Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs B.E.Nagarajappa on 7 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6332/2021 (LAC)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6333/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6336/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6337/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6343/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6368/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6369/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6370/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6371/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6374/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6380/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5943/2023 (LAC)
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6332/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THIPESHAPPA
S/O GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2
RESIDENT OF BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. KALAMMA
W/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
1(b) B.T. NIJAGUNA
S/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(c) B.T. RAJU
S/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
1(d) B.T. THOTAPPA
S/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
1(e) B.T. HALESHAPPA
S/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
1(f) B.T. RUDRESH
S/O LATE THIPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R1(a) TO R1(f) ARE
R/AT BETTATARAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.08.2023)
3
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT
TARIKERE, KARNATAKA-577228.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. M.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to f))
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.02/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6333/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. E.B. CHANDRAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228.
4
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18(1)
OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6336/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.E.NAGARAJAPPA
S/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228.
5
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC NO.14/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18(1)
OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6337/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MALLESHAPPA S/O THIMALAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. NAVILAMMA
W/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SHIVA KUMAR
S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6
3. SMT. DEVEERAMMA
D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SMT. KUSHALA
D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. SMT. GEETHA
D/O LATE MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBI,
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R6)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.09/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6343/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
7
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. SHIVAMURTHY
S/O SHANKARAPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.15/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6368/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB DIVISION, NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
8
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ESHWARAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. JAYANNA
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. LINGAMURTHY
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. UMESH
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
5. SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHICKNALLURU
HIRENALLURU HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 550.
9
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQYISTITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
TARIKERE,
KARNATAKA - 577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 TO R5 - SERVED;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R6)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.
22.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.18/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6369/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.C. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O CHANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577228
10
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.
22.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.12/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6370/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O LATE K.R. ESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. B.E. THOTAPPA
S/O LATE K.R. ESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
11
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2
RESIDING AT BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA - 577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.
16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.06/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6371/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB DIVISION, NO 4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ESHWARAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
12
1. JAYANNA
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. LINGAMURTHY
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. UMESH
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
5. SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHICKNALLURU
HIRENALLURU HOBLI
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 550.
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
TARIKERE,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R5;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R6)
13
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.
20.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.17/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6374/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANMUKHAPPA
S/O GOWRANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
14
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.05/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6380/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED,
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,
SUB-DIVISION NO.4,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.H.LOKESHAPPA
S/O HOLEYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE,
KARNATAKA-577 228. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
15
DATED 20.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.19/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5943/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT
SUB-DIVISION NO.4
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S. GOWRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. MANJULA G.S.,
W/O NEELAKANTHAPPA
D/O LATE S. GOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT KADUR TOWN AND TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116.
1(b) UMASHANKARA G.S.,
S/O LATE S. GOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.273,
'VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA'
2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, LBS NAGAR
BEHIND CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 204.
16
1(c) SHADAKSHARI G.S.,
S/O LATE S. GOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT 8TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
KRISHI NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 204.
1(d) MAMATHA G.S.,
W/O SHIRALINGAPPA D.H.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.72, KUMAR LAYOUT
CHENNAKESHWARA TEMPLE
BENGALURU-562 107
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.09.2024)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT,TARIKERE,
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to d))
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 13.12.2022 PASSED IN LAC NO.30/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 23(1)
OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.01.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
17
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court questioning the enhancement of compensation and assessing the compensation for mango trees as well as challenging the calculation on the solatium and additional market value, particularly questioning the calculation as incorrect in LAC Nos.2/2013, 10/2013, 14/2013, 9/2013, 15/2013, 18/2013, 12/2013, 6/2013, 17/2013, 5/2013, 19/2013 and 30/2014.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant before this Court is that the preliminary notification was issued on 18.11.2010 notifying the respective survey numbers in respect of Bettatavarekere village belonging to respective respondent No.1/owners and the same was published in the Karnataka gazette. The final notification was issued on 24.11.2011. The respondent No.2 Assistant Commissioner/Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) giving compensation to both the lands and trees. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the respective properties aggrieved by the market value determined by respondent No.2, sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation for both land and trees. The Reference Court on receiving the reference under Section 18 of the Act, having recorded the evidence awarded the compensation and the same is being challenged before this Court in these appeals praying this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, in the above LAC cases and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
4. The main grounds urged in all these appeals is that the appellant is the Assistant Executive Engineer of Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Limited, a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 2013. The appellant Company is a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, incorporated under the Company's Act as a Special Purpose Vehicle to cater to the drinking water and irrigation needs of drought-prone areas of Chikmagalur, Chitradurga, Tumkur, Hassan, Ramanagara, 19 Bengaluru (Rural), Kolar and Chikballapura Districts. The appellant was in need of land for the purpose of formation of canals for the upper Bhadra Project, in amongst other Villages, Bettatavarekere Village, Amrutapura Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur directed respondent No.2 to prepare a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, preliminary notification and final notification were issued and award was also passed. The respondent No.2 also passed an award in respect of respective lands under Section 11 of the Act, arriving at compensation for the various lands acquired. The respondent No.2 in his award has observed that the Government of Karnataka has fixed various rates, which was a lumpsum payment for the acquired lands, which included all trees and things attached to the acquired land, and inclusive of all statutory benefits, which rates were proposed for any land owners who were agreeable for acquisition of land at the rates fixed by the Government. The respondent No.2 also taken note of the potentiality of the property and lands as well as trees which were attached to the earth. The respondent No.2 while fixing the award amount taken note of the sale of dry lands for 20 the period 2008 and 2010 (no transactions were recorded in the year 2009) from the information obtained from the Sub- Registrar, Tarikere and determined the market value of dry lands at Rs.1,023/- per gunta or Rs.40,500/- per acre of dry land for the village Bettatavarekete. It is also observed and determined the market value of wet lands at Rs.79,200/- per acre or Rs.1,980/- per gunta. It is contended that it has recently come across the detailed valuation report of the trees of the village of Bettatavarekere, whereby inter alia the Deputy Director of Horticulture Department and Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Tarikere have inspected and valued the horticulture trees on the acquired lands, including the trees on the land of respondent No.1. The land of respondent No.1 being dry in nature was valued at Rs.85,932/-. The respondent No.2 in accordance with the valuation of the trees made by the authorities of Horticulture Department, fixed an additional compensation at Rs.8,78,798/- in respect of property of LAC No.2/2013 and awarded compensation taking note of the respective land as well as trees which are in existence. It is also not in dispute that the award has been challenged by requesting to refer the matter to the concerned Court under Section 18 of 21 the Act and the matter was also referred to the Reference Court and the Reference Court proceeded to pass the award which is challenged before this Court.
5. This Court would like to refer the common grounds urged in all these appeals, wherein it is contended that the Reference Court, without having the benefit of the reasoning given by respondent No.2, has gone to enhance the compensation and no reasons are assigned in the judgment and award and awarded higher compensation which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is the contention of the appellant that burden is upon the claimant to establish that the compensation amount determined under Section 11 of the Act is inadequate and to place relevant material for correct valuation. The respective respondents have not placed the awards passed by respondent No.2 before the Reference Court and it is their burden to demonstrate to the Reference Court that the reason given therein was not sound or the material considered by respondent No.2 was not relevant and burden is on them to discharge the same and the same was not discharged in the above cases. In the absence of such material, the Court cannot enhance the compensation.
22
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER v. SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND OTHERS reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168, wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 18, 11 and 12 of the Act. The learned counsel contend that it was incumbent upon the Reference Court to examine the award and its reasoning, and on consideration of relevant material in the award of respondent No.2, arrive at a finding that the same was inadequate and no such consideration was made and hence the judgment and award is unsustainable. The learned counsel contend that the award is a sine qua non for the proceedings seeking enhancement of the compensation under the said Act, as many facts such as the date of preliminary notification, date of award are all necessary to determine the statutory benefit of additional market value under Section 23(1-A), which is determined from the date of preliminary notification till the date of the award or date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. Without the basic document such as the award, the Reference Court has gone on guess work as regards the dates on which the preliminary notification was issued and the date of award etc. 23 which gets reflected in the award itself. The award itself is quite silent as to how the date of preliminary notification etc., has been arrived at by the Reference Court. It is contended that the Reference Court has committed an error in assessing the mango trees and erroneously taken that the land acquired was consisting of Badami mango trees and in order to show that the respondent owners have grown the Badami trees, nothing is placed on record. The reasoning of the Reference Court is contrary to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, which stipulates that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist and the same has not been proved.
7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon Ex.P.1 and letter dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Public Information Officer, Hopcoms Lal Bagh, which is not even produced as an exhibit and without examining their authors considered the same and passed the award enhancing the compensation in respect of mango trees. The Reference Court has also erred in calculating the yield of the mango trees 24 through income capitalization method. The respondent No.2 had already valued the lands of respondent No.1 through sale statistics method and over and above that also had the trees on the lands of the respondent No.1 valued by Senior Officials of the Horticultural Department considering the age and yield and the said fact is reflected in the award passed by respondent No.2. Hence, the Reference Court has committed an error in taking the income capitalization method, though it has held that compensation awarded for land by respondent No.2 could not be found fault with.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (1995) Supp (2) SCC 637 and contend that it is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to be value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances, the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as 25 well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given.
9. The learned counsel contend that the said principle that the trees cannot be valued separately on the basis of income capitalization in addition to that of value of land has been followed in a catena of decisions. Furthermore, the Apex Court has held that the safest method of valuation of lands is by way of sale statistics method, or the price paid by willing purchasers at the point in time of preliminary notification. The Reference Court committed an error in considering the same separately. The learned counsel contend that the Reference Court has further erred in awarding additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A), solatium at the rate of 30% as provided under Section 23(2) and also interest under 26 Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on both the compensation awarded by respondent No.2 as also the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court. In view of the same, the award reflects that solatium at the rate of 30% has been calculated both on the enhanced compensation as well as the award that is passed by respondent No.2, when in fact, respondent No.2 has awarded solatium under Section 23(2) and additional market value under Section 23(1-A) on the land value. The respondent No.2 has omitted to award those statutory benefits on the valuation of the trees and other fixtures on the land, which the appellant submits is lawful. Hence, the awarding of statutory benefits under Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) on both the compensation awarded by respondent No.2 and also on the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court is erroneous. Furthermore, interest under Section 28 of the Act, is to be calculated on the amount which is in excess to the amount that has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, or in other words, interest has to be calculated on the amount that has been enhanced by the Reference Court. However, in the impugned judgment and award, interest under Section 28 has been calculated both on the enhanced amount awarded by the 27 Reference Court plus solatium at the rate of 30% as also on the amount awarded by respondent No.2 plus solatium at the rate of 30% which is per se not legally tenable.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS v. SMT. RAM KUMARI DEVI AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 8 SCC 577, and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.4 of the judgment, wherein it is held that burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adduction of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the Court has to adopt is that the Court has to sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price which the Court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is a compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer.
28
11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DY.DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISTION v. MALLA ATCHINAIDU AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 12 SCC 87 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.56, wherein the Apex Court held has that the High Court also failed to note that the Court has no power to value the trees separately and award both the value of the land and also the value of the trees as per the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, wherein it was held that the compensation for the lands as well as for the trees cannot be determined separately.
12. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR v. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 12 SCC 58 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.14 wherein also the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh was referred and similar view was taken.
13. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. AMARJIT 29 SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 4 SCC 734 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.3 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made referring Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act dealing with matters to be considered in determining compensation. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.4.4, wherein it is held that solatium at 30% on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.
14. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v.
RAMCHANDRA AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1008 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.28, wherein also discussion was made referring the judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and reiterated that compensation on account of severance is not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act, as the market value is determined in terms of Section 23(1) firstly, whereas the compensation on account of severance of land is determined under Section 23(1) and discussion was made in paragraph No.11 of the above judgment. The additional amount 30 under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor is additional amount under Section 23(1-A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are also not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under the second to sixth factors under Section 23(1) of the Act.
15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED v. OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR LIMITED reported in 2011 SCC Online Bom 426, wherein it is held that burden is always on the parties who claim compensation to prove the actual loss referring paragraph Nos.19, 20, 24, 35, 40 and 51.
16. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PYARELAL TEXTILE LIMITED reported in 2012 SCC Online Bom 99 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.20 and 22, wherein it held 31 that the loss/compensation for necessary damages and/or actual loss is always subject to proof and cannot be on the presumption and assumption.
17. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANGAMMAL v. KUPPUSWAMI AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 12 SCC 220 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.31 with regard to application of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 wherein it is held that the party which makes the allegation must prove it. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.32, wherein it is held that it was respondent No.1/plaintiff who should have first of all discharged the burden that the sale deed executed during the minority of the appellant was genuine and was fit to be relied upon. If the Courts below including the High Court had felt satisfied on this aspect, only then the burden could be shifted on the appellant-defendant to dislodge the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was not genuine. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.34, wherein it is held that the onus is on the plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of the material available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence 32 of defence to discharge the onus. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that burden is on the owner to prove the contention that it requires enhancement.
18. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NOMI SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 14 SCC 450 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11, wherein it is held that a person who seeks the relief, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his case.
19. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. KARUNESH KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.22, wherein discussion was made with regard to approbate and reprobate. The principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it.
20. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that the grounds which have been urged in all the matters is with regard to calculation is incorrect and also only with regard to enhancement of compensation in respect of 33 mango trees and the Reference Court has not enhanced the compensation in respect of land is concerned. The learned counsel in support of his arguments filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and along with the application has produced the award as well as RTC and contend that as on the date of the preliminary notification, there was no any crop in terms of the RTC extract, but only at the time of passing the award managed to make an entry that mango trees are in existence and the same are aged about 8 years old. Hence, this Court has to allow the applications and consider the matter for adducing the additional evidence and permit the appellant to produce those additional documents and evidence.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent owners have filed objections to the said I.A. and contend that after issuing the final notification and before taking the possession of the land in question, a joint measurement report was prepared and the same is produced as document No.1 and while drawing the said report, Assistant Horticulture Officer, Senior Assistant Horticulture Director, Tarikere and Deputy Director, Horticulture were personally present and all of them had affixed their signature to the said report. The learned counsel contend that 34 the said measurement report was produced as Ex.P.3 before the Reference Court and the Reference Court also observed that the said document was drawn by the Government officials and the appellant did not dispute the said document nor its contents. The appellant is bound by the same and it cannot contradict the said document at a later stage contending that additional documents could be received. The learned counsel contend that the revenue entries are not proof of cultivation or ownership. Such documents are maintained by the Government for the purpose of assessment of land revenue, survey, maintenance of records, etc. Non-existence of any entry in w.r.t crops is not a conclusive proof of cultivation made in the land. As could not be seen from the final notification, compensation has been paid to the trees and the same is shown in separate column and now the appellant cannot contend contrary to their own documents. The learned counsel contend that notice dated 28.11.2011 came to be issued under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act (notice taking possession) by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while taking the possession of the lands. As could be seen from the same, possession was taken by the appellant after expiry of 15 days from the date of said notice and possession of land was taken by 35 the appellant during December 2011 and notice copy is also produced. The learned counsel referring these documents objected for production of additional documents.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent contend that the Reference Court taking note of the document of Ex.P.1 which was marked with consent before the Reference Court regarding the report received from the Assistant Horticulture Officer and also from the Forest Department fixed the market rate in respect of the mango trees. The learned counsel contend that the land was handed over along with trees and when the possession was taken along with the land and tree, now cannot contend that there were no trees and other contention that the land and trees cannot be valued separately also cannot be accepted. The learned counsel contend that the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that consideration of additional market value and solatium is not part of the compensation cannot be accepted. The learned counsel contend that the very contention of the appellant that additional market value, solatium and inclusion of the same by the Reference Court for calculation of the amount is incorrect also cannot be accepted. 36
23. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his argument relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITONN OFFICER v. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708, wherein it is held that for fair market value of land, determination of capitalization of yield method is relevant consideration. Assessment has to be made with reference to existing potentiality of land on date of acquisition. The Reference Court and High Court adopting agricultural yield method enhanced valued of land holding manufacturing of silk thread from silk cocoons as agricultural end product treating it as relevant consideration. It is held that under Section 23 of the Act, fair market value of land, if it is an agricultural land, application of agricultural yield method in case of valuable cash crops is permissible.
24. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), TELEGU GANGA PROJECT reported in (2011) 11 SCC 639, wherein it discussed with regard to Section 23(1) and (2) of the Act, determination of market value through capitalization method and 37 valuation of yield from fruit-bearing trees. It is also observed that thus, instead of the increase of Rs.20/- per tree per annum awarded by the High Court, increase to be award as Rs.60/- per tree per annum (to which compound multiplier of 10 is applicable). The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that the Trial Court applied the same yardstick.
25. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.39979/2013 dated 06.08.2014, wherein also taken note of loss in diminution in the value of the land and towards the loss sustained for cutting of the trees. Keeping in mind the ratio which were discussed in the judgment, the multiplier of 10 is required to be taken and if the cost of cultivation is taken at 30%, it can be safely said that the net income has to be calculated on the basis of Rs.5/- per coconut giving margin to the cost incurred for cultivation and other expenses. If the net value is worked out, it comes to Rs.72,100/- in a case of coconut trees.
26. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, 38 wherein discussion is made with regard to proviso of Section 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26 of the said Act. Interest under Sections 34 and 28, held is payable on solatium. Amount awarded in Section 34, held, means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with provisions of all the sub-Sections of Section 23 and hence includes solatium. Intention of legislature is to ensure that the amount calculated under Section 23 reaches the person concerned at the time of passing of award or of taking over possession of the land. Any delay in making of such payment, entitles the person to receive interest on whole amount including the solatium. It is also held that the amount awarded in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, i.e., solatium, held is qualitatively different from and so cannot be equated with damages on account of any disinclination of the person to part with the land acquired. The question of payment of interest would arise only when the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. The exercise can be done with the aid of the provisions in the statues. So what the Court, in the context of land acquisition, has to decide is how the Act has designed the compensation vis-à-vis the liability to pay 39 interest. It is also held that no judicial exercise is required to quantify the sums mentioned in sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) because the section itself specifies the percentage to be worked out for the purpose of adding to the total amount arrived at under sub-section (1). What is intended under Section 23(2) is additional to the market value of the land and in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. But it cannot be equated with any damage caused on account of any disinclination of the person to part with the land acquired.
27. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in MSA No.94/2016 passed on 03.07.2023 in a similar set of facts of acquiring of mango trees and the same is in respect of the property at Somalapura Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, wherein in respect of the mango trees, the First Appellate Court considered Rs.1,01,055/- per mango tree. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the present case only Rs.29,000/- and odd was given.
28. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 40 reported in (2011) 9 SCC 325, wherein discussion is made with regard to Section 23 of the said Act, compensation and determination of valuation of land and trees standing thereon separately considered. It is held that, where land value has been determined with reference to sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, trees will have to be valued separately. The determination of market value was not with reference to yield nor was it with reference to value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land. Hence, value of trees had to be added to value of land.
29. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMBICA QUARRY WORKS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213, wherein the Apex Court held that ratio of a decision should be understood in the fact situation of a particular case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.18 wherein discussion was made with regard to the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. 41
30. The learned counsel also relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL (P) LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.59, wherein it is held that a decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision and also discussed Article 300A right to user of own property. Restriction on except in a manner provided under the statute, cannot be presumed.
31. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the principles laid in the judgments referred supra, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Reference Court committed an error in enhancing the compensation in respect of mango trees?
(ii) Whether the Reference Court committed an error in making the calculation in the decree 42 12% interest on the additional market value and on solatium?
(iii) Whether the appellants have made out a ground to invoke Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to receive the evidence as contended in the respective applications?
(iv) What order?
Point No.3
32. This Court would like to consider Point No.3 with regard to receiving of an additional evidence since the appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC wherein produced the documents of award of the respondent No.2 dated 18.09.2012 and valuation report of the Horticulture Department, valuing, inter alia, the trees on the lands of respondent No.1- owner. It is contended in the application that Reference Court has not had the opportunity to go through the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and on perusal of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer it would reveal that the trees on the lands of the claimant were inspected by the Senior Assistant Director, Horticultural department and other officials, who have inspected the trees, ascertained their approximate age and yield and have given value to each tree and in the earlier award, discussed the 43 same and Reference Court not having the benefit of going through the award, has passed the impugned order without taking reference of the award dated 18.09.2012. It is also contended that the trees on the lands of the claimant have been valued by the Senior Officials of the Horticulture department. This report was not produced before the Reference Court due to the non-availability of the same with the appellant during the course of evidence and these documents are necessary in the matter.
33. The appellant also filed another application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC producing the RTC extract wherein it is stated that as on the date of preliminary notification, in the column of RTC, no such crop was mentioned and only subsequently crops are mentioned and same has been managed. The said application has been disputed by the counsel for the respondent by filing statement of objections contending that it is not in dispute that joint inspection was conducted and prepared Janti Tapasana Patti and along with the statement of objections, same is produced as document No.1. It is also contended that the said Joint Measurement report was produced as Ex.P3 before 44 the Reference Court and now cannot contradict the same and also contend that in the final notification, compensation has been paid to the trees and same is shown in the separate column and for the purpose of assessment of land revenue, the revenue entries would be made for non-existence of an entry with regard to the crops is not a conclusive proof. It is also contend that possession notice was issued on 28.11.2011 and possession was taken in the month of December, 2011.
34. Having perused the application and also the documents which have been produced, no dispute with regard to the fact that award was passed by the SLO on 18.09.2012 and also not in dispute that Ex.P3 was marked before the Trial Court and the same is a joint measurement report wherein existence of trees has been mentioned. The counsel for the appellant not seriously dispute the fact that Janti Tapasana Patti was prepared and they are signatory to those documents and the same is done by the Horticulture Officer, Senior Assistant, Deputy Director, Horticulture who were personally present at the time of conducting the inspection and when the document at Ex.P3 is marked before the Reference Court i.e., Joint Measurement 45 Report, receiving of additional documents does not arise and the same is not in respect of germane issues involved between the parties when the concerned authorities have conducted the land survey and filed Janti Tapasana Patti and now cannot approbate and reprobate as contended by the respondent counsel when they are party to the joint inspection and preparing of joint measurement report and also in the Joint Tapasana Patti, existence of trees also mentioned and now, cannot rely on the entries on the RTC and same is not a conclusive proof as contended by the respondent counsel. Before taking the possession and issuance of notice in the month of November, 2011, joint measurement report was prepared and produced and same is marked as Ex.P3 and that itself is enough to consider the existence of mango trees and compensation also has been paid to the trees and same is shown in a separate column in the final notification and now they cannot contend that same is contrary to the material available on record referring no entry in the RTC for the said period but subsequently, existence of trees also mentioned and compensation also assessed by the SLO both in respect of land as well as tree and these documents will not come to the aid of the appellant to decide the issue involved and 46 there is no any germane issues with regard to the said fact when already admitted the existence of land and trees attached to the land and hence, question of receiving additional evidence does not arise as sought in the respective applications. Hence, these applications deserve to be dismissed. Hence, I answer Point No.3 accordingly.
Point No.1:
35. This Court would like to refer Point No.1 i.e., whether the Reference Court committed an error in enhancing the compensation in respect of mango trees. This Court already considered the factual aspects that there were existence of Mango trees in some of the lands and challenge is also made in respect of enhancement of compensation in respect of mange trees in M.F.A.Nos.6332/2021, 6333/2021, 6343/2021, 6369/2021, 6370/2021, 6371/2021 and 6374/2021 and common ground was urged in all these appeals that enhancement of compensation in respect of the mango trees is erroneous.
36. It is not in dispute that land value is fixed based on sales statistics method and no challenge to the same. It is also 47 not in dispute that in respect of mange trees are concerned, compensation was determined. It is also important to note that value of the tree is fixed based on the inspection report of the Horticulture department and also the judgment and decree and also the award passed by the SLO and mango trees are also taken note of and same is not in dispute. But the counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that SLO considered as Naati mango but Reference Court determined the same as Badami tree and awarded an amount of Rs.29,125/- per mango tree. The above value is fixed based on the net yield income capitalization method and the mango trees are considered as Badami mango but no evidence is placed before the Court with regard to the said type of mango trees. It is contended that the Reference Court has not considered the award passed by the SLO on the trees and SLO has passed the award based on the inspection report of the Horticulture department. The land owner has not produced a single document before the Reference Court to show the yielding of the mango trees. The Reference Court has also observed that land owner has not produced a document to prove his case but on assumption and presumption has 48 enhanced the compensation on the mango trees and no material with regard to show that trees are Badami mango trees.
37. The counsel in support of his arguments also referring the judgment of the Apex Court contend that compensation is given on the basis of yield capitalization method, then the question of granting compensation separately for land or trees does not arise. The Court has granted compensation on trees based on the yield capitalization method, therefore, the compensation granted by the Reference Court does not survive. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of GURCHARAN SINGH's case referred supra.
38. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has taken note of the factual aspects of the case and no dispute with regard to the fact that there were mango trees on the acquired land and the counsel also brought to notice of this Court to paragraph 23 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein taken note of the fact that in order to prove the price of the mangoes, has produced a document/letter issued by the Senior Assistant Director, Department of Horticulture, Tarikere dated 04.10.2016 under 49 Ex.P1. In the said document, it is clearly mentioned that the mango trees would give fruits for a period of 70-80 years and each tree would give about 50 to 300 kgs of mangoes per year and the said document is a public document issued by a public servant and hence, it has got initial presumptive value under law. It is also important to note that said document was marked without any objections to rebut the contents of this document are incorrect. It is observed that the respondent has not placed any document nor examined any witness. Therefore, there is no bar and impediment to rely upon this document. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, life of the mango tree as well as the yield were taken note of and even variation in the atmosphere and nature of the tree and quantity of mango and an average of 125 kgs. of mangoes per tree is considered per year and same is justifiable taking into note of the said documents and so also discussed with regard to the applicability of multiplier in respect of the fruit-bearing trees and taken note of the different judgments and particularly, in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI referred supra wherein consistent view taken by the Court holding that multiplier should be 10 and taking note of the said fact into consideration also apart from that price of mangoes 50 is concerned, considered the letter issued by the Executive Manager, HOPCOMS, Lalbhag, Bengaluru and same is discussed in paragraph 25 of the judgment which was obtained by the petitioner as per the Right to Information Act and said document also marked without objection and now, the appellant cannot contend that no opportunity was given and same is also a public document and it has initial presumptive value and even rightly taken note of year of the preliminary notification i.e., 2010-11 notification and considered the same as relevant year and price for each kilogram of mango was taken as 46.61 and considered the same as 125 kg of mangoes per tree and calculated the same in paragraph 26 and arrived for consideration of Rs.29,125/- per tree. No doubt, there is no any description of the tree whether it is a Badami tree or a Naati. The very contention of the appellant that it was a Naati and the Trial Court also having taken note of the value of the tree, awarded the same. It is also important to note that the Trial Court not passed the order blindly and taken note of relevant multiplier and also the price of the particular year and the said letter also issued by the competent authority.
51
39. The counsel for the respondent also brought to notice of this Court the order passed in MSA No.94/2016 wherein per tree considered as Rs.1,01,055/- in respect of mango trees situated within the limits of Nittur hobli and even the First Appellate Court considered the said value and same has been considered by this Court. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is also very clear that a decision as is well known as an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefore, a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision as held in BHAVANAGAR UNIVERSITY's case referred supra.
40. When the document of Government Notification was relied upon by the Reference Court, the very contention of the appellant counsel that the Reference Court committed an error enhancing compensation in respect of mango trees is not acceptable and also valuation taken particularly taking into note of the Government Notification to the reference of preliminary notification year and actual price by the Horticulture department and multiplier also applied taking into note of yield report and 52 not taken note of maximum claim of yield but taken average of 125 kg per tree and the same would be from 50 to 300 kg in a particular tree and when average also taken, the appellant cannot contend that same is exorbitant and even in the absence of fact that whether it is a Naati or Badami mango, there is no any material to comes to the conclusion that which type of mangoes were grown except stating that mango trees are in the land and joint report also does not disclose the nature of the tree that whether it is Badami mango tree or it is Naati mango tree and in order to prove that it was Naati tree also, no material and in order to comes to the conclusion that it was Badami also, no material and Reference Court taken note of average method and also the yield capitalisation method and taking note of the same, awarded the compensation and same cannot be contend that same is an exorbitant amount. Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
41. Point No.2 is that whether the Reference Court committed an error in making the calculation in the decree and whether 12% on the additional market value cannot be granted on solatium and it should be only on market value as contended 53 by the appellants and committed an error in making incorrect calculation. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant in his argument contends that the method adopted for calculation of solatium and additional market value is incorrect.
The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of AMARJIT SINGH's case referred supra wherein it is held that solatium cannot be granted on trees and structures on the land. The counsel and also contend that calculation arrived by the Reference Court in the decree is incorrect. 12% additional market value cannot be granted on solatium. It should be only market value as held in the case of RAMACHANDRA referred supra and also brought to notice of this Court an observation made in page No.42 that the respondent in the cross examination or arguments have not disputed that the claimant had grown the mango trees in the land of the petitioner as on the date of the acquisition. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the judgment of the Apex Court is very clear that the plaintiff has to prove his case and not depend up on the defendant weakness to prove his case and also brought to notice of this Court the discussion made that the respondent have not examined any witness nor produced any documents before the 54 Court with regard to the nature or kind of mango trees and referring the judgment in the case of HINDUSTAN FOREST COMPANY referred supra contend that the onus is on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of the material available and it cannot rely on the weakness and also relied upon the judgment of RANGAMMAL's case referred supra.
42. The counsel for the appellant also relied upon the case of RAM KUMARI DEVI referred supra with regard to the burden on the claimant to prove the case and the counsel also relied upon the case of SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI referred supra referring paragraphs 7 and 22 and so also referring paragraph 3 of GURCHARAN SINGH's case referred supra and also referring paragraph 56 of MALLA ATCHINAIDU's case referred supra wherein it is held that the Court has no power to value the trees separately and award on both the value of the land and also the value of the trees as per the decision of GURCHARAN SINGH's case. The counsel also referred paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR referred supra wherein also GURCHARAN SINGH's case was referred stating that it is settled law that the 55 Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the judgment in the case of AMARJIT SINGH referred supra wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and in paragraph 14, it is held that the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as this Court has treated additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as part of the market value, additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act is neither interest nor solatium. There is no logic in the contention as the decision in CIT vs GHANSHYAM (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412 case nowhere holds that solatium is part of market value nor holds that additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is payable on the solatium amount. In paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held that the decision clearly holds that additional amount is awardable only against the market value and not solatium.
43. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 as against the contention of the counsel for the appellant, relies upon several judgments and particularly, the judgment in the case of SUNDER referred supra and the said judgment is a Larger 56 Bench judgment consisting of five Judges and in the said judgment discussed in detail regarding Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act and proviso to Section 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26 with regard to interest under Section 34 and 28 and also held that it is payable on solatium, amount awarded and held that means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with provisions of all the sub-sections of Section 23 and hence, includes solatium. It is also held that intention of legislature is to ensure that the amount calculated under Section 23 reaches the person concerned at the time of passing of award or of taking over possession of the land, any delay in the making of such payment, entitles the person to receive interest on whole amount including the solatium. It is also important to note that Section 23(2) also discussed in this judgment regarding amount awarded "in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition" and held, is qualitatively different from and so cannot be equated with damages on account of "any disinclination of the person to part with the land acquired".
44. In this Constitutional Bench judgment, not only discussed with regard to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 57 under 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26 and categorically held that interest is payable on solatium also and hence, the very contention of the appellant counsel cannot be accepted. Even Sections 23 and 24 also discussed in detail and also admittedly the solatium is payable only in respect of compulsory nature of the acquisition of property and same is also not damages. It is also important to note that the Apex Court in this judgment particularly taking into note of Section 23(1), (1-A) and (2) held that it does not say that the award should refer only to amounts awarded under sub-section (1) of Section 23 and it only stipulates that reasons or grounds must be specified where amounts have been awarded under any of the clauses of sub- Section (1). There is no need for such a stipulation in respect of amounts awarded under sub-sections (1-A) and (2) as such amounts are only the logical outcome or concomitant adjuncts of the calculation of the total amount indicated in sub-section (1).
45. The very contention that solatium under sub-section (2) is not part of the awarded amount for the purposes of grant of interest has been rejected and hence, the very contention of the appellant counsel cannot be accepted. It is held that question of payment of interest would arise only when the 58 compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. When the Court is of the opinion that the Collector should have awarded a larger sum as compensation the Court has to direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess amount. The rate of interest is on a par with the rate indicated in Section 34. It is further held that when compensation is regarded as a statutory obligation the academic definitions need not detract the Courts in fathoming the real import of it. The exercise can be done with the aid of the provisions in the statutes. So what the Court, in the context of land acquisition, has to decide is how the Act has designed the compensation vis-à-vis the liability to pay interest. In this judgment also elaborate discussion was made with regard to Sections 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26 of the Land Acquisition Act and also categorically held that no judicial exercise is required to quantify the sums mentioned in sub- section (1-A) or sub-section (2) because the section itself specifies the percentage to be worked out for the purpose of adding to the total amount arrived at under sub-section (1). Otherwise Section 26 is not intended to show that the compensation awarded would be bereft of the additional amount 59 and the solatium envisaged under sub-section (1-A) or sub- section (2). It is further held that this can be clearly discerned from the commencing words of Section 26 itself. It is held that even award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge. What is referred to therein is Part III of the Act which comprises of a fasciculus of twelve provisions starting with Section 18 and ending with Section 28-A of the Act. It is further held that it can be no doubt that all the three heads specified in the three sub-sections in Section 23 are the sums to be awarded by the Court. Hence, the words every award under this Part cannot be treated as the award after delinking the amounts awarded under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) of Section
23. What is intended under Section 23(2) is additional to the market value of the land and in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. But it cannot be equated with any damage caused on account of any disinclination of the person to part with the land acquired.
46. Having considered the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court referred supra, no doubt, the counsel referring other judgments held with regard to interest payable on solatium as well as additional market value is not permitted and 60 Constitutional Bench judgment will prevail and not the other judgments.
47. The other contention that trees and land cannot be separately considered as per the judgment referred supra and this Court would like to rely upon it is settled law that if the land is attached to any trees or planted or grown, same has to be taken note of while granting the compensation separately or otherwise it would cause loss to the person who grown the tree and converted the land as income from the trees. In the case of SHAIK IMAMBI referred supra, it is held that valuation of yield from fruit-bearing trees and also discussed with regard to the appropriate multiplier wherein also adopted a multiplier of 14 with regard to annual income of Rs.80/- per lime tree and also discussion was made that having regard to consistent view taken by Supreme Court, High Court was right and special circumstances for higher multiplier not made out and High Court's order does not call for interference and further discussion was made with regard to the capitalization method for valuation of yield from fruit-bearing trees and also held that it would be appropriate to take average thereof as annual income per tree. 61 It is also important to take note of the fact that the Court has to take note of the legislative intent in view of KARIGOWDA's case referred supra while determining the fair market value of the land and also application of agricultural yield method in case of valuable cash crops, liberal approach with some guesswork, when it is permissible has been discussed in the judgment. It is further held that what is required to be assessed is the land and its existing potentiality alone as on the date of acquisition. The compensation which is payable to the claimants is in relation to the acquired land, the standing crops or trees and what they earn from the agricultural crops or fruits or trees on the agricultural land. The Apex Court also discussed in this judgment with regard to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, permissible methodology that can be adopted by the Court and no straitjacket formula can be applied to determine the value of the acquired land, Courts exercise discretion in adopting any one of he methods of larger acceptance like (i) sale statistics method, (ii) capitalization of net income method, and (iii) agricultural yield basis method, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Hence, very contention that sales statistics method would have been only source cannot be 62 accepted. Even Apex Court held that capitalization of net income method would also can be considered and same is discretion of the Court adopting any one of the method particularly agricultural yield basis method hence, the very contention of the counsel for the appellant that only land value has to be considered and not the fruits-bearing trees cannot be considered separately cannot be accepted.
48. This Court already even referred the Judgment regarding consideration of assessing the value of the mango tree and higher the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded and the same is also based on the judgment passed in the regular appeal and same was considered and given in the judgment of AMBYA KALYA MHATRE referred supra, wherein the Apex Court also stated that where land value has been determined with reference to sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, trees will have to be valued separately i.e., land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding of value of trees if value of the land has been determined on the basis of sales statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard and further held that if 63 market value has been determined by capitalizing income with reference to yield, then also question of making any addition either for the land or for trees separately does not arise. Further discussed that determination of market value was not with reference to yield nor was it with reference to value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land and hence, value of trees had to be added to value of land. But in the case on hand, the method adopted is capitalisation of yield method and also the property is a dry land. When such materials are considered by the Reference Court, the very contention of the appellant counsel that Reference Court has committed an error in computing additional market value, solatium and interest on the same mainly contending that the said method adopted by the Reference Court is erroneous cannot be accepted in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment referred supra and Constitutional Bench judgment will prevail over the other judgments rendered by lesser Judges and hence, there is no any force in the contention of the appellant counsel that it requires interference. Hence, I answer Point No.2 as negative.
64Point No.4:
49. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The miscellaneous first appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE MD/SN