High Court Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs Sri Blesh Bharama Shedhal on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd vs Sri Blesh Bharama Shedhal on 25 November, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao& Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA, CIRQIA,.IliZ§V.i3'§.7§ii'-f:CIjf

AT DHARWAD.

DATES THIS THE 25TH DAY OF. 1§I_()V}?;}\«¥5I'E§'l§iZi§;'V'i2£)iC}{3.  A '

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI'QE K.A'SI§EEV{3v1fi}AiR"'RA()
THE HON'BLE MR. JU'«§'§Titf3I§:*»Ifs.Sfl:R5§;:§§NfVASE GOWDA
%  1()2.§;.'?/20%'
BETWEEN,      
1. KARN.A%FA;i{15i1 3;E§EEEi§AVARI" PIKEAM LTD
R:3PREs§1»fTED% By MANAGING DIRECITOR
NO.._1,' COI%'FEE.B»Q_AARI)_.BUE1DING
4TH FLOOR, 1:=r<.B;1a AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGP.--.LOvRE--:O};..  « ...APPELLAN'I'.

 sR:I<;q;~:':*H.J.BHAT : K.'T.KIWAD ADV.)

A:q:;%%%  V

1.7 BR: msa BHARAMA SHEDHAL
32/<2 HERKUDI
TQ cmxonz

 ~ ~'*..DIS»F BELGAUM

    SR: BASAVANT MAHADEV SHEBBAL SINCE

IJECEASED BY HIS
LRS

 » " 2A. SMTSHANTABAI BASAVAN'? SHEDBAL

R/O HIRKUDI, TQ CHIKOD1, DIST EELGAUM



28.

2c.

 "  . (m%°s

 _ -- 41$: FRED U/354(1) OF LA ACT AGAINST THE
JU:;GMEs:m'~,AND AWARD DATED 25/3/2006 PASSED IN
Ni}. 1'1fO5 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(S}Z))

LAC

 ; cHIz§o1;:1;' " PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
   nPE'I'I'I'JV()N FOR "ENHANCED COMPENSATION.

 E A This Appeal is coming on for hearing this day,
"  ._..SREET[)HAR RAD, J., delivemd the feliowingz --

5{

SR1 RAJU BASAVANT SHEDBAL
R/ O RIRKUDI, TQ CEKKODI, DIST IBE'.L(_Z'n..

SR1 MALLIKARJUN BASAVART »SHE}i}BA:};'_'v L  « _ 
R/O H1RK:Lm1, TQ (:1~;1I/(om, DIST {BELm;L:mkAV'  <

SR: BHARAMU MAHADEV séiEfi13AL   ~ * % 
R /0 HIRKUDI, TQ C}~£H{_(_)~D_I, BEST BELGASJMVVV 

SR: ASHOK MAHAE)EVASH:EDE!.AL PM *

R/O HIRKUDI, T¢f)"vC1HEi{C):DI',-.1}:

 '*'-]'_BE3LGAViJM

SR: SI-IANKAR  
R/O HIRKUDI, '1';Q CH;KQDI*,--,_DE'ST: BELGAUM

SR1 VAS3 AN;i '~ "I€?IAfI&1§EV "$14139 BAL
R/O I»i1R1<:L;{131, TQ c:Vm:1';,
1313*' BE;§;GA7U'M;'~._"--.  

'1*':em% $PECi1§.L< :i;Ai:fJE):: F€31QUISYPION OFFICER,

HIDKAL DAM;3K: HUKKERI.  RESPONDENTS

é By. Sri. S HATT1 ADV. FOR R 1-R6)
* c:;%s%%.PA’m:;,%Govr. ADVOCATE FOR R7)

%/

f ii _

.}’£JI)GMEN’T

I.A.Ne.2 alloweci. Delay of 46

appeal condoned.

Sri C.S.Pat;il, takes no.i:.ice foré
The first respondents’ aequked for
the purpose of e0nstr1eefion’A_Vef _’§’he awarded
compensation at the jief per acre. The

Reference . fi£e”‘iaz1ds as 1’13Vi11g NA

at the rate of iRs.11/–,
Rs. 12/ under three categories. The

Ka1ne_taka Nirev’ai*i We Ltd. (for short, ‘KNNL’) has filed

. V. 5r:ha1ieng;i11§”ffie compensation granted as excessive

that the land has no NA potential.

award of the LAO discloses that the

the panchas Show that the value of the lanci

._ Iie;t*1ges between Rs.25,0()O/- and Rs.32,00{)/- per acre.

~T–1:1e LAO has relied upon the sales statistics ef the lanes

sold in the years 1997 to 1999 which are prior t0 the

A(_

Wm

4
notification. The sales statistics disciose that the lands

are soid at Rs.25,000/– to Rs.32,0{}{}/– perA.._a.ct”e:t:’*.:.V’*§he

lands are dry lands. The value for the

dry lands of Hirekudi village isjfi5;ed« atdRs.3t3,ooo;«; 1

sore for the relevant year.

3. The ciaimants, the “‘ot1’1*e1;’.= have

produced the records”: to laI’}HdAS RS
Nos.393/3, 451/1, 395/_2;VS9%t'[2B,.:§.”jsI§}g__ 328/1 and RS
No.4{)9 of …._eonverted for Non-
AgfictfltuI~al lands adjoin the lands in

question” ,_’_}’he have also produced evidence to

_ A’ is converted to NoI1–Agricu1tura}
sites are formed by one Padalale, each site
40′ is said for Rs.47,000/–. The sale deed

of #101; dated 17.2.1999 is marked as ‘Ex.P.29. The
* riotification in respect of the land in question
‘ ditssued in the year 2001. Survey No.309 is within the

d dvfllage limits of Hirekudi village. However, on perusal of

the certified copy of the village mop produced discloses

AK

that RS No. 388 is situate immediateiy adjoining C_hjkkodi-

Miraj road. The said land is nearer to oh:.t<kfe;i%:e[

Hirekudi. The sale deed also recites t11at'.. }i€SV

situate about 4 ions away j'.

adjoins Chikkodi – Miraj road. qmsuoiuegrs

situate far off from cmkko(;:ee;Marajems ‘North;

West.

4. The :pro§i’¢3ee}§1’_’_.reeords to show
that the ifiefqixestien have been
eonvezeted purpose. The said lands are
also sitfisge to the i§?’cst’~–of’émkkodi -» Miraj Road, quite far

away i’1″-inn ChikkOdi — Miraj Road, and they are

]a1mos:si:::a:c in the middie between Hirekudi village and

Iiézix-“a.j Road. Considering the loeafion of as

V V’ . No;’388”-Te11d”‘the lands in question, we fad that RS No.388

Lhas. no comparison to the lands in question. The

–‘ have aiso not produced any material to show

T ” Wthat in the NA converted lands any plots have been formed

and solci. The Reference Court has mainly relied upon the

M

sale deed Ex.P.29 pertaining to RS No. 388 to

the value. If the said document is exclud:edV,A.iis”. 4_

absolutely no credible material to’ assess ivalsel ‘ j

of the lands in question.

5. There is no Aéimeni etc shoiiv’
whether the NA redo have NA
potential or that t11e”$§_**E’5__’.’..tnanipulated in
anticipation. of is absolutely no

credible it record for this Court to

detertsiile * proper compensation. The

claimants have All]-£.\tki.f314′. in convincing evidence to prove

tlleinsrlzet vsluesfl fmly one witness is examined and

.reiis1iee__is placed on Ex.P.29, the sale deed of a

H In View of the paucity of evidence, we

do riot it is just and proper to speculate in fixing

‘A ‘if ‘market value of the lands in question in the interests

or justice and interests of the parties. It is 3’ust and

‘necessary that the order of the Reference Cicurt is to be set

aside, the matter to be remanded to the Reference Court

7
for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with

law. The parties are permitted to adduce furthe:”s’,:ei:i’dence

in the matter.

6. Keeping in View the fact that

time has elapsed and that the :¢m§=./_

compensation, we direct’_t’hst s-s._’s13.V
KNNL shail deposit rate of
Rs.1,50,000/~ per ‘0f’:t!§1’C.>>;2&VaI’d made by the
LAO in eachease. fmade within four

weeks. ‘permitted to withdraw the amotmt
demsited’. * 1:15 that the Reference Court shall

of tfieveevse three months.

A that the Reference Court need not be

‘~ any of the factual observations made

the leeation of the lands and the market

2 » potential. Al} the contentions are kept open.

It is further clarified that in respect of each case if

KNNL has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per

acre, me further deposit be made.

nvb.

Refund of Court fee is ailotved.