Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Aquistion Officer vs Shrishail S/O Chandanna Biradar on 8 June, 2020
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200642/2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT
INDI, RAILWAY STATION - 586209
.... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA)
AND:
SHRISHAIL S/O CHANDANNA BIRADAR
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: DHULAKHED
TQ: INDI DIST: BIJAPUR-586101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G.G. CHAGASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 14.07.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, INDI IN LAC.NO.33/2007.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, P.N.DESAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for appellant - State and also Sri. G.G. Chagashetty, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant.
02. The appellant-SLAO, UKP, Indi has assailed the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Indi enhancing the compensation of Rs.15,30,000/- in respect of 255 grape plants in the acquired land bearing Sy.No.228/1 and Rs.6,800/- per gunta for the remaining irrigated land of 19 guntas of Sy.No.228/1.
03. The appellant is respondent in LAC.No.33/2007. The claimant is the owner of land Sy.No.228/1 measuring 31 guntas situated at Dulakhed village Taluka Indi, which was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Canal 3 Upper Krishna Project. After due enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer passed an order under LAQ:SR:No.42/2003-04 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.47,004/-. Aggrieved by that the claimant has filed a protest petition before the reference Court in LAC.No.33/2007. The reference Court has enhanced the market value of acquired land to the extent of 19 guntas at Rs.6,800/- per guntas with statutory benefits and also added compensation of Rs.15,30,000/- for grape plants.
04. In the State appeal, it is contended that the reference Court has erred in relying on the documents pertaining to sale of dry grapes by the respondent herein prior to the 4(1) notification. In the RTC extract for the year 2004-05 the crops shown as jawar and grapes. The reference Court has wrongly relied upon Ex.P.11 valuation for calculating compensation towards grape plants. The valuation report has been 4 prepared by the respondent without issuing any notice to State at the time of spot inspection. The said valuation report clearly shows that land was visited nearly six months after the date of 4(1) notification. The reference Court has wrongly relied upon the said report without appreciating the evidence. The reference Court erroneously passed the judgment and award relying on the judgment passed by this Court in MFA.No.2020/2005 in respect of the land situated at Sindagi Taluka, whereas the present acquired land is situated in Indi Taluka. The reference Court has wrongly escalated price of the land at the rate of 10% per year in order to determine the market value of the acquired land. This Hon'ble Court in MFA.No.25872/2011 c/w MFA.No.24284/2011 Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, has adopted escalation of 5% in determining the market value and the same is applicable to the present case. The 5 impugned judgment and award under appeal passed by the reference Court in fixing the market value at Rs.6,800/- per guntas and compensation to the tune of Rs.15,30,000/- per grape plants is not sustainable in law and prays to set aside the award of compensation by the Reference Court.
05. The learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the two judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.200630/2016 c/w MFA.Nos.200627/2016 and 200629/2016 (LAC) dated 04.04.2018 and MFA.No.Crob.No.200035/2018 c/w MFA.No.200682/ 2015, MFA.Crob.No.200034/2018, MFA.No.200643/ 2015, MFA.Crob.No.200036/2018 and MFA.No. 200641/2015 (LAC) dated 16.01.2020, wherein while disposing of the appeal in MFA.Crob.No.200035/2018 and connected matters, observed that while arriving the value of the land and plants, the judgment 6 rendered by Coordinate Bench in MFA.No.2020/2005 dated 23.06.2010 it is taken into consideration. It is noticed that neither of the parties had referred to the compensation as determined in MFA.No.2020/2005 as is evident from the documents that were marked and the contentions that were put forth. However, the reference Court on taking note of the market value as determined in MFA.No.2020/2005, has thereafter determined the market value in the instant case. The grievance of the appellant is that such consideration as made by the reference Court is not justified, when the claimant had relied on the documents before the reference Court and had tendered the evidence.
06. The learned Additional Government Advocate would argued that the reference Court has not properly considered the fact that land in question therein had been acquired for a different project and are situated in a different village. The said contention 7 is not countered by learned counsel for the respondent.
07. Though the legal position is well established that the judgment in an earlier case relating to a similar property would be an appropriate basis to determine the market value. In the instant case it is contended that the land in question is not similar and the reliance was also not placed on the said judgment by both side parties.
08. If that be the position, when it is seen that the entire consideration by the Reference Court was based on the judgment passed in MFA.No.2020/2005, without discussing any other evidence and the documents available on record, such consideration by the Reference Court would not be justified. Hence, reconsideration by the Reference Court is necessary with reference to the other evidence already available 8 on record or the additional evidence that would be tendered by the parties before the Reference Court.
09. We are of the considered opinion that the similar matters requires to be re-appreciated by the reference Court in the light of the materials produced by the claimant. The reference Court erred in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in MFA.No.2020/2005 as it was neither the case of the claimant or the respondent authorities that the land which is subject matter of the reference are similarly situated as the lands involved in MFA.No.2020/2005. So, the reference Court is required to address the issue with reference to the materials placed before it. The reference Court having omitted to do so, the judgment and award stand vitiated and accordingly set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Reference Court. 9 The said reference case is restored to the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi in LAC.No.33/2007.
The learned counsel for the claimant requested to fix the time limit for disposal of the case. Ofcourse we are going through Covid-19 period. The Trial Courts are functioning with limited listing and hearing. However, keeping in mind that the matter is very old, the parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 20.07.2020 without waiting for any notice from the Court. The reference Court shall thereupon provide an opportunity to the parties to tender the additional evidence and re-consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law.
Since, the matter is being remitted to the Reference Court, the Reference Court shall endeavor to dispose off the reference petition in an expeditious 10 manner as far as possible within a period of 09 months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ