Karnataka High Court
Smt. Veena W/O.Shankar Rao Alawandikar vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Krishna S. Dixit, Pradeep Singh Yerur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MFA No.100246/2021 (LAC)
C/w. MFA No.100245/2021 (LAC),
MFA Crob. No.100027/2021 (LAC)
& MFA Crob. No.100028/2021 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.100246 OF 2021:
BETWEEN
M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY,
MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL,
TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT
S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER,
LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD.,
CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL,
FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV.)
AND
1. SHANKAR RAO
S/O. VAMAN RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
1(A) SMT VEENA ALAWADIKAR,
W/O. LATE SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
:2:
AGE MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O.: KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL,
TQ. & DIST.: KOPPAL.
1(B) POOJA ALAWANDIKAR,
D/O. LATE SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O.: KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL,
TQ. & DIST.: KOPPAL.
BOTH REPSONDENT NOS.1(A) & (B) ARE
NOW RESIDING AT 31ST WARD, 1ST CROSS,
NEHARU COLONY, HOSAPETE-583201,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST.: BALLARI.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIDB DHARWAD, P.B ROAD, DHARWAD.
TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTION OFFICER
& MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1(A) & (B); SHRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.8/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN), KOPPAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,00,000/- PER ACRE.
IN MFA NO.100245 OF 2021:
BETWEEN M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY, MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT :3: S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER, LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE) AND
1. BALACHANDRA RAO, S/O VINAYAKA RAO ALAWANDIKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANAKAPUR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIDB, DHARWAD, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SHASHANK HEDGE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED U/S 18(1) OF L.A. ACT. IN MFA CROB. NO. 100027 OF 2021:
BETWEEN SHRI. BALACHANDRA RAO S/O. VINAYAKA RAO ALAWANDIKAR :4: AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL ... CROSS-OBJECTOR (BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) AND
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, DHARWAD, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.
2. M/S. HOSPET POWER COMPANY MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER-LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.100245/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN) AT KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA CROB. NO.100028 OF 2021:
BETWEEN SHRI SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT.VEENA W/O.SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR, :5: AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL
2. POOJA D/O. SHANKAR RAO ALAWANDIKAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. KANAKAPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL ... CROSS-OBJECTORS (BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, DHARWAD, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD
2. M/S HOSPET POWER COMPANY, MUKUND STEELS, GINIGERA, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL.
REP. BY SHRI ANAND SHRISAT S/O. BABURAO SHIRSAT, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY GENERL MANAGER, LEGAL KALYANI STEELS LTD., CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MUNDHWA, PUNE-411036 DIST. PUNE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE R1 RI. R.V. S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.100246/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.8/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
THESE MFAS & MFA CROBS. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:6:
JUDG MENT The challenge in these appeals are to the Judgment & Awards of the Court below whereby the compensation has been enhanced; the respondent land losers having entered appearance through their counsel resists the appeals contending that the compensation ought to have been still more high in terms of their cross-objections.
2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the rival parties and having perused the appeal papers and the original LCR, as well, we are inclined to grant a limited and conditional indulgence in the matter as under
and for the following reasons:
(a) The land losers having not been happy with the compensation awarded by the SLAO, were before the Reference Court u/s 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein the compensation has been enhanced;
this enhancement happens to be the bone of contention between the parties; the immediate beneficiary namely the allottee of the land in question complains that the enhancement is too much on the higher side whereas the land losers grieve that the compensation awarded is much :7: lesser than what they are legally entitled to; be that as it may.
(b) The law is well settled right from the days of A.K. Kraipak &; Ors etc. v. Union of Inida &; Ors., that no adverse order can be made against a person without having his say in the matter; even the God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the forbidden fruit in the Eaden Garden; this is the view which one of us sitting single (KSDJ) has held in KIADB V. Sri.Byregowda, 2019 (1) KLJ 805; in the said decision it is broadly held that the beneficiary of acquisition and the persons claiming under such beneficiary need to be heard by the Reference Court before granting enhancement of compensation; this having not happened in this case, our indulgence is emanately warranted as rightly argued by the learned Senior Advocate Shri R.V.S. Naik appearing for the allottee of the land.
(b) The vehement contention of learned Advs. for the land losers that the KIADB was heard in the matter inasmuch as the SLAO belongs to KIADB, is bit difficult to countenance; :8: the acquisition in question was under the provisions of KIADB Act, 1966; State being the acquirer, the KIADB happens to be only a beneficiary; the allottee of land/site being the immediate beneficiary of acquisition; under the scheme of the Act, it is only the Chief Executive Officer, who can represent the KIADB and none else; this view finds support from the text of Section 20(ii)(c), as rightly argued by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik; merely because the respondent SLAO has been wrongly described in the cause title, as of KIADB, that per se does not make him the true & official representative of this statutory body; that being the legal position, it cannot be gainfully contended that the KIADB as such was represented and heard in the matter before the Reference Judge.
(c) After turning the pages of the LCR, we are of a considered opinion with which the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik appearing for the appellant grantee of the acquired land is also broadly agreed that what has been awarded by the SLAO through awards in question is arguably on the lower side; there may be scope for argument that what has been granted as enhancement of compensation is on the :9: higher side; however, we are not expressing any opinion this way or that way; regard being had to all the facts that emerge from the evidentiary material on record, we are of a considered view that Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh) only in each of the appeals be released from out of the amount deposited before the Reference Court below pursuant to interim orders of this Court and that this would be subject to outcome of the remand, we are making now herein; this would put both the sides to some reprieve justice, especially when the land losers are grieving against the arguable frugality of compensations awarded by the SLAOs.
In the above circumstances, these appeals and the cross-objections are disposed off; the impugned judgment and awards having been set at naught, the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, who may lead their evidence too; time for compliance is six months. : 10 :
From the amount in deposit, the land losers shall be given a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh) only in each of the appeals subject to outcome thereof, and that the remainder shall be refunded to the parties who have deposited the same;
It hardly needs to be stated that the entire Court fee paid by the appellants and the cross-objectors shall be refunded forthwith; this apart the balance amount in deposit shall be refunded to the depositors - appellant/s.
The parties through their counsel are put to notice to appear before the reference Court on 18.08.2021 and seek further instructions in the matter from the learned Judge.
Pending I.As. pale into insignificance in view of disposal of the main matter.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*