Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallikarjun S/O Late Bheemanna And ... vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1501, 2020 (3) AKR 609
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH 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.31824/2013 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
01. SRI MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE BHIMANNA
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O: CHIDRI DIST: BIDAR - 585 401
02. SRI CHANDRAKANTH
S/O LATE BHIMANNA
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O: CHIDRI
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401
.... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G.G. CHAGASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BIDAR - 585 401.
02. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEFENCE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI - 01.
2
03. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
THROUGH THE COMMANDANT AIR
FORCE STATION
BIDAR - 585 401.
04. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA CIRCLE AIR FORCE
RAJBHAVAN ROAD
BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1,
BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ASGI FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL; MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2012,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, AT BIDAR, IN LAC.NO.303/1991 AND BE PLEASED
TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.44,220/-
PER ACRE TO RS.52,220/- PER ACRE, WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF THE ACQUIRED
LAND SURVEY NO.276/1 MEASURING 18 ACRES 24
GUNTAS AND THE LAND SURVEY NO.278, MEASURING 12
ACRES 01 GUNTA, BOTH SITUATED AT CHIDRI, BIDAR,
WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, P.N.DESAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri G. G. Chagashetty, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. S.S. Aspalli, the learned ASGI for respondents No.2 to 4.
02. The appellants-land loosers have filed this appeal under Section 54 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Bidar in LAC.No.303/1991 and to enhance the compensation from Rs.44,220/- per acre to Rs.52,220/- per acre with all statutory benefits. 03. The land Survey No.276/1 measuring 18 acres 24 guntas and land Sy.No.278 measuring 12 acres 01 gunta both situated at Chidri village Dist:
Bidar, belonging to appellants are acquired for 4 expansion of existing Defence Air-force Station, at Bidar under 4 (1) notification dated 01.10.1985 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the order on 26.07.1989 determining the market value of the said lands at Rs.9,600/- per acre. The appellants- claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of the market value have filed reference petition before the Reference Court in LAC.No.303/1991. The reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.43,000/- per acre vide its judgment and award dated 27.11.1995.
04. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India -
Respondent No.2 in the present appeal and others have filed an appeal before this Court in MFA.No.1420/1999. The appeal was allowed on 01.03.2000 and the impugned judgment therein was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 5 Reference Court for fresh disposal. The appellant No.1 in this case again got examined and got marked additional documents Exs.P.15 to 23. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence and other materials, determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.44,220/- per acre with other statutory benefits vide its judgment and award dated 22.11.2012.
05. Aggrieved by the same the present appellants filed this appeal on the ground that the Reference Court has erred in not determining the market value keeping in view the admitted facts and not assessed the evidence keeping in view the potentiality of acquired lands for development. The lands adjoining to it are already developed. The acquired lands are close to Bidar City and located in the developed extension area of Bidar City. A plot of the size of 40' x 60' in the vicinity of the acquired lands was being sold at Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per plot 6 at the time of issuance of 4 (1) notification. The appellants made it clear in the plan that in one acre of land 12 plots of 60' x 40' size, could be formed; excluding the area for parks, civic amenities and the road. The reference Court having held that 12 plots of the size 40' x 60' could be formed in one acre of land; is not justified in deducting 1/3rd of the value assessed. The approach of the Reference Court in deducting further 1/3rd of the value is not correct. The lands, of which the Reference Court has observed as similar to the acquired lands of the appellants, are of a different village and far from the acquired lands. This approach of the Reference Court has resulted in determining the market value on lower side and therefore the same requires reconsideration of this Court. The appellants pray to enhance the compensation from Rs.44,220/- per acre to Rs.52,220/- per acre.
7
06. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.1443/2008 (LAC) dated 08.06.2015, wherein the appeal preferred by the respondents herein who are appellants in that MFA, in respect of lands acquired for the same purpose under same preliminary notification dated 26.09.1985 and situated in the same village, the market value at Rs.43,000/- per acre awarded by the Reference Court in LAC.No.312/1991 is challenged. The said appeal came to be dismissed confirming the market value of the land awarded by the Reference Court. In the said judgment at paragraphs Nos.8, 9 and 10 it is observed as under:-
"Para No.8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in MFA.No.31954/2009 this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per acre with statutory 8 benefits and therefore, the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified. Para No.9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the reference Court relying upon the judgment in LAC.No.146/1988 which has been confirmed by this Court in MFA.No.2366/1994 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.43,000/-
per acre with statutory benefits and therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference."
Para No.10. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants. The reference Court relying upon the judgment in LAC.No.146/1988 which has been confirmed by this Court in MFA.No.2366/1994 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.43,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. There is no 9 substantial difference between the two. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
07. Further, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also relied upon the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court passed in MFA.No.31954/2009 (LAC), wherein the land loosers have filed appeal against the respondents herein who are also the respondents therein, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the acquisition of land under same 4 (1) notification dated 26.09.1985 for the same purpose situated in the same village. After taking into consideration the material on record, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appeal in part pertaining to LAC.No.326/1991 by enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per acre.
10
08. That the judgment pertaining to LAC.No.326/1991 and present appeal is against the common order passed in LAC.Nos.325/1991, 307/1991 and LAC.No.303/1991 by the Reference Court. In fact the Reference Court has made reference to the other cases in determination of the market value. It is evident that now in all these cases Rs.43,000/- per acre is accepted as per order passed, in both MFA that is appeal preferred by the respondents in this case and appeal preferred by claimants in LAC.No.326/1991 whose lands are acquired under same notification for same purpose situated in the same village.
09. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, this matter was remand by this Court for fresh consideration. It is pertinent to note that this matter is remanded as appeal is filed by the respondents herein challenging the enhancement of 11 compensation, but appellants herein who were respondents in that case have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection. It appears that they were satisfied with the said award. Only, now in the year 2012 when the Reference Court affirmed the compensation awarded, in the other LAC matters and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.44,220/- by enhancing it, this appeal is preferred by the appellants and tried to contend that now they were not satisfied with enhancement.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In a matter like this, it has to be kept in mind that land belonging to a farmer is acquired for public purpose taking recourse to provisions providing for compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. It is well established that persons whose lands are acquired under the same notification for the same 12 project are entitled to receive similar compensation on the principle of parity in the matter of payment of compensation. It is also well established that judgments rendered by the court of competent jurisdiction determining market value of similar lands can be relevant piece of evidence and can be relied upon for fixing the market value of comparable lands acquired for the same purpose.
11. In the instant case, only ground urged in the appeal is that the Reference Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the claimants and not considered the potentiality of the acquired lands for development. The lands adjoining to it are already developed as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. But such contentions cannot be accepted at this stage. Similar lands having same potentiality and market value are acquired under 4 (1) notification on 26.09.1985, the reference Court awards 13 are challenged both by land loosers and the beneficiaries have been considered and it has reached finality by the judgments of this Court. It is pertinent to note that under 4 (1) notification not only the lands of these appellants are acquired, but also the lands of several persons were acquired i.e., more than 100 persons lands in the villages of Chidri, Naubad, Bakchoudi and Nijampur of Bidar Taluka, totally measuring 495 acres 08 guntas extent of lands are acquired. The award is passed by SLAO on 26.07.1989. The appeal filed by the beneficiaries and land loosers under same notification are dismissed. Now, respondents-beneficiaries and land loosers in other cases have accepted the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.43,000/- per acre.
12. We are of the considered view that when the compensation in respect of large extent lands acquired for the same purpose under same notification situated in the same village have attained finality by 14 judicial pronouncements of this Court, at this stage appellants prayer for fresh exercise of re-determining the compensation will open up the Pandora's box. Again all land loosers will have grievance and approach before the concerned forum seeking the additional compensation thereby unsettling the settled position in this regard.
13. We find no valid grounds or material after lapse of nearly three decades to modify the order or disturb the value of the acquired lands. Therefore, order of Reference Court awarding Rs.44,220/- per acre does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ