..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY 01:' AUGUS'I';"zf"0(}£.§__: "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. Jusrx-;;E $;v.1:«Ag3AI{A?1*;a;~:g& '
M.F.A.NQ.2433;--2<§a? % " 'V
M.F.A.NOS.2432/07;'-QA431/O7'"B32-#30/6:?
m MFA.N0.2433[20i:}?..'_
l_3;!;P_W!1;;1-SE2 T
SRITIPPANNA _
SINCE ..B'EC'EASED_.BY H4:S'~LF:V,sMT.NAGAwwA
W/O_'F--1PP;§N_!%A BA'}1DIHAL:VAGE"S5 YEARS
0CC:AGRICUL'IfURA--EA"'*- " A
{R/ 6 *tQ. mL13I31%eGA
'§§;C{2UIs1*r10N OFFICER
A. 'EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
C;-UM--1.V.Ass'r.coMMIssIoNER
KOPPAL
. NO. I. TUNGABHAQRA WATER DIVISION
MUNIRABAD
'1' Q DIST KOPPAL
RESF'ON{)ENTS
. 3-
(By Sri; D.N.KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1-2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.54{1) OF
ACT AGAINEI' THE JUDGMENT EEAAWARI) I)A'P!T%}D S/111-99 2. =
PASSED IN LAC No.27/99 ONIITHE 'EILE -ioI«i_'I*I:IE QIVIL I
JUDGE 85 ADDL cam, KOPPAL; PAIRFLY 1ALLQWING,'AI*HE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED ccIMPENs;aTIIoIxfi
35 SEEKING FUR'rIIEi~2_ E-NHANCEMEIIT. OI?'
COMPENSATION.
IN MF'A.ll0.2432[2(!3}_~'g
BE'l'WEE!l: _
1 SR! BASAPPA
SINCE ..EiE_CEASED_. BY H.IS=1;jRS NIIIGAPPA
S/O BLASAIPPAJIEER
AGE'M.¥€E3O~R;'.._OCf;:AGRICULTURE
R] 0 ..ARA;~;:ERI TQ YELB'UEGg.A
2 SHARANEPPA .
s/0 BASAPPA JEER ' '-
AGE MAJORVV, . ._
oCc:AI;EIcUL"IU,REV =
_ . E/0 EIIAKEEI TQ 'I*EL_3IJ.EGA
D£SF"KOPPAL'*
. . .APPELLANTS
.(Ey»srI: Abv.)
, ' .
1%
HAf)QUISI'I'I-ON OFFICER
_{3UM"AsSr.c0MMIssIoNER
VKOPPAL
5 I I 2. , " ' 'EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
" 'NO. 1. TUNGABHADRA WATER DIVISION
..,, WM
MUNIRABAD
TQ DIST' KOPPAL
3 "
(By Sari: D.l\¥.KULKARNI, HCGP Fc:{1éR 1}231, * = %
THIS MFA FILED U] s.54{ 1)~-Q? LA;-nib ACQlii'§SYF§0N ACT' V T'
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT '&gV'fi.WARD~._DA'f'ED';4 5/11/99
PASSED IN LAC No.28/99 {)N"»TH£; FILEOF fms CIVIL
JUDGE as ADDL CJM,'~..KOPPAL,FAR':TLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETYFIOR F€}R_ EvNHAP!CEEe.. COMI-"ENSA'I'iON
85 SEEKING F'Ul?i.'HER'" _-ENI{AD_€(3EMENT OF
COMPENSATION. -_ AV '
31-:1'w1r.rsn:.._ ._
asm HA£ei--1MAmA.cE£AI2 ;
S10 RAGHAVENDRACHAR ASE-IRIT
32 Y G{3C'~;AG_Ri«--.Ri€) ARAKERI
YELBURGA, K(;': PPAL
. . . APPELLANT
A gay' V-'.9 GATVMQGALI, ADV.)
---um-mun... 'A-
"éscqursrrrom OFFICER
'mm ASST comwssxomsn KOPPAL
% EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO 1 TUNGABHADRA WATER DIVISION
MUNIRABAD,KOPPAL
... RESPONDENTS
-4-
(By Sri: D.N.KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1-2)
THIS MFA FILED U/354(1) or LAN’)?—…A=CiQE}ISiTiQN*.,_
Acr AGAINST THE JUDGMENT;-an Awmen Damn 5A,t11/99}.
PASSED IN LAC N0.26[99 0:4»: ‘rH2;,F1LE;’ OF’.’i’HE _CIVIL’~.._
JUDGE 85 ADDL CJM, KOPPAL, 1?AR;rLY~.ALLOw»mG’-THE
REFERENCE PETITION FDR ENHANCED ,c:0NIPErsi–sA*r1G.N
as SEEKING FURTHER A’v-ENHANCEMENT: 0?
COMPENSATION.
IN Mm.No.243o(2€:97 mzrrwr.mr: _ SR'lMA.L_LAYYA~w-- w
S/O sH;v’AY&CA MAf1fiApA*i*fH1_ A ‘ ”
AGE:MA;JoR _GCC._AGR_I A
Ft;-«’A’F’ARA;i{‘EI2i’-Ti’Q”YELBL¥R(}A
D1w’KG*.–PPAL ._
V _ V _ % _ _ …APPELLAN’l’
(By 31;’; ‘PG ‘M:(){i§A.L;I;—ADV.)
—.-Jun.-nan-.~n
LAND Acéfiismom OFFICER
_ , caM~AkA_ssT. COMMISSIONER
> AAAAAWPAL
” ENGINEER
ANGL 1 TUNGABHADRA WATER DIVISION
~ _ MUNIRABAD TQ ms? KOPPAL
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: D.N.KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1-2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.54(1) 01:’ LAND ACQWSFFION ACT’
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT as AWARD msrmn 5/1 1/99
-5-
PASSED IN LAC No.30/99 ON THE FILE’ GF THE CIVIL
JUDGE 65 ADDL CJM, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITIGN FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION
& SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT-«_ OF
COMPENSATION. . g R- A ”
These MFAS coming on for ORDERSIGR. %a¢y,
court delivered the following:
JuDGkg§;R’ ‘%v
These appeals hf. {ha
enhancement of Judgment
and Awards at Koppel in
LAC.Nos.27/99. respectively dated
2. The appellaxgté in 2007 is the owner of
No.2n2’F,!VEv_m§asu1ing 3 acres 5 guntas. The
P;¢Ii?{\vn;I%?(§.2432/2007 am the owners of land
11 acres 23 guntas (17 gumzas
D3 measuring 12 acres. The appellam in
“%ne:i§*A;Ro.24;31;2t>o7 is the owner of land bearing Sy.N’o.256
acre 6 guntas and the appellant in
‘M.FA;No.}2430/2007 is the owner of land bearm g
E measuring 5 acres 33 guntas. Ail these lands
«6-
am situated at Arakere village, Yelburga Ta11;l'(; ‘K9ppal
Disuict. By a prcliminaxy notification ‘Vvligisder
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
the said lands along with ot11t’~:r::.issV1:b’3.:.’-.31′ wegje
purpose of Himhalla Pmjec;t_ a1:).<:i4"p<}gsessi<:;'1i.A 'Von
12.1.1994. The Land.
fixing the market vahze of the ~ per acre
(Kharab Rs.4oo per sa<.':r#e)'.' with the said
awards, scfemenoc before the
Civii Judge M,__ iigfgpal seeking enhancement of
were clubbed with other
cascsand were led.
‘V 011 appellants one Sri.Ma1iaiah was
j ..m;-J5; PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were colic-ct1ve’ ly
._ of the respondent Ex.D1 being the award
its were marked in evidence. The Reference
A. (,’9u1’t oi1 the basis of the material on record, enhanced the
of Rs.50,()G()/– per acre alongwith all
= ..–{statutory benefits i.e., solatium on the market value and
*”/
-7-
additional market vaiue at 12%, interest at 994: fiom date
of taking possession of the had on
one year and thereafter 15% from
full and final payment of the eitgoiknt
aheady deposited by the Land A¢quis:;tion * 1§§t’b§ing
satisfied with the said’ Juamgm and As;§a~rsj.g, Qua’ 1111′ anis
j have preferred these ‘appeafisf ” Q’;
4. 1 bags isx;P;e.M5gg1g V counsel for the
appeflaxzifié learned Government
Advocate fi.;:t:sf).5;1dc1§{S; ‘ ‘
5. behalf of the appellants that the
queé’£’§m_.’_1___h£ing irrigated land, the Reference Court
‘ Rs.50,000/- per acre and despite the material
H ‘T012: Jmeager compensation had to be awarded. He
flag upon a decision of the Division. Bench of this
in MFA.No.6127/2001 disposed of on 17.3.2005
‘fiiixereén the compensation in mspect of the adjacent lands
has been enhanced to a sum of Rs.l,O0,00{)/— per acre with
.. 3..
alllstatutory benefits and therefore, he requests to
pass similar orders in these appeals also.
6. Per conha, on behalf of thé”:.ms§§ofidént it
by the learned Government’ er L’
was justified in awamgng Rs.5%;(}QU}_§pcf that these
appeals do not cail He however, fairly
submits that this arising out the
same Rs. 130,000] –
per acmi bénéfits. He has further
su1n§ itte_:i’_’ ” interest on solatium is
oonceffiegd; it from the date of decisinn of the
Horgfblg: Sundafs case and not fiom the
édaté sf notification as held in the case of
Vs.Um’:an of India reported in 2005(2) LACC
50,1.
H I have perused the Judgtncnt of the Bench of
ibis court in MFA.No.6127/2001 dated 17.3.2005. In the
said judgment also it is observed that the preliminary
-9.
notification in the said case was dated 24.
of the very same purpose namely for the
mergcmzt: of Himhalla Project aItdmth_c 1a31iis”]A
situated at Arakem Viliagc, Yclbtnx-ga1″i’aj”Lul§t»c’>’f
was the subject matter at
Beach by tbllowing gariiefi t_ ae¢asions in
MF’A.No.5554f2OO1V of on
92.2005, wmgh also t.V~£_ttie land situated in
the very o1i_1t”;ot’. appeals arise and
acquired? of construction of
the previous Judgment
1/2001 and other conncactw
case’ us ” ta_:’ltm’ s of the fact that the pre31mmaIy’ ‘
wttS’6i:t’V24.11.1994, fixed the market value: at
V acre.
3. ~ In so far as the mtemst is ooncetned it is held that the
” éipgmflant in the said case was entitled for interest and other
stfizutoxy benefits as admissible under the provisions of Land
H Acquisition Act but not from the date of dis-possession till
A
/
«-10-
the date of issuance of Section 4(1) n<3tificatio;1'; .. not
disputed by both sides that in the instant
in question are situated at Arakgnz
for the same purpose unfict
15.12.1994 and therefore, of
Division Bench of this referred
to above, oompensz:;i%if)*nAi%;1 is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000]-__pcr benefits.
9. iséfcned to the decision of
Guruprcet fine interest has to be
paid only case and not fiom the
date of pmc;:hmJna:v’ ” or a perusal of the said
‘t:hc’~– it is noticed that at para 44
me’. Court has luck! that if the claim for
.i;;tcre.é.t,__jbAI1 is made and the same had been
eitéicgr éxpzcssly or by nwessaxy implication by the
_ V_ (iacme of the reference court or of tha appeiiatc
court has ncocssat11y’ to mjoct the claim
“-..Af<$'rVfi1tcrest on solatium based on Sundafs case on the
'§'/
-11-
gmumi that the execution court gannot go
But, if the award of thc refettmm ctmrt or _
appellate court does not specifically refer bf, _A
interest on solatium or in cases
fiade and rejected eitherV.é3xpres;é1ig’ or
refertmce 001111: or thc on
the compensation is would’ Htnrpen to the
execution court to apply and hold that
tbs u and in such
event be directed to be
depofgiizéii fljnot and that inmrcst on
pending executions and not
in closed é;+:ecu1:io’;19A.A execution court win be entitled
itsa fznm the date of judmcnt in
L’ :éase(19.9.2001) and not for any period.
10; O. “‘ 4% . , in the izmstant case the Division Bench in
” ~ 127/2001 has mtzgorically hcid that the appeflant
said case was entitled for iilterest for ot}:u::z’ statutory
benefits as admissilrk under the pmvisions of Land
5/
– 13.
Acquisitions Act and the appellant was not ‘any
interest from the date of dis-possession till the
of Section 4(1) notification. H€110E,fl18 ,
has to be deposited in :’i_11′” 2
Judgment of the I-Ion’bk: L’
1 1. At this stage it'”is: HOG? that
the claim is only to per acre and
that the ‘fee paid. Learned
counsel to my notice applications
l1″7″‘cf’ seeking amendment of
of appeal whereby the claim has
been -» per acre along with all statutory
15¢ that the said application may be
»A __that he would pay the balance court fee.
~.Al’l-.€eepi:1ll,V’,jr;”_it1 the that that in similar appeals in respect of
dated 5.8.1998 the compensation had been
AA to Rs.95,000/~ per acre along with an statutory
l and the appellants had been permitted to pay the
balance court fee and in these appeals oonsidezing the fact
that the notification is dated 15.12.1994 and following the
&.
– 13..
decisions of the Division Bench of this court in
MFA.No.6127[20(}1 dated 17.3.2005, the oompcnsiiiion has
been enhanced to RS.1,00,000/- per acre, is
made in these appeals also by aiiawing
amendment and directing the
withm’ a pt-nod’ of ten wccks :’§t$a 1 ‘A ‘
payment. Ofioe is La’ 1″: deck
accordingly. In the §vent .c:~f éippealfi ‘net déposifing the
baiance court fees weeks from today,
these
12. Thc§e. in the above iacrms.
‘1
Sad?
Mn}