The Karnataka State Cooperative … vs The Special Land Acquisition … on 6 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH---AT
DI-IARWAD.  *

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF' JANUARY 2o;1o-- f  A' 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K;'.JL.M_ANJUTNAfrIi "  

AND, _ V
THE HONBLE MR. JUsTIcE:ARAv1No_ _KUlQIAR;:
Miscellaneous F'irs"t~Afijgp_e'a'l"No;' .1. of 

Between:

The Karnataka State. *C.o_--'operative .t
Marketing Federation Lf:C'l.._. .  '
Vikas Nagar '  

I-Iubli      ~ _ 

Reptd. By its,vBranch;'Ma1*i;age't'--_   .. Appellant

(By Sri Suresl)G.Gunrii;:'A:i1VoVciate"and Sri Anand 13., Advocate)
And: V V R
1._ .v The Speéoialiiiand i§c'qLaisiti»on Officer

 Dharvniad llliarision
   W 

 2.  Reirannasiddayya
 ' '. Kuda1r§1ath,V.Major

C/0 D.M.NargL1nd

.  ~ .. «,A'd.vocate ," Court Complex
 Fluxbiifl " .. Respondents

"@135; lS'ri._VGl'.'r"<§'Gurumath, Advocate for C/R2 and Sri C.S.Pati1, Addl.

R"  Advocate for R1)

(V



This miscellaneous first appeal is filed u/s 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act against the judgment and award dt. 31.072004
passed in LAC No.21/1989 on the file of the Addl. C--ij\iil__Ju'drge
(Sr.Dn.], Hubli and etc.   A" 5 . 

This appeal coming on for orders this  iJ".i,.. 

delivered the following: --   

JUDGMENT   A 

Though this matter is listeclipior orders, by i'con:s_ent.. or their'

parties the appeal is heard on merits_.___fl'~v._ '

2. The appellantwas  No.21 / 1989 on
the file of the Civilgeludigeh irfitihii. Challenging the
legality and correctne.s§_ award passed in LAC
No.21 of 19«'.%'9  present appeal is filed. The
respondent  Jiof 1 acre 38 guntas of land
situated in'RS. Noi.2-':7i'_Qi/'li+2.5r'3«situated at Gokul Village in Hubli
    acquired for the benefit of the

appellant-   a road to Cotton Oil Seed Complex of the

ivTRT-..gppellant--.r4__ Accordingly, a notification under Section 4 of the Land

* -«EA-vcqui.sition Acfwas issued and ultimately an award was passed on

fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.ll,500/-- per



3. Being not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition

Officer, the 2nd respondent requested the Land Acquisition

to send a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisit.ioriiAct.ito 

determine the actual market value of the the if

reference was sent to Civil Judge (Senior":DiVisioin)  

market value. Referring the ma'Lter'~..to the refe_rer1ce.__"c:ourt was'

questioned by the appellant herein__i:ih3t__fil_ing  petition in
W.P.No.40919 of 2002 before..xth.i.As'i-.(:o:urtuoniitheground that the
appellant herein wasnot   the reference
court and  allowed by the
reference court  to the appellant. The
writ petition' filed [came to be allowed and the
matter was reini_tted  court to reconsider the matter
after giving' an    appellant. The reference court
 theipkmatteriiirelying upon the documents produced

by the LE7-'iirespQn'de'nt.ihas determined the market value at the rate

 Rs.6,5Q'0/iiigunta. This judgment and award is called in

" -« .fq'de_sti.on in this appeal.



4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The counsel for the appellant contends that the reference conlrlt» has

committed a serious error in fixing the market value at~thel.r__at°e,of,

Rs.6,500/- per gunta relying upon Ex.P7. Accordin_glv_'to.qhi.Am  _ 

was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and 

converted from agricultural to non--agri'eul'turalgp1,1rpose°:eVen"g

before the initiation of the preliminary:netificat'ionl."'t ."7Therelfore, he
contends that Ex.P7 shouldiinot  by' the
reference court. Therefore, he   reconsider the
matter and set aside:«.lth--e  passed by the

reference court.

5. Per  for the claimants submits that
the judgmentlofplthle  has been confirmed by this
Court in   byia Division Bench of this Court on
  theivrlllloordships have held that the market

valuEe--..o.f.the' acquired under EX.P7 and the potentiality of the

'v.__A°'lVand acquired: *inl§'.l'the present case are one and the same and

" " -«ltherefopre, the,_a'ward passed by the reference court earlier has been

 an appeal filed by the Special Land Acquisition

(V



Officer. Therefore, he submits that the present appeal has to be 

rejected.

6. He further contends that the land in qu_es.tion ev'e.nHmuich''''' '

prior to the initiation of preliminary notification underS'ecti'on"4('1)d'  

of the Act was within the I-lubli--Dharwar'Corporation  

therefore, the market value of the land acqui_r:edv:_undper 
the present one can be considered as_  fu.r'thei~..pcontends
that the land under Ex.P7 was'acquired":se'ven  to the
notification in the  thefrefference court

should have considered th.e{"--c3b_:$t  from the date of

notification under  the"-notification issued in the present

CESC.

 counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned c'ounsel--« claimant cannot rely upon the order passed

 MFA 2902 since this Court had given an opportunity

it  appellant to file an application to recall the order passed in

 --..lp\fi'o».2z765/2002. Therefore, he submits that the order of

6/



confirmation passed in MFA No.2'/'65/2002 has no bearing in

order to consider this appeal on merits.

8. On perusal of the records, we have...--s.eenV'i-that  

opportunity was given to the appellant :,_l_'i'E3:1V'Cli:I:l ':

application to recall the order passed in  

order--sheet in MFA No.2"/65/2002  that_afln lppllcgilon in
fact had been filed by the 'recall  said order,
but a co--ordinate Bench of   has rejected
the said application.'  appellant fairly

submits that against'i__thel"--orjdsi-.o,llpasSedv.: on 24.11.2008 in MFA

No.2765/20d2, not 'preferred any appeal to the
Supreme Cour't..J in  the judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Baler; 'MFA '1§r'o.2.'76s.i/2002 has become final. Though it
  thep_learneldHcounse1 for the appellant that the land

acquired_i-unde'r..v was converted from agricultural to non-

lv{,,,.,4'g~igricultural purpose, in MFA No.2765/ 2002 a co--ordinate Bench

"'ilfiasl'admittedly; given a finding stating that land acquired under

 Was.5 also an agricultural land and not converted from

Vlagriucultural to non~agricultural purpose, nor substantiated the

5/



grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

land under EXP'? was converted from agricultural to.--non»

agricultural purpose. No material is placed before this

before the reference court. In the circumstances tl1'e''contentioni "

urged by the learned counsel for the appe-1--ia'nt-- .can'notibe'iaccepted';..

9. In View of the order passed in  /'2:C'O2', 

is an appeal preferred by the  Land

challenging the very same judgment Vaward, iwe« are of the View

that there is no necessity to corisider   the appellant on

merits again. Still weare inicliineclr sake of the
appellant. _ .  ,   _ _
10. Adrriitte.d1y,-- th'efland.__acquired under EXP? and the land

in question  p'resenti'u:aséi are  the same village and are
 e;acn._ other a:'1'd"both the lands are situated within the

lirnits  Municipal Corporation. When the land

' iW....has been_'isitua'te'i£'I.within the limits of the Corporation, even if it is

.jipigifiotconvertedfrom agricultural to non--agricultural, the potentiality

'j._'_"of_  acquired in the present case cannot be treated as

aw



inferior to the land acquired under EXP7. Both the lands can be

used for non--agricultural purpose as submitted by theml.e:a.rned

counsel for the claimant. The land under EXP? was   _

8 months prior to the present acquisitions proceedi'r'1gs:,ll"Due to 

development of the city there will be escaiatioiliinlirrthe. cosltliofptiie'

property. If the same had been consid--e_red, 'we are of:th.ev.view_.3that  *

the determination of the compensati_o_n"'-at the  Rs6,500/-
per gunta in the present  be  on higher side.
The reference court  its  Fétated that the
land acquired   ta:/as Section 4(1) of the
Act on 27.09.  case, libioltification under Section
4(1) has been  "the reference court relying
upon the rnarket yvaluel by the court in respect of
adjoining pliaiidyphals £i:;ed.'lthe' market vaiue at the same rate, this
   with the same. Accordingly, the

appeal  V  . V V. (,1/,



11. Sri C.S.Pati1, learned Government Advocate is permitted

to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

     .....