The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8365 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, DIVISION, KNNL, SHIVAMOGGA. (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR B AND SRI. RAMACHANDRAN K, ADVOCATES) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SMT. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 5. SMT. VENKATALAXMI D/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. DAYANDADA S/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. SMT. NALINI D/O LATE NAGAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, THE ABOVE RESPONDENT FROM 1 TO 7 ARE R/O GADIKOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. 8. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6, R7-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 31/7/2023, R2 TO R7 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1, SMT. G.S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R8) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.11.10.2018 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 11.10.2018 passed in LAC No.12/2017 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga (for short ‘the Reference Court’), whereby the Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they referred before the Reference Court. 3. The abridged facts apposite for consideration are as under: The father of the claimants one Late G. Nagappa Patel was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.53 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas situated at Gadikoppa village and mutation was accepted to his name as G.Nagappa Patel S/o Giriyappa. The said property was acquired by the respondent No.8-Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of formation of Tunga Upper Channel. Even though respondent No.1 has awarded very meagre compensation at the rate of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 Rs.3,50,000/- per acre, G.Nagappa Patel received the compensation under protest, but failed to prefer any application under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. Subsequently, the Reference Court, in its judgment in LAC No.15/2014 in respect of same notification, has awarded compensation at Rs.105/- per sq. feet and as such, the claimants have filed petition under Section 18 of Act before the Land Acquisition Officer and the same came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed L.A.Misc.No.26/2016 for condoning the delay in filing the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be allowed by Reference Court and pursuant to the said order, the claimants preferred LAC No.12/2017, which is challenged in this appeal. 4. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, claimant No.6 examined himself as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The respondents did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition filed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 the claimants and awarded compensation and passed the following: " ORDER The petition filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per sq.ft., pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.53 of Gadikopра village, Shivamogga Taluk. Further the claimants are also entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% u/s 23(2) of the Act on the enhanced amount, less the amount if any already received by the claimant. The claimants are also entitled for additional amount u/s 23(1) (A) of the Act at 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of preliminary notification till the date of dispossession or till the date of the award, whichever is earlier and the interest on enhanced compensation at 9% р.а. from the date of taking possession for the land till the date of payment of such enhanced compensation into the court. If any amount remains unpaid beyond the period of one year, it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of dispossession or the date of notification, whichever is earlier till the date of realization of the amount. Draw award accordingly." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court grossly erred while enhancing the compensation without appreciating the legal evidence and material on record. It is evident from the record that after acquisition of land in question, G.Nagappa Patel i.e. the father of the respondents Nos.2 to 7 received the entire compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that the land in question is behind the National Highway will not fetch even 1/5th of the commercial value. That being a true fact, the Reference Court erred in comparing the land in question with the lands in MA No.12 and MA No.19-26/2008 (MFA No.6174/2013 and MFA No.4836/2011), wherein both the lands were abutting the National Highway and awarding compensation is erroneous. Accordingly, he prays to allow the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 appeal and set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the judgment and awarded passed by the Reference Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. On perusal of the record, it is clear that as per the check list, the Land Acquisition officer has acquired the land under 4(1) notification dated 21.12.2000, possession was taken on 29.01.2004 and award was passed on the same date, award notice was served on the claimant on 23.04.2004 and the claimant has not filed protest petition under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, he filed petition under Section 28(3) of the Act and the said petition came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred L.A.Misc No.26/16 before the Reference Court seeking for reference by condoning the delay and the said petition was allowed and direction was issued for reference and so the reference made was based on the direction issued by the Reference Court. So far as the inadequacy of the compensation is concerned, PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 which shows properties acquired under similar - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 notification, compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.105/- per Sq. Feet. The village map and town map produced by the claimants show that the property has a good potentiality and as per the award notice compensation including the benefits a sum of Rs.15,00,221/- was awarded to the claimants. 10. The Reference Court has taken note of the ratio reported in the case of The Asst. Commissioner, Mysore (Sub-Division), Mysore vs. Smt. Puttamma reported in 2013 (1) Kar.L.J 350 (DB), wherein this Court held that there is no bar for this Court to refer the award passed in other cases pertaining to similar lands acquired under same notification. Further, the Reference Court, by relying on the judgment and award passed in LAC No.15/2014 and also the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No.6174/2013, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per Sq.Ft. pertaining to acquired property on the ground that the compensation for the properties of others acquired for Tunga Upper Channel was also awarded at Rs.105/- Sq.Ft. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12316-DB MFA No. 8365 of 2019 11. In view of the above, we find no error in the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29