Karnataka High Court
Sidramappa S/O Basawanappa vs The State Through on 1 February, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 1
S T
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
BETWE E N
Si d ra map p a,
S/o Basawanappa,
Age about 70 Years,
R/o Channur, Tq: Chincholi,
Dist: Gulbarga. Appellant
(By Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State through
Spi. Land Officer,
M & MIP, Room No.7,
Mini Vidhan Soudha,
Gulbarga-585 102.
2. The Executive Engineer,
I D IPC. Sub-Division No.3
Sulepeth, Tq: Chincholi. Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, GA)
This MEA is filed under Section 54(1) of LA Act against
the
judgment and award dated 4.10.2008 passed in LAC No.1
5/2006
on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr,Dn) Chincholi, wher
ein partly
allowing the claim petition and seeking herein enhancem
ent of
compensation.
This MFA is coming on for admission this day, the Cou
rt
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 4.10.2008 passed by the Reference Court (Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chincholi) in LAC No.15/2006.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the lands in question were acquired for the lower Mullamari Project. The preliminary notification was issued on 7.8.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award, dated 15.12.1999 determining the market value at 18,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant sought the reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court employed the capitalization method and raised the market value to 90,000/- per acre. It also awarded 25,000/-- towards the standing trees. Contending that the amounts awarded for the land are on the lower side, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court, by its judgment, dated 10.11.2011 passed in MSA No.532/2010 (LAC) has awarded 1,11,600/- per acre for the similarly placed lands. He submits that the lands in question and the lands covered by MSA No.532/2010 are of similar nature and are acquired for the same A.BH project. He further submits that the issuance of the preliminary notification in respect of the lands in question and the lands covered by MSA No.532/2010 is in 1997-98. He further submits that both Channur village, in which the lands in question are situated, and Sulepeth village, in which the lands covered by MSA No.532/2010 are situated, are in Chicholi Taluk.
4. Sri Manvendra Reddy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that in respect of the lands situated in the same village (Channur village), this Court has awarded the market value at 78,000/- per acre in MEA No.30335/2008 (LAC) disposed of on 8.11.2010. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of this appeal.
5. The judgment passed in MFA No.30335/2008, relied upon by the Government Advocate, cannot be applied verbatim to this case, because in the said case the preliminary notification was issued in 1993 and in the instant case it is issued in 1997. That is why the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award fixing 18,000/- for the lands in the present case and 12,000/- for the lands covered by MEA No.30335/2008. There is a time gap of 4 years between the notifications issued in respect of the 4 lands covered by MEA No.30335/2008 and the present lands. If the annual escalation at the rate of 7.5% per annum for 4 years is provided, the following scenario would emerge:
SLNo. Year Amount (in )
1. 1993 78,000
(78,000 5850) 83,850
---
2. 1994 + =
3. 1995 (83,850 + 6,289) = 90,139
i96'(90,l39+6,760)= 96,899
5. 1997 (96,899 + 7,267) = 1,04,166
6. The determination of the market is a difficult and arduous task. No material can be excluded while determining the market value of a land. Certain amount of guesswork becomes inevitable
7. This Court in MSA No.532/2010 has arrived at the market value of 1,11,600/- per acre in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose, notified around the same time. But the villages in which the lands are situated are different. However, that they are situated in the same Taluk is also not in dispute. Considering these aspects of the matter, I deem it safe to take the aggregate of 1,04,166/- and 1,11,600/-, Its average comes to (1,04,166/- ± 1,11,600/-) = 1,07,883/-. 2
The amounts are rounded off to 1,O8,OOO/-.
8. In the result, the market value of the lands is enhanced from 9O,OOO/- per acre to 1,O8,OOO/- per acre. Needles to observe that the appellant is entitled to all the statutory benefits like additional market value, solatium, interest besides the proportionate cost.
9. The awarding of '25,OOO/- for the standing trees is not assailed or questioned. Therefore, the same is left undisturbed.
Sd! 3UDGE MD