Karnataka High Court
Ramchandra S/O Laxman Patil, vs The Asst. Commissioner, on 30 July, 2019
Author: S.N. Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL
MFA No.23161/2012 (LAC)
C/W MFA NO.23160/2012
MFA NO.23162/2012
IN MFA NO.23161/2012 :
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. RAMCHANDRA S/O LAXMAN PATIL,
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A SHRI.DATTRAYA S/O RAMACHANDRA PATIL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANDIGNUR VILLAGE,
TALUK: BELGAUM. BELGAUM DISTRICT.
2. SHRI BHAVAKU S/O NINGAPPA PATIL,
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2A SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O BHAVAKU PATIL,
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2A(1)SMT.RENUKA KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: HANDIGNUR VILLAGE, TALUK: BELGAUM.
AMENDED V/O DATED:13/11/2018
... APPELLANTS
2
(By SRI. S. N. HATTI, SRI. P V SAMBARGI AND
SRI. H.L.HAVARAGI, ADV. FOR APPELLANT 1A;
SRI. BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADV.
FOR APPELLANT 2A(1))
AND:
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM, SUB DIVISION, BELGAUM.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
SINCHAN BHAVAN TARABAI PARK,
KOLHAPUR. DIST: KOLHAPUR.
MAHARASTRA STATE.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. RATNAMALA S KABBUR, ADV. FOR R2)
MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2012
PASSED IN LAC NO.04/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELGAUM, ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.23160/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKAR S/O SANNAPPA GANIKOPP,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A SHRI.BALESH S/O SHANKAR GANIKOPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BODKYNATTI VILLAGE,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B SHRI.MARUTI S/OSHANKAR GANIKOPPA
AGEL: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3
R/O: BODKYNATTI VILLAGE,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. BHARMA S/O GOVINDA GANIKOPP,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BODKYNATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
3. NAGAPPA S/O GOVINDA GANIKOPP,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BODKYNATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
... APPELLANTS
(By SRI. S N HATTI, SRI. P V SAMBARAGI AND
SRI. H.L.HAVARGI, ADVS. FOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3;
SRI. BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADV. FOR
APPELLANTS NO.1{A & B} )
AND:
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION,
BELGAUM.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
SINCHAN BHAVAN, TARABAI PARK,
KOLHAPUR, DIST: KOLHAPUR,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. RATNAMALA S KABBUR, ADV. FOR R2)
MFA FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 20.04.2012 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.03/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
4
IN MFA NO.23162/2012 :
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O IRAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BODKYANATTI VILLAGE,
TALUK: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
... APPELLANT
(By SRI. S. N. HATTI, SRI.P. V. SAMBARGI AND
SRI. H.L.HAVARAGI, ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION,
BELGAUM.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
SINCHAN BHAVAN, TARABAI, PARK,
KOLHAPUR, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
STATE: MAHARASTRA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. RATNAMALA S. KABBUR, ADV. FOR R2)
MFA FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 20.04.2012 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.23/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
The appellants in MFA No.23160/2012 were claimants in LAC No.03/2007 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Belgaum. The appellants in MFA No.23161/2012 were claimants in LAC NO.04/2007. Similarly, the appellant in MFA No.23162/2012 was claimant in LAC NO.23/2007. Where the claim by the appellants herein seeking enhancement of compensation for acquisition of their agricultural land for construction of irrigation tank was considered by two separate judgments which are identical both on facts and in law, while deciding the claim of the claimants in the said proceedings.
2. Admittedly the grievance of the appellants is that the reference Court has not considered awarding of compensation for acquisition of the lands by adopting proper method. It is stated that the appellants in both the appeals are said to be the growers of sugarcane in 6 the land, which was the subject matter of acquisition for aforesaid project, where the reference Court while considering their application for enhancement of compensation, has adopted Sale Statistics Method instead of adopting Capitalization Method. In other words, what is stated is that the reference Court has taken into consideration highest consideration paid for purchase of similarly situated land in or around the period when the land in question was acquired by the first respondent-State for the benefit of second respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the leaned counsel appearing for the State.
4. On going through the Judgment impugned and also on appreciation of material available on record with reference to grounds urged and arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is seen that the appellants in Appeal No.23160/2012 have lost an 7 extent of 3 acres 23 guntas in Bodkyanatti Village, Taluka and District Belagavi, where the compensation awarded by the SLAO was under challenge in reference proceeding LAC No.03/2007. With reference to MFA No.23161/2012, the appellants have lost an extent of 22 guntas in Sy.No.103 of Handignur Village, Taluka and District Belagavi, where the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was the subject matter of challenge before the reference Court in LAC No.04/2007. With reference to MFA No.23162/2012, the appellant has lost an extent of 5 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.38/2 of Bodkyanatti Village, Taluka and District Belagavi, where the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was the subject matter of challenge before the reference Court in LAC No.23/2007.
5. Admittedly, the aforesaid applications seeking enhancement were considered by two identical judgments both dated 20.04.2012, where the reference 8 Court while appreciating material available on record has observed that the claimants have not produced any material to adopt capitalization method to arrive at quantum of compensation required to be calculated as seen in the proceedings before the reference Court.
6. The claimants who are the appellants herein respectively contended that they were growing sugarcane in the land which was subject matter of the acquisition. That the sugarcane which was grown was utilized for manufacturing of Jaggery. According to them, the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the price of Jaggery as on the date of acquisition for consideration and after giving proper deduction towards the cost of growing sugarcane and also after deducting the cost of manufacturing Jaggery, the compensation amount should have been calculated.
7. It is the grievance of the appellants that the reference Court without following said procedure, has 9 wrongly relied upon the sale statistics method which is not beneficial to the appellants which has resulted in awarding lesser compensation, which is far below the compensation that could be awarded under capitalization method. Hence, the compensation awarded by the reference Court is sought to be set aside, consequently to reconsider the compensation payable to them by adopting the capitalization method.
8. When the judgment impugned is looked into at paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material available on record, where it would categorically state that the appellants herein who were the claimants before the reference Court have not produced documents to show what that the entire extent of land was used for growing sugarcane. That the same is utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of jaggery, by producing cogent evidence in that behalf. Therefore, in the absence of any material to substantiate that the claimants before the reference Court were growing sugarcane in the land which was 10 subject matter of acquisition. That the said sugarcane was utilized for manufacturing of jaggery by them, not being available to the reference Court, the method which is adopted by the reference Court to arrive at the compensation payable through sales statistics method appears to be just and proper.
9. Therefore, in the aforesaid fact circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be reconsidered in this appeal in following the capitalization method for calculation of compensation payable to the appellants in this proceeding. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed, holding that no grounds are made out for considering enhancement of compensation in favour of the appellants.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KGK