1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

M.S.A.NO.100021/2015 (LA)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI GURUSIDDAPPA S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.)

1A) SMT.NINGAWWA W/O GURUSIDDAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

1B) SHRI IRAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

1C) SMT.SANGAWWA W/O IRAPPA , AGE :45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

1D) SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O GURUSIDDAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLL VILLAGE, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

1E) SHRI MAHADEVAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

2

2. SHRI VEERBHADRAPPA S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE-591126, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

3. SHRI SOMLINGAPPA S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE-591126, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

4. SHRI NAGAPPA S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE-591126, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

5. SHRI VEERUPAXI S/O NINGAPPA ANGADI, AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MATOLLI VILLAGE-591126, TALUKA : SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ S.BYAKOD., ADV.)

AND:

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MP.II, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, NAVILUTEERTH NO.2, DAMSITE, SAUNDATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI-591 126. DIST: BELAGAVI. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R.1 SRI RAMESH N.MISALE ADV., FOR R.2)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2014 PASSED IN LAC.APPEAL NO.51/2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, AND ENHANCE THE 3

COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.3,50,000/- BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the I Additional District Judge,

Belagavi (for short ‘the reference Court’) in LAC

Appeal No.51/2013 dated 28.03.2014.

2. Briefly stated the facts are:

The appellants are the owner of the land bearing

Sy.No.58/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at

Matolli village, Taluka Saundatti. The said lands were acquired by the Government of Karnataka for

Malaprabha Project vide notification dated 18.03.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (‘the Act’ for short). The Special Land Acquisition

Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.38,952/- per acre. Being dissatisfied, the appellants sought for 4

reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. The reference Court awarded the compensation of

Rs.1,80,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred appeal before the District

Judge. The appellate Court awarded the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.S.Byakod appearing for the appellant, learned Government

Pleader Sri.R.Ravindra Naik appearing for respondent

No.1, learned counsel Sri.Ramesh N.Misale appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and award would contend that the issue relating to the determination of market value in respect of the similar lands acquired 5

for the very same project has already been considered by this Court and appropriate market value payable in respect of such lands is fixed at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits and costs. In such circumstances, similar yardstick has to be applied in the instant case, as the lands being acquired for the very same purpose. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments.

i) The Assistant Commissioner, Vs.

Gurunath Dundappa Hugar and Others in MFA

No.24037/2012 disposed of on 26.08.2013.

ii) Sri. Gurunath S/o Dundappa Hugar and

Another Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum and Another in MFA No.23636/2013 disposed of on

23.09.2013.

iii) Shankarappa S/o Basavantappa Angadi Vs.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwad and 6

Another in MFA No.21451/2012 disposed of on

24.03.2014.

iv) Ashok Kumar and Another etc. Vs. State of

Haryana reported in 2016(2) KCCR SN 114(SC).

v) Razaqsab M.Kamalsabanavar and Another

Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha

Project and Another in MSA No.100012/2016 and connected appeals disposed of on 19.07.2016.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellant has sought for the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre in the memorandum of appeal on which the proper court fee had been paid, however, the appellants are now claiming market value of the acquired lands at

Rs.5,08,000/- per acre in excess of the claim made.

Thus, it is submitted that the compensation amount has to be restricted to the amount claimed by the 7

appellants in the memorandum of appeal, for which the court fee has been paid.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further contend that the lands of the appellants is identical to the cases considered by this Court in MFA No.21438/2012 and connected matters decided on 13.11.2014, MFA No.24037/2012 disposed of on 26.08.2013, MFA No.23636/2013 disposed of on 23.09.2013 and MSA No.100012/2016 and connected matters disposed of on 19.07.2016.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already disposed of the SLP confirming the judgment and award passed in MFA No.21438/2012 fixing the compensation of Rs.5,08,000/- per acre. He further submits that the revision petition filed before this 8

Court is also disposed of. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said fact.

8. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the appellant is entitled for payment of enhanced compensation?

9. As regards the contention of the respondents that the amount of compensation has to be restricted with the amount claimed by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal, is not acceptable, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another

(Supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The 9

cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. In view of the said judgment, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents on this point is negated.

10. Admittedly, in respect of similar lands acquired for the same project, this Court has determined the market value at the rate of

Rs.5,08,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits and costs. Hence, the appellants being identically placed and the lands being of similar nature acquired for the same project, the appellant is entitled to the market value of Rs.5,08,000/- per acre along with 10

statutory benefits and costs as was determined by the

Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.21438/2012 and connected matters disposed of on 13.11.2014.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned judgment and award is set aside. The market value of the acquired property of the appellants is fixed at Rs.5,08,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and costs.

12. Office is directed to draw award accordingly subject to the appellants paying the deficit court fee within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Sd/- JUDGE MBS/-