Karnataka High Court
Sri. Veerabhadrappa S/O Annappa ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, on 23 August, 2013
Author: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
M.S.A.No.363/2011 (LA)
C/w M.S.A.Nos.364/2011, 365/2011,
366/2011 and 367/2011
M.S.A.No.363/2011:
BETWEEN:
Sri Veerabhadrappa,
S/o Annappa Pattar,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at Neginhal, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Appellant
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Malaprabha Project, D.C.Compound,
Opposite Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Dharwad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, MLBC, Division No.2
For Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheertha, Tq. Savadatti,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Respondents
(By Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP for R-1,
Sri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R-2)
2
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act, against the
judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011 passed in
R.A.No.162/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Belgaum, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.2.2010 passed in LAC No.116/2007 on the file
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bailhongal, partly allowing the
reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
M.S.A.No.364/2011:
BETWEEN:
Sri Shivaputrappa Turamani,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at Neginhal, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Appellant
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Malaprabha Project, D.C.Compound,
Opposite Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Dharwad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, MLBC, Division No.2
For Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheertha, Tq. Savadatti,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Respondents
(By Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP for R-1,
Sri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R-2)
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act, against the
judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011 passed in
R.A.No.160/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Belgaum, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.2.2010 passed in LAC No.110/2007 on the file
3
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bailhongal, partly allowing the
reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
M.S.A.No.365/2011:
BETWEEN:
Sri Demappa Uddappa Padappannavar,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Neginhal, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Appellant
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Malaprabha Project, D.C.Compound,
Opposite Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Dharwad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, MLBC, Division No.2
For Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheertha, Tq. Savadatti,
Dist. Belgaum1. ... Respondents
(By Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP for R-1,
Sri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R-2)
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act, against the
judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011 passed in
R.A.No.159/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Belgaum, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.2.2010 passed in LAC No.113/2007 on the file
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bailhongal, partly allowing the
reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
4
M.S.A.No.366/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. Sri N.M.Ulavi,
Aged about 40 years.
2. Sri I.M.Ulavi,
Aged about 35 years.
3. Sri S.M. Ulavi,
Aged about 33 years.
4. Sri D.M. Ulavi,
Aged about 31 years.
5. Sri M.S. Ulavi,
Aged about 30 years.
Rep. by their GPA Holder
Sri Basavaraj Mallappa Ulavi,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Neginhal, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Appellants
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Malaprabha Project, D.C.Compound,
Opposite Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Dharwad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, MLBC, Division No.2
For Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheertha, Tq. Savadatti,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Respondents
(By Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP for R-1,
Sri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R-2)
5
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act, against the
judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011 passed in
R.A.No.161/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Belgaum, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.2.2010 passed in LAC No.114/2007 on the file
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bailhongal, partly allowing the
reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
M.S.A.No.367/2011:
BETWEEN:
Sri Bhimappa Fakirappa Ganikoppa,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at Neginhal, Tq. Bailhongal,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Appellant
(By Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Malaprabha Project, D.C.Compound,
Opposite Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Dharwad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, MLBC, Division No.2
For Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheertha, Tq. Savadatti,
Dist. Belgaum. ... Respondents
(By Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP for R-1,
Sri Ramesh N.Misale, Advocate for R-2)
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act, against the
judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011 passed in
R.A.No.163/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Belgaum, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.2.2010 passed in LAC No.120/2007 on the file
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bailhongal, partly allowing the
6
reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
These MSAs coming on for hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants have called into question the common judgment, dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Belgaum passed in L.A.C.Appeal Nos.159/2010 connected with L.A.C.Appeal Nos.160/2010, 161/2010, 162/2010 and 163/2010.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the lands in question were notified for acquisition on 15.6.2004 for Harinala Irrigation Project. The final notification was issued on 11.3.2005. The first respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) passed the award on 10.1.2007 fixing the market value at `35,884/- per acre. The appellant - claimants filed the reference applications invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking the enhancement of the amounts. The Reference Court raised the amounts to `1,41,000/- per acre by its common judgment, dated 10.2.2010 passed in L.A.C.No.113/2007 connected with L.A.C.Nos.110/2007, 114/2007, 116/2007 and 120/2007. The second respondent beneficiary, namely, 7 Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited filed the L.A.C. appeals before the District Court. The District Court reduced the amounts from `1,41,000/- per acre to `1,04,000/- per acre. This common judgment is called into question by the appellants.
3. Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lands in question are black soil and are irrigated. He submits that even as per the reports of the concerned Government authorities, 10 quintals of DCH cotton are being grown on every acre of the lands in question. He submits that though the Reference Court has taken only 8 quintals as the yield, the appellants accepted the same. He submits that the taking of `2,945/- as the rate for quintal of DCH cotton as per the general report (Ex.P2) by the Reference Court is correct. He submits that the District Court has erroneously taken `2,600/- as the price.
4. Sri Ramesh N.Misale, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that having accepted the Reference Court's award that 8 quintals can be taken as the yield per acre, the appellants cannot demand that the yield be taken as 10 quintals. He submits that the mentioning of the rate as `2,945/- 8 in the general report at Ex.P2 has no basis at all. He submits that the taking of the average rate of DCH cotton as `2,600/- per quintal is based on the reports of the concerned and competent authorities. He submits that as the District Court has deducted 50% of the agricultural income towards the cost of cultivation as prescribed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, the determination of the market value by the District Court be upheld.
5. Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court is just and proper and that therefore these appeals be dismissed.
6. My perusal of the Reference Court's judgment reveals that it has arrived at the market value of `1,41,000/- based not only on the capitalization method but also from what was awarded to the land-losers in L.A.C.No.73/2003. The Reference Court, by its judgment, dated 11.9.2008 passed in the said L.A.C. (L.A.C.No.73/2003) has assessed the market value of the land situated in Tigadi Village, which were notified for acquisition on 7.12.2000, at `1,41,000/- per acre. It is not in 9 dispute that the award passed in L.A.C.No.73/2003 has attained the finality.
7. It is not in dispute that Tigadi Village and the villages in question (Pattihal and Neginhal) are almost adjoining villages. It is also not in dispute that the lands in Tigadi Village and the lands in Pattihal and Neginhal Villages were acquired for the same irrigation project. It is also not in dispute that the determination of `1,41,000/- per acre is in respect of the land acquired four years prior to the acquisition of the lands in question. If the annual escalation is provided at 5 to 6% on `1,41,000/-, the amounts approximately aggregate to `1,69,200/-.
8. However, the claimants are seeking only `1,41,000/- and not any further enhancement based on the annual escalation. For the similar land acquired for the same purpose and that too four years later, the entitlement cannot be less than `1,41,000/-.
9. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981 has held that the determination of the market value on the basis of 10 comparable instance of sale of land acquired under different villages for the same purpose is reasonable. It has this to say in paragraph No.1 of its judgment:
"1. .............The High Court also found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages..............."
10. In the instant case, the claimants are entitled to atleast `1,41,000/-, the market value arrived at in respect of the lands acquired four years prior to the acquisition of the lands in question. Yet another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Though the preliminary notification was issued on 15.6.2004 and the final notification on 11.3.2005, the first respondent SLAO passed the award only on 10.1.2007. The Apex Court in the case of K.KRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR reported in AIR 1988 SC 2123 has this to say in paragraph No.12 of its judgment:
"12. ........ After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed 11 payment may lose all charms and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without loss of time........".
11. The appellants are entitled to succeed. The District Court's judgment, dated 15.6.2011 is set aside. The Reference Court's judgment, dated 10.2.2010 passed in L.A.C.No.113/2007 connected with L.A.C.Nos.110/2007, 114/2007, 116/2007 and 120/2007 is restored. The appellants are entitled to the market value at the rate of `1,41,000/- per acre and to all the statutory benefits thereon and the proportionate costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD