Karnataka High Court
Maruthi Sangappa Chachadi vs The Special And Officer on 12 November, 2020
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M.S.A No.392/2011 (LAC)
Between
1. Maruthi Sangappa Chachadi
Age Major, Occ: Agriculture.
Sri Doddabheemappa Kareppa
Chachadi, since deceased by L.Rs.
2. Sri Siddappa Doddabheemappa
Chachadi, Age Major, Occ:
Agriculture.
3. Sri Sannasiddappa Doddabheemappa
Chachadi, Age Major, Occ: Agriculture.
Since deceased by L.Rs.
3(a) Gangawwa Sannabhimappa
Chachadi, Age 55 years.
3(b) Fakirawwa Venkappa Pujer
Age 38 years.
3(c) Mutteppa Sannabhimappa
Chachadi, Age 35 years.
3(d) Mala Chandrappa Hakki
Age 33 years.
3(e) Yallavva Satteppa Karabhari
Age 31 years.
3(f) Ramappa Sannabhimappa
Chachadi, Age 29 years.
2
3(g) Laxmi Irappa Yarjarvi
Age 24 years.
All are r/o Makkalagi, Tq: Gokak
Dist : Belgaum.
(amended v/c/o dated 30.3.2015)
4. Sri Sannabheemappa Kareppa
Chachadi, Age Major
Occ : Agriculture.
All are r/o Makkalagi, Tq: Gokak
Dist : Belgaum. ...Appellants
(By Sri Laxman T Mantagani, Sri G R Turamari,
Sri N J Appannavar, Advocated for appellant No.3(A-G))
And
1. The Special and Officer
Hidkal Dam Project, Hidkal
Tq: Hukkeri.
2. The Executive Engineer
Karnataka Niravari Nigama Ltd,
GRBC, Division-3, Gokak. ... Respondents
(By Sri R Ravindranaik, HCGP for R1,
Sri Ramesh N Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of LA Act
against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2011 passed
in LAC No.70/2008 on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Belgaum, partly allowing the appeal filed against
the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2008 passed in LAC
No.19/2001 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
Gokak, partly allowing the reference petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MSA coming on for final hearing, this day,
the Court delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 4.8.2011 passed in LAC No.70/2008 by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.113 measuring 0.30 guntas situated at Panchanayakanahatti village was acquired by issuing a preliminary notification dated 5.8.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `LA Act') for the purpose of construction of Ajjanakatti Distributor Canal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short `SLAO') fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.18,000/- per acre.
3. On a petition filed under Section 18(1) of the LA Act, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. The beneficiary filed an appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act. The 1st Appellate Court reduced the market value of the land to Rs.38,780/- per acre treating it as dry 4 land and not irrigated as held by the Reference Court. Taking exception to the same, the claimants/appellants are in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants would submit that as on the date of preliminary notification, there existed a well in the acquired land in question, and the same is evident in the record of rights at Ex.P2. He further submits that in LAC No.161/2004, the market value of the land situated in Panchanayakanahatti village, which was acquired for the same purpose under Section 4(1) notification dated 12.11.1998, was fixed at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre and the Reference Court having regard to the existence of well and the award passed in LAC No.161/2004 fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. However, the 1st Appellate Court contrary to the evidence on record has treated the land as dry land and reduced the compensation. 5
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award passed by the 1st Appellate Court is perfectly legal and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.
7. It is the fact that there existed a well as on the date of issuance of preliminary notification which is evident from perusal of record of rights produced at Ex.P2. Further, in respect of lands, which were acquired for the very same purpose, but under different notifications, the market value of the said land was fixed at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. The Reference Court taking into consideration the existence of well and also the market value fixed in LAC No.161/2004 fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,10,000/- 6 per acre in the absence of evidence contrary to Exs.P2 and P6.
8. The 1st Appellate Court reduced the compensation on the ground that the land under consideration in LAC No.161/2004 and the acquired land in question are not of the same fertility and potentiality. The 1st Appellate Court has also held that even though there existed a well in the land in question, the claimant has not grown any commercial crop.
9. Perusal of Ex.P2 would indicate that the well was existing as on the date of preliminary notification and the same is not disputed by the respondents herein. In the absence of contrary evidence, the 1st Appellate Court has committed an error in treating the land in question as dry land. The 1st Appellate Court was also not justified in not relying on the award passed in LAC No.161/2004 on the ground that the claimants have not established that the acquired land in question 7 and the land concerned in LAC No.161/2004 are having similar topography. It is settled law, that, when the lands situated in the same village are acquired for the same purpose, uniform market value should be fixed, and there cannot be any discrimination between the land losers. Hence, the award passed by the 1st Appellate Court requires to be set aside.
10. However, the market value fixed by the Reference Court requires to be reduced having regard to the fact that the land, which was in consideration of LAC No.161/2004, was acquired by issuing a notification dated 12.11.1998 and the land in question was acquired on 5.8.1996. Hence, by adopting the method of scaling down at 10% every year, the market value of the acquired land in question comes to Rs.88,000/- per acre. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.
8
The judgment and decree dated 4.8.2011 passed in LAC No.70/2008 by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, partly allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2008 passed in LAC No.19/2001 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gokak is modified.
The claimants are entitled to market value of the acquired land in question at Rs.88,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits with cost subject to payment of deficit court fee, if any.
The enhanced compensation shall be deposited within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm