra.
18. The Reference Court has simply observed that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits available under the provisions of the Act. The question that arises whether the amended provision contained in Section 23(1- A) and section 23(2) of the Act as amended by Act No.68/1984 would enure to the benefit of the claimants or not?
19. The said aspect has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) wherein the Apex Court has considered the following two questions:
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 (1) Whether the amended Section 23(2) of the principal Act providing for higher solatium will also apply to award made subsequent to September 24, 1984 even though the acquisition commenced prior thereto?
(2) Whether Section 23(1-A) providing for additional amount of compensation would apply to awards made in such acquisition proceedings?
20. The Apex Court has considered the aforesaid question No.(1) in paras 7, 11, 14 and 17 which reads as under:
"7. We will first take up the question of solatium. On April 30, 1982, the corresponding Bill of the Amending Act 68 of 1984, namely, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, was introduced in Parliament. On September 24, 1984 it became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, when it received assent of the President. Before the amendment, Section 23(2) provided solatium at 15 per cent on the market value. After amendment by Act 68 of 1984 solatium was raised to 30 per cent on the market value. Section 23(2) now reads:
"23(2). In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
11. But these decisions do not solve the problem presented here. The award with which we are concerned does not fall within the inter-regnum i.e. between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. To repeat the facts: The acquisition commenced on October 26, 1967 when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published. On March 5, 1969 the Collector made the award and on May
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 28, 1985 the reference court made the award. Both the awards, thus apparently fall outside the period prescribed under Section 30(2).
14. The submission that Section 23(2) by itself has no retrospective operation seems to be justified. It is significant to note that Section 23(2) forms part of a scheme of determining compensation for land acquired under the Act. It provides 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. It thus operates on the market value of the land acquired. The market value of the land is required to be determined at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It cannot be determined with reference to any other date. That has been expressly provided for under Section 23(1) of the Act. In the instant case, Section 4(1) notification was published on October 20, 1967. The Amending Act 68 of 1984 came into force on September 24, 1984. The amended Section 23(2) by itself is not retrospective in operation. It cannot proprio vigore apply to awards in respect of acquisition proceedings commenced prior to September 24, 1984, If, therefore, Section 30(2) does not cover the present case, then amended Section 23(2) has no part to play.
17. Section 30(2) provides that amended provisions of Section 23(2) shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, or to an appellate order therefrom passed by the High Court or Supreme Court. The purpose of these provisions seems to be that the awards made in that interregnum must get higher solatium inasmuch as to awards made subsequent to September 24, 1984. Perhaps it was thought that awards made after the commencement of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 would be taken care of by the amended Section 23(2). The case like the present one seems to have escaped attention by innocent lack of due care in the drafting. The result would be an obvious anomaly as will be indicated presently. If there is obvious anomaly in the application of law the court could shape the law to remove the anomaly. If the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to absurdity or inconsistency, the court could discard such interpretation and adopt an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of the legislature. That could be done, if necessary even by modification of the language
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 used [Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal']. The legislators do not always deal with specific controversies which the courts decide. They incorporate general purpose behind the statutory words and it is for the courts to decide specific cases. If a given case is well within the general purpose of the legislature but not within the literal meaning of the statute, then the court must strike the balance."
21. The Apex Court has also considered question No.(2) in paras 19, 21 and 22 which read thus:
"19. This takes us to the second question which we have formulated at the beginning of the judgment: Whether the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act? This is equally a fundamental question and seemingly not covered by any of the previous decisions of this Court.
21.Entitlement of additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition proceedings as on April 30, 1982 or commencement of acquisition proceedings after that date. Section 30 sub- section (1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on April 30, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot be awarded. Section 30 sub- section (1)(b) provides that Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceedings commenced after April 30, 1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or not before September 24, 1984. The final point to note is that Section 30 sub section (1) does not refer to court award and the court award is used only in Section 30 sub-section(2).
22. In the case before us, on October 26, 1967, the notification under Section 4 was issued. On March 5, 1969 the Collector made the award. The result is that on April 30, 1982 there was no proceedings pending before the Collector. Therefore, Section 30 sub-section (1) (a) is not attracted to
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 the case. Since the proceedings for acquisition commenced before April 30, 1982, Section 30 Sub-section (1)(b) is also not applicable to the case. Here, the case is really gone by both ways. It cannot be saved from Scylla or Charydbis. The claimant is, therefore, not entitled to additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A)."
21. In the case on hand, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 21.05.1964. On 25.03.1972 and on 06.06.1972, the SLAO passed two separate awards. The result is that on April 30, 1982, there was no proceedings pending before the LAO. Therefore, Section 30(1)(a) is not attracted to the present case. Since the proceedings for acquisition commenced before April 30, 1982, Section 30(1)(b) is also not applicable to the case. The claimants are therefore not entitled to additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and benefit of 30% solatium as contained under amended provision Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of additional market value as contained in Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The claimants are also not entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value. The claimants are entitled to solatium
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13441 MSA No. 100249 of 2015 at 15% on market value, as sub-section(2) of Section 23 of the Act stood prior to amendment by Act No.68 of 1984.
With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM, Kmv from para 8 till end CT:ANB