Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Smt.Anjana Bai S/O Narasinga Rao Kasabe on 15 October, 2020
Bench: G.Narendar, M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
M.F.A. NO.200777/2015 (LAC)
CONNECTED WITH
M.F.A.NOS.200775, 200776, 200770, 200773 AND
200778 OF 2015,
M.F.A.NOS.202124, 202134, 202122, 202123,
202125, 202126, 202127, 202128, 202129, 202130,
202131, 202132, 202133 AND 202139 OF 2014,
M.F.A.NOS.200774, 200771 AND 200772 OF 2015
M.F.A.NOS.202137, 202138, 202135 AND 202136 OF 2014
M.F.A.NOS.202026, 202032, 202031, 202034, 202024,
202033, 202025, 202030 AND 202027 OF 2016(LAC)
IN M.F.A. NO.200777/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
BOTH APPEALLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.ANJANA BAI
S/O NARASINGA RAO KASABE,
AGED: 75 YEARS.
2. SRI JAGAN MITRA
S/O PANDURANGA RAO KASABE,
AGED: 74 YEARS.
BOTH R/O H.NO.3-4-79, BEROON
QUILLA, RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR, RAICHUR,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA THEATRE,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C.
PATIL, ADVS.FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR
IN LAC NO.:49/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. 200775/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.SHEKANA BI
W/O SRI ALLA SAB,
4
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAMDAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA THEATRE,
SINDHANUR - 584 128.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C
PATIL, ADVS. FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.57/2009 ON THE
FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, IN LAC
NO.57/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
5
IN M.F.A. NO.200776/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
BOTH APPEALLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. MUDUKAPPAGOUDA
S/O BHEEMAREDDY,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAMDAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAICHUR,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA THEATRE,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
6
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C
PATIL, ADVS.FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 TO R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
IN LAC NO.:51/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. 200770/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
7
BOTH APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI LAKSHMAN
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED 50 YEARS,
R/O HOSUR,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C
PATIL, ADVS. FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 TO R4)
8
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.05.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
IN LAC NO.59/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.200773/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
THROUGH REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI GANGANNA
S/O LATE BHEEMARAYA,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAMDAPUR VILLAGE,
NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR - 584101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
9
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C.
PATIL, ADVS.FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.55/2010 ON THE
FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 BY LEARNED CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, IN LAC NO.55/2010,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.200778/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
10
CONSTRUCTION - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
THROUGH REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.ANANTHALAKSHMI
W/O BHASKAR RAO, AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAMDAPUR VILLAGE,
NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA THEATRE,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
11
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C
PATIL, ADVS. FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTED 25.04.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
IN LAC NO.57/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.202124/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O M. SUBBARAO,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A. NO.8, CANAL CAMP,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
12
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI -580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5
SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.89/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.202134/2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O ACHUTHARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A MAMDAPUR, NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
13
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI -585 201.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.58/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
14
IN M.F.A. NO.202122/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. BASAVARAJ
S/O SHANKARANNA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A: HOSUR,
TQ AND DIST: RAICHUR.
ALSO ADVOCATE
NO.647, 11TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK WEST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 585 101.
15
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.05.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.61/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202123/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
MUTHYALU SUBBA RAO
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A NO.8, CANAL CAMP,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
16
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 001.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.86/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
17
IN M.F.A.NO.202125/2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
ANANTHALAKSHMI
W/O BHASKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A. MAMDAPUR,
NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI -585 101.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
18
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.57/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202126/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
SHEKANA BI
W/O ALLA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A. MAMDAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
19
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI -580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.57/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202127/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
GANGANNA
S/O LATE BHEEMARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/A MAMDAPUR, NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
20
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 580 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 & 4;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.55/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202128/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
21
SRI MUDUKAPPAGOWDA
S/O BHEEMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAMDAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI -580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
22
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.51/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202129/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. ANJANA BAI
W/O NARASINGA RAO KASABE,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
2. JAGANMITHRE
S/O PANDURANGA RAO KASABE,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.3-4-79, BEROON QUILLA,
RAICHUR.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 001
23
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 001.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.49/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202130/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
LAKSHMANA
24
S/O BHEEMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A HOSUR,
TQ. & DIST.:RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA
HUBLI - 580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
25
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.05.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.59/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202131/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
NARASAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
D/O ERAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/A PRESENTLY AT
SANGAPUR VILLAGE,
MANVI, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 201.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
26
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 584 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.105/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202132/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
ANJANAMMA
W/O JAMBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A MAMDAPUR,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
27
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.50/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
28
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202133/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
PUSHPA BHUVANESHWARI
W/O VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
29
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & 5;
SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.48/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202139/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
M.SUBBARAO
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/A: NO.8, CANAL CAMP,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABBOD NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS,
30
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 201.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 585 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.62/2010, ON THE
FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. 200774/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
31
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
BOTH APPEALLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.LAKSHMI
W/O M.SUBBARAO,
AGED 67 YEARS,
NO.8, CANAL CAMP,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOBNAGAR,
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA THEATRE,
SINDHANUR - 584 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
32
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL AND SRI SANJEEV KUMAR C.
PATIL, ADV's. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.89/2009 ON THE
FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, IN LAC
NO.89/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.200771/2015(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
33
AND:
1. SRI BASAWARAJ
S/O SHANKARANNA,
AGED MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOSUR,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 - R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.05.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
IN LAC NO.61/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.200772/2015(LAC)
34
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI MUTHYALU SUBBARAO
S/O ERANNA,
AGED 70 YEARS,
NO.8, CANAL CAMP,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAICHUR, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
35
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 - R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED
BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR,
IN LAC NO.86/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.202137/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
THIMMAPPA
S/O LACHUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/A MAMDAPUR,NELAHALU HOBLI,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 580 001.
36
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.60/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202138/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRA SHEKAR
S/O LATE VENKANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SANGAMESHWAR
S/O VENKANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. VISHWANATH
S/O LATE VENKANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
37
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/AT: HOUSE NO.1-8-140,
BEHIND WEST POLICE STATION,
STATION ROAD, RAICHUR.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 584 101.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI -580 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5)
38
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.05.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.56/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202135/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
VENKATASUBASH CHANDRABOSE
@ C.H.BOSE
S/O RAMARAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A KASBE CAMP,
KURDI POST, RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI - 585 101.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
39
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202136/2014(LAC)
BETWEEN:
DEVANNA
S/O GOKAREPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A MAMDAPUR,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 201.
40
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI -585 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.60/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.202026/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
41
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINNER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.K.PARIJATHA
W/O NARASAREDDY,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. K.RANJITKUMAR
S/O NARASAREDDY,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
BOTH R/O GUNJ AREA,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR RAICHUR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 132.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
42
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 AND R4;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.71/2010 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC - I, RAICHUR, IN LAC
NO.71/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.202032/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
(CONSTRUCTIONS), RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAYS, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 23.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINNER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
MALLAMMA
43
W/O SIDDA MALLAYYA
DEAD BY LRs.
1. DODDA SIDDAMMA @ SIDDAMMA
D/O SIDDA MALLAYYA,
AGE: 56 YEARS.
2. SHARABAMMA
D/O SIDDA MALLAYYA,
AGE: 51 YEARS.
3. NAGAMMA
D/O SIDDA MALLAYYA,
AGE: 47 YEARS.
ALL ARE AGRICULTURE AND
R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
44
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.91/2009 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC - I, RAICHUR, IN LAC
NO.91/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.202031/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
CONSTRUCTIONS, HUBLI.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
45
1. LAKSHMMA
W/O RAMANNA.
2. BHIMANNA
S/O DINNAYYA.
3. MALLESHAPPA
S/O DINNAYYA.
4. TAYAPPA
S/O DINNAYYA.
5. GIRIYAPPA
S/O DINNAYYA.
6. SWAMY
S/O DINNAYYA.
ALL ARE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HOSUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 128.
8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R7 & R8)
46
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.07/2011 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAICHUR, IN LAC NO.07/2011,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.202034/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. BUDEPPA
S/O HEMANNA NELHAL
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NELHAL VILLAGE,
47
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LA
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.104/2010 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN LAC
NO.104/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.202024/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
48
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
(CONSTRUCTION), RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAWAPURA, HUBLI - 23.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AT,
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
49
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.84/2009 ON THE
FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAICHUR, IN LAC NO. 84/2009,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.202033/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
(CONSTRUCTIONS), HUBLI.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, KESHAWAPURA, HUBLI.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
EARAPPA
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,DEAD BY LRs.
50
1. HAMPAMMA
W/O LATE EARAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. AYYAPPA
S/O LATE EARAPPA,
AGE 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
BOTH ARE R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 132.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1& R2;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.78/2010 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 17.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAICHUR, IN LAC NO.
78/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
51
IN M.F.A. NO.202025/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
(CONSTRUCTION), RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAYS, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI - 23.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. BUDEMMA
W/O SHIVARAM REDDY,
AGE 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AT
SINDHANUR - 584 101.
52
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.53/2009 ON THE
FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN LAC NO.
53/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.202030/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
(CONSTRUCTION), RAICHUR.
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTIONS - III, SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAYS, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI - 23.
APPEALLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
53
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. PURANDARADAS
S/O SHESHAPPADAS,
AGE 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR,
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
SINDHANUR - 584 132.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT PRAYING TO
54
i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC. NO.85/2009 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAICHUR;
ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC - 1, RAICHUR, IN
LAC NO. 85/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.202027/2016(LAC)
BETWEEN:
DEVANNA
S/O GOKAREPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/A MAMDAPUR,
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD - MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY PROJECT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA
THEATRE, SINDHANUR - 585 201.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
RAICHUR - 585 201.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION - III,
55
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHAVAPURA,
HUBLI -585 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAC
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.60/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE M.F.As HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.02.2020 COMING ON THIS DAY, G.
NARENDAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
56
JUDGMENT
These batch of appeals are preferred under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, are directed against the judgment & award passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Raichur (hereinafter stated as 'Reference Court' for short) in LAC Nos.49/2009, 71/2010, 86/2009, 89/2009, 61/2009, 72/2009, 84/2009, 53/2009, 78/2010, 91/2009, 104/2010, 57/2009, 51/2009, 59/2009, 55/2010, 57/2010, 07/2011, 85/2009, 48/2009, 59/2009, 62/2010, 60/2009, 60/2010, 56/2009, 4/2011, 50/2009, 105/2010, 49/2009, 89/2009, 58/2010, 61/2009, 86/2009, 57/2010, 57/2009, 55/2010 and 51/2009 disposed on 25.04.2014 and 3.5.2014.
2. The subject matter of the appeals are the awards passed by the reference Court in respect of 57 the acquisition of lands situated at Mamdapur village of Raichur Taluk & District, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The acquisition is for the formation of new railway line from Munirabad in Koppal District to Mehboob Nagar in Telangana.
3. The Union of India through the department of Railways, beneficiary of the acquisition, has preferred the following appeals:
MFA No.200777/2015, MFA No.202026/2016, MFA No.200772/2015, MFA No.200774/2015, MFA No.200771/2015, MFA No.202027/2016, MFA No.202024/2016, MFA No.202025/2016, MFA No.202033/2016, MFA No.202032/2016, MFA No.202034/2016, MFA No.200775/2015, MFA No.200776/2015, MFA No.200770/2015, MFA No.200773/2015, MFA No.200778/2015, MFA No.202031/2016 and MFA No.202030/2016 58 The claimants, land losers, have filed the following appeals:
MFA No.202133/2014, MFA No.202130/2014, MFA No.202139/2014, MFA No.202136/2014, MFA No.202137/2014, MFA No.202138/2014, MFA No.202135/2014, MFA No.202132/2014, MFA No.202131/2014, MFA No.202129/2014, MFA No.202124/2014, MFA No.202134/2014, MFA No.202122/2014, MFA No.202123/2014, MFA No.202125/2014, MFA No.202126/2014, MFA No.202127/2014 and MFA No.202128/2014
4. All these appeals are taken up together as they involve the acquisition of lands from the same village, that is, Mamdapur village of Raichur Taluk and for the same purpose that is, laying of railway line from Munirabad in Koppal District to Mehboob Nagar in Telengana.
59
5. The Parties are referred by their nomenclature before the Reference Court.
6. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeals are as follows:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894') seeking to acquire vast extent of lands in Mamdapur village, Raichur, for the purpose of formation of new railway line as noted supra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award by determining the compensation at Rs.43,640/- per acre for irrigated lands and at Rs.29,840/- per acre for dry lands.
7. The claimants being aggrieved by the afore- stated determination of compensation for irrigated and dry lands and claming it to be inadequate and 60 unreasonable, invoking Section 18(1) of the said Act of 1894, filed applications seeking enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 25.4.2014 enhanced the compensation for irrigated lands from, Rs.43,640/- per acre, to Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre. The Railways, the beneficiary of the acquisition, has preferred the aforementioned appeals being aggrieved by the exorbitant quantum of enhancement by the Reference Court. On the other hand the claimants have preferred separate set of appeals complaining that the enhancement of compensation to Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre is meager and the market value is Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre.
8. We have heard Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Union of India, Railways, Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, learned Counsel for the 61 claimants and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Karnataka.
9. Sri Manvendra Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Beneficiary contends that the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs.43,640/- per acre to that of Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre is highly excessive, without any basis and is wholly reliant upon the consent award passed by the Reference Court. He would contend that a consent award in respect of lands placed in a different village to District can never form the basis to determine compensation in all other cases where the matter is contested. He would further submit that the Reference Court fell in error in declaring that the lands belonging to the claimants, in all the cases, were irrigated lands while the document, namely the RTC of the relevant year 2004-05 clearly depicted that the 62 claimants were growing crops which are generally grown on dry lands with borewell facility only. That the borewells do not supply water throughout the year and go dry during the summers and water is available only post the monsoon or rainy season.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil representing the claimants would contend that concerning the very same acquisition, the Special Land Acquisition Officer - R.W.1 has, in his cross examination, admitted that he is a party to the consent award whereby the compensation awarded was Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre for dry lands, Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre for fully irrigated lands. He has further admitted that the lands, of the claimants, in question are all situated in Hosur, Mamdapur villages of Raichur Taluk and they are acquired for the same project as per the 63 endorsements which are produced as exhibits in the aforesaid cases.
11. The learned Counsel for the claimants further contended that the Reference Court has completely ignored the admission on the part of R.W.1 that the properties belonging to the claimants, in all these cases, have high N.A. potential and are abutting Raichur Municipality and as per the documents produced, Mamdapur village comes within the Town and Planning Authority of Raichur city, and forms a part of 1063 acres & 19 guntas of land, that is acquired which includes lands in Koppal and Raichur Districts and compensation is awarded under consent awards and hence the same is to be extended to the lands of the claimants.
64
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The facts that are not in dispute are that the acquisition of lands belonging to the claimants in all these cases was for the purpose of formation of a new railway line from Munirabad to Mehboobnagar and the Special Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the extent of holding of the land of each of the claimants, determined compensation at Rs.43,640/- per acre for irrigated land and at Rs.29,840/- per acre for dry lands. After receipt of the afore-stated amount of compensation, all the claimants in their cases, sought reference to the Reference Court under Section 18(3)(a) of the said Act of 1894, seeking enhancement of compensation.
65
14. The claimants before the Reference Court contended that the properties, acquired for the afore- stated purpose, were all irrigated lands and the claimants were growing irrigated crops like paddy, hybrid cotton, sunflower, toor, etc. and were raising two crops a year and were having net income of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per year, after deducting the cost of cultivation. It is further contended that the market value of the properties was more than Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre. The claimants placed much reliance on the consent awards, under which the properties which had been acquired for a similar purpose at Gangavathi and Sindhanur taluks of Koppal and Raichur District, respectively and claimed that their lands were similarly placed and sought enhancement of compensation on par with the amount that was paid under the consent award i.e. Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre.
66
15. The claimants further placed reliance upon the communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer Canal Sub-Division, Yermarus camp, to demonstrate that the lands belonging to the claimants were irrigated lands by the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal. Though much reliance is placed on this report, the claimants have failed to examine the author of the report nor made him available for cross-examination by the Beneficiary of SLAO. It was pertinent to have him examined as the said report is contrary to the report of the SLAO himself. Hence the said certificate having not been proved is of no assistance to the claimants. They also placed reliance on the record of rights produced before the reference Court in respect of their properties to indicate the source of water and the crops raised in the properties acquired and also sought to demonstrate that the crops raised were paddy, and the properties were all the irrigated lands. 67 On the strength of these documents, it is contended that the lands in question in all these cases were fully irrigated lands. Mere contentions would not take the place of proof. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record, except the self serving statements of the claimant. Irrigation facility is a matter of proof and cannot be on the basis of inferences. If the said fact had been proved the Court could have then inferred the cultivation of paddy crop etc.
16. It is further germane to notice that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the properties belonging to the claimants at Mamdapur village had, on spot inspection, declared that the lands belonging to the claimants were all dry lands, more specifically reporting that they were all tail end lands and only dry crops could be raised in all the 68 properties. The said report is neither questioned nor challenged.
17. The Reference Court notwithstanding the afore-stated spot inspection report by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, held that the Government had in the year 1972 declared that the properties of the claimants and the like were all irrigated properties in terms of its publication in the official gazette on 7.12.1972. The Reference Court in spite of the clear evidence of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in terms of his report placing reliance upon the gazette notification considered the lands to be semi-irrigated lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 before the Reference Court and in his deposition, he has clearly stated that the properties in question were tail-end lands and the claimants were raising only dry crops. There is absolutely no cross examination of the Special Land 69 Acquisition Officer by the claimants in respect of the afore-stated categorical assertion.
18. The Reference Court further relied upon Ex.P.31, which concerns the properties acquired at Sindhanur of Raichur District and Gangavathi taluk of Koppal District for a similar purpose of formation of new railway line, wherein the Special Land Acquisition Officer, on consent, had fixed the compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre for dry lands, Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre for semi irrigated lands and Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre for fully irrigated lands. It is pertinent to note at this stage itself that the lands are neither nearby nor in the same taluk or district and are at a distance of nearly 50 Kms. The Reference Court further placed reliance on a plethora of correspondences with regard to the consent award mentioned supra to determine the afore stated compensation. Ex.P.35 was the letter addressed by Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary, 70 Revenue Department seeking permission to pass the consent award in respect of the properties situated at Channalli and six other villages of Sindhanur Taluk and Ex.P.36 was the approval given by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur to pass the consent award at the rates stated supra.
19. The claimants placing exclusive reliance on the consent award, in all their cases, as different exhibits, claimed the same compensation on the ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his cross examination admitted the award of compensation to properties acquired in Koppal taluk for the same purpose. Though the claimants had contended that their properties have tremendous N.A. potential and would fetch more than Rs.25.00 lakhs per acre, they sought compensation of only Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre as is granted under the consent award in respect of acquisition of land for the same purpose 71 in different taluks, i.e., Koppal, Gangavathi and Sindhanur. The Reference Court, placing complete reliance on the documents and without looking into the nature of lands, as to whether the lands are dry lands or semi irrigated lands or fully irrigated lands, held that the lands of the claimants can be safely considered to be semi irrigated lands. In Paragraph 16 of the impugned order, wherein the Reference Court held that the properties of the claimants to be semi irrigated lands, reads as follows:
"16. At this stage it is necessary to refer the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is marked at Ex. C - 4. At the time of spot inspection, the Land Acquisition Officer noticed that the properties acquired at Mamdapur village are dry lands. Though according to Land Acquisition Officer, the Asst. Executive Engineer, No-2, Canal Sub - Division, Yermarus Camp had declared as irrigated properties and the same is 72 published in the official gazette on 7-12-72 at the time of spot inspection the L.A.O noticed that the properties were tail end lands and claimants were raising only dry crops in the said properties. Therefore, considering the situation of the properties in question, the L.A.O has considered the properties as dry lands and awarded the compensation. But the fact remains that admittedly in the year 1972 itself in the official gazette the properties in question have been declared as irrigated lands through Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal. The claimants contended that they were raising two crops in a year since the properties in question are fully irrigated and they were raising two crops in a year. In so far as the observation of the Land Acquisition Officer that the properties in question are tail end lands and claimants were rising dry crops, absolutely there is no cross - examination of RW-1 on the said aspect. Since the properties are irrigated through canal it cannot be said that either the properties in 73 question are fully irrigated or dry lands. It can safely be held that the properties are semi irrigated properties. Accordingly the properties in question are considered as semi irrigated properties."
The afore-extracted paragraph is the only reasoning given by the Reference Court to hold that the lands of the claimants are semi irrigated lands and to determine the market value at Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre. It is pertinent to note that the irrigation department has not been examined in support of the alleged notification. The case of the claimants is that their lands are fully irrigated lands and hence entitiled to compensation at the rate of Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre along with statutory benefits. The Reference Court, if was convinced that consent award is binding, ought to have also considered as to whether the claimants would be entitled to other statutory benefits, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the 74 case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 191 and (1995)5 SCC 746(para-8).
20. As contended by the learned Counsel for the Railways, the Reference Court has straight away relied on the consent awards concerning acquisition of lands in Koppal, Gangavathi and Sindhanoor Taluk whereas the lands in question are in Raichur taluk and has determined the market value at the same rate applicable to the properties of the claimants without appreciating any evidence with regard to the nature of the lands and without any basis.
21. Since the issue is with regard to the method of determination of market value, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has laid down and postulates the criteria to be looked into by the Courts for determining the market value of lands acquired and which law ought be 75 scrupulously followed by the Reference Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, was pleased to hold as follows:
"3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under acquisition, it is necessary to make some general observations. The compulsion to do so has arisen as the trial Court has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to same extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.
15. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
"(1) A Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in 76 his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the Reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.77
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.78
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.79
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do.
We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
80
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size 1. largeness of area
2. proximity to a road 2. situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road
3. Frontage on a road 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to depth
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the area depressed portion to be filled up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality
6. level vis-à-vis land under 6. some special acquisition disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 81 (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether 82 building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
22. The afore-extracted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. DYAGALA DEVAMMA reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
83
15. Before we examine the facts of this case, it is necessary to take note of the general principles of law on the subject in question which are laid down by this Court in several cases and some of which were also cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties. Indeed, if we may say so, the law on the several issues urged herein by the learned counsel for the parties is already settled by this Court and what has varied in its application depends on the facts of each case.
16. In Chimanla Hargovinddas v. LAO [Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. LAO, (1988) 3 SCC 751] , this Court dealt with the question as to how the Court should determine the valuation of the lands under acquisition and what broad principle of law relating to acquisition of land under the Act should be kept in consideration to determine the proper market value of the acquired land.84
17. In para 4 of the judgment, this Court laid down as many as 17 principles, which are reproduced below for perusal: (Chimanlal Hargovinddas case [Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO, (1988) 3 SCC 751] , SCC pp. 754-56, para 4) "(1)-(4)*** (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open 85 market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day.
It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the 86 resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by
making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-
à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance sheet of plus
and minus factors may be
87
drawn for this purpose and the
relevant factors may be
evaluated in terms of price
variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
88
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size 1. largeness of area
2. proximity to a road 2. situation in the interior at a
distance from the road
3. Frontage on a road 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to depth
4. Nearness to 4. lower level requiring the
developed area depressed portion to be filled
up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed
locality
6. level vis-à-vis land 6. some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser
7. special value for an
owner of an
adjoining property
to whom it may
have some very
special advantage
89
(15) The evaluation of these
factors of course depends on
the facts of each case. There
cannot be any hard-and-fast or
rigid rule. Common sense is the
best and most reliable guide.
For instance, take the factor
regarding the size. A building
plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq
yd cannot be compared with a
large tract or block of land of
say 10,000 sq yd or more.
Firstly while a smaller plot is
within the reach of many, a
large block of land will have to
be developed by preparing a
layout, carving out roads,
leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate 90 ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact
pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general
guidelines to be applied with
91
understanding informed with
common sense."
18. These principles are invariably kept in mind by the courts while determining the market value of the acquired lands (also see Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh [Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh, (2014) 10 SCC 422 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 17] ).
19. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases have laid down that while determining the true market value of the acquired land especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land. It has also been consistently held that at what percentage the deduction should be made varies from 10% to 86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. It 92 has also been held that while determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands especially when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laid down that the court should also take into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant considerations. This Court has also recognised that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. (See Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] and Vithal Rao v. LAO [Vithal Rao v. LAO, (2017) 8 SCC 558 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 155] .) The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore extracted judgments are the guiding principles as to how the market value has to be determined for 93 the lands acquired when Reference is sought under Section 18(1) of the Act.
23. The Reference Court has failed to consider any of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment and the impugned order completely falls foul of the law declared by the Apex Court insofar as it pertains to determination of market value of the land that is acquired, in the present case the land of the claimants acquired for the purpose of formation of new railway line.
24. The Reference Court has further erred in placing blind reliance on the consent awards passed in respect of acquisitions in difference taluks. The reference Court has failed to consider the distance between the lands covered under the consent awards and the subject lands. It has failed to adjudge the similarity of the lands, the developments surrounding 94 the lands on the date of notification for acquisition. More so when the distance between Gangavathi and Sindhanur is about 50 Kms and Sindhanur to Raichur Taluk (where the present lands are situated) is more than 100 Kms. Placing blind reliance on an earlier order of the Reference Court or an earlier award which has become final and determining the compensation without there being analysis of any other evidence, is also contrary to law, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and Others V. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96, wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs 11 to 16 has held has follows:
"11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] , without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have 95 been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bona fide nature of transaction before 96 such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding.
12. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. The court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow 97 the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation.
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to 98 three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant.
15. There is yet another serious infirmity seen in following the judgment or award passed in acquisition made before 99 10 to 12 years and price is being determined on that basis by giving either flat increase or cumulative increase as per the choice of individual Judge without going into the factual scenario. The said method of determining compensation is available only when there is absence of sale transaction before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and for giving annual increase, evidence should reflect that price of land had appreciated regularly and did not remain static. The recent trend for last several years indicates that price of land is more or less static if it has not gone down. At present, there is no appreciation of value. Thus, in our opinion, it is not a very safe method of determining compensation.
16. To base determination of compensation on a previous award/judgment, the evidence considered in the previous judgment/award and its acceptability on judicial parameters has to be necessarily gone into, otherwise, gross injustice may be caused to any of the 100 parties. In case some gross mistake or illegality has been committed in previous award/judgment of not making deduction, etc. and/or sufficient evidence had not been adduced and better evidence is adduced in case at hand, previous award/judgment being not inter partes cannot be followed and if land is not similar in nature in all aspects it has to be outrightly rejected as done in the case of comparative exemplars. Sale deeds are on a par for evidentiary value with such awards of the court as court bases its conclusions on such transaction only, to ultimately determine the value of the property."
In terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, placing reliance on the earlier judgments/award without considering the facts of the cases on hand would be committing an error in law and the Reference court has placed blind reliance 101 on the consent awards, without considering the facts and evidence in the cases before it.
25. Perusal of the impugned orders in all these appeals, clearly show that the market value has been determined without complying with principles laid down in Section 23 of the said Act of 1894 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Hargovinddas (Supra), Dyagala Devamma (Supra) and Manoj Kumar (Supra).
26. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the claim of the appellant railways and that of the claimants in their respective appeals filed by them, we deem it appropriate to set aside the award of the Reference Court and remit the matter back to the Reference Court for a fresh determination strictly in consonance with the law declared in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of 102 HARGOVINDDAS Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, UNION OF INDIA Vs. DYAGALA DEVAMMA reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485 and MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96.
27. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER (1) MFA No.200777/2015, MFA No.202026/2016, MFA No.200772/2015, MFA No.200774/2015, MFA No.200771/2015, MFA No.202027/2016, MFA No.202024/2016, MFA No.202025/2016, MFA No.202033/2016, MFA No.202032/2016, MFA No.202034/2016, MFA No.200775/2015, MFA No.200776/2015, MFA No.200770/2015, MFA No.200773/2015, MFA No.200778/2015, MFA No.202031/2016 and MFA 103 No.202030/2016 are allowed and the order of the Reference Court in LAC Nos.49/2009, 71/2010, 86/2009, 89/2009, 61/2009, 72/2009, 84/2009, 53/2009, 78/2010, 91/2009, 104/2010, 57/2009, 51/2009, 59/2009, 55/2010, 57/2010, 07/2011, 85/2009, is set aside.
(2) MFA No.202133/2014, MFA No.202130/2014, MFA No.202139/2014, MFA No.202136/2014, MFA No.202137/2014, MFA No.202138/2014, MFA No.202135/2014, MFA No.202132/2014, MFA No.202131/2014, MFA No.202129/2014, MFA No.202124/2014, MFA No.202134/2014, MFA No.202122/2014, MFA No.202123/2014, MFA No.202125/2014, MFA No.202126/2014, MFA No.202127/2014 and MFA No.202128/2014 are dismissed.104
(3) The matters are remitted back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh strictly in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of HARGOVINDDAS Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, UNION OF INDIA Vs. DYAGALA DEVAMMA reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485 and MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
(4) The Registry is directed to circulate this order to all the Presiding Officers of the Reference Courts for its strict adherence.
(5) The records shall be retransmitted forthwith to the Reference Court.105
(6) In view of the appeals being allowed & remanded, the appellants are entitled to refund of court fee in accordance with law.
(7) There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of the disposal of all the appeals, pending I.As. in respective appeals are also disposed off as they do not survive for consideration. They are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-