Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Nagappa Reddy vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 January, 2014
Bench: N.K.Patil, Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014
P RESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.152/2006
IN
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.8154/2005 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Sri. P. Nagappa Reddy,
S/O. Pillaiah,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at, Doddathogur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore south Taluk. ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(By Sri. M. Narayana Swamy, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
3rd Floor, Podium Block,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Executive Engineer,
B W S S B,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS.
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1;
Sri I.G. Gachchinamath, Adv. for R-2)
This MFA. CROB. in MFA No.8154/2005 is filed U/O
41 Rule 22 R/W Sec.151 of CPC against Judgment & Award
dated: 18.03.2005 in LAC 223/2003 on the file of the II Addl.
-2-
City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-17) partly
allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation &
seeking further enhancement of compensation.
This MFA. Crob. coming on for Admission this
day, N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following: -
JUDGMENT
This Cross Objection is by the cross objector/claimant being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award dated 18th March 2005 passed in LAC.No.223/2003 on the file of the learned II Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City ('Reference Court' for short).
2. The Reference Court, by its common judgment and award, has fixed the market value @ `12,00,000/- per acre as a package including all statutory benefits like solatium and additional market value. Being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the claimant/cross objector has presented this Cross Objection seeking enhancement of market value of the land in question.
3. The land bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated in Doddathogur village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was notified and acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the second respondent -3- vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') followed by final declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 18.8.1998. Thereafter after issuing necessary notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 25th September 1999, fixing the market value @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the cross-objector/claimant herein filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference, for enhancement of market value before the jurisdictional Reference Court in L.A.C.No.223/2003 and the matter came up for consideration before the Reference Court. The Reference Court in turn after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on record determined the market value @ Rs.12,00,000/- per acre as a package including all statutory benefits, without considering statutory power as envisaged under the relevant provisions of Section 23 of the Act and without following the well settled law laid down by Apex Court and this Court. In these type of cases, the Reference Court must take a judicial note and award the statutory benefits as legitimately entitled to by the claimants, who have lost their valuable land for -4- public purpose. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court, the cross objector herein has filed the cross objections seeking enhancement of market value.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the cross-objector, learned Government Pleader for first respondent and learned Counsel for second respondent.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the cross-objector Sri.Narayana Swamy at the outset submitted that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error much less material irregularity inasmuch as the Reference Court has proceeded to determine the market value @ Rs.12,00,000/- per acre as a package including all statutory benefits without complying with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and also failed to take into consideration the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that, the statutory benefit is extended to a person, who has lost his land, which is situated in the same village, notified under the same notification for the same purpose. To substantiate the same, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 19th January 2011 passed in M.F.A.No.8154/2005. The appeal filed by the first -5- respondent against the same judgment and award has been dismissed wherein it is specifically observed that relying upon Ex.P2, it is only a package granted to the land in Konappana Agrahara, has determined the market value, which according to them was bad in law. As a matter of fact in other connected matters, the market value of the land has been determined at higher rate than Rs.12 lakhs per acre and following the said judgment arising out of the same notification and against the judgment and award passed in L.A.C.No.15/2007 dated 18.2.2009, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 8th February 2012 has modified the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and determined the market value @ Rs.12 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, following the judgment and award passed by the Division Bench of this Court as referred to above, and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the statutory benefits may be extended as provided under Section 23 of the Act, modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.
6. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents interalia contended that the impugned -6- judgment and award is passed by the Reference Court after due consideration of the entire material on record and placing reliance on the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P6 and the oral evidence of PW-1 wherein, the market value has been enhanced from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.12 lakhs per acre as a package including all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, interference is not called for. However, they have not disputed the well settled law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court followed by this Court in several matters that statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act is liable to be extended and submitted that the same may be considered in accordance with law.
7. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it is not in dispute that, the land in question as referred to above has been notified and acquired by the State i.e., respondent No.1 for the benefit of second respondent for -7- construction of water tank. Further, it is not in dispute that, in respect of the land situated in the same village notified and acquired under the same notification and also for the same purpose, this Court has taken a view that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the cross objector, following the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.8154/2005 dated 19th January 2011, the first respondent has filed an appeal and it has been dismissed confirming the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8th February 2012 in M.F.A.No.6786/2009 has allowed the appeal filed by the claimants determining the market value @ Rs.12 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act.
8. After taking into consideration the judgment of this Court referred to above and in view of the settled law by the Apex Court in catena of judgments, we re- -8- determine the market value in respect of the land in question @ Rs.12 lakhs per acre with all other statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act, as awarded in similar matters.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above, the Cross Objection filed by the claimant/cross objector is allowed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 18th March 2005 passed in LAC.No.223/2003 on the file of the learned II Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is hereby modified, determining the market value of the land in question @ Rs.12 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act.
With this modification, the Cross Objection stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-