Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 572 (KAR)

DUNDEGOWDA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

2004-09-28

R.GURURAJAN

body2004
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned appellate Judge in MA No. 78 and 79/1991, in so far as the finding of the learned Judge to the effect that the appellants are not entitled to get compensation of more than Rs. 20,000/- per acre. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as under; appellants in MSA No. 68/2001 are the owners of the two acres and 10 guntas of land in sy. No. 89 of Anehosahalli, Kanakapura Taluk and appellants in MSA No. 69/2001 are the owners of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 91 of Avaremala village, Kanakapura Taluk. These lands were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of water reservoir tank by the Irrigation Department. Due to inadequate compensation given by the Land acquisition officer, the appellants filed an appeal. The appellate Court fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants approached this court and this Court remanded the case back to the appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 106 . The appellate Court passed an award on 30. 9. 2000 enhancing the compensation amount to rs. 35,000/- per acre. However, the appellate Court granted the compensation of only Rs. 20,000/- per acre on the ground that the Court fee paid was only for Rs. 20,000/ -. Appellants are therefore before me questioning only that part of the finding in terms of the prayer, ( 3 ) BOTH the appeals are heard for final disposal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel invites my attention to the material facts and the material evidence to contend that the learned Judge has chosen to hold in para 8 that the market value of the land is rs. 35,000/- per acre. He further invites my attention to the finding of the learned appellate judge that the appellants have prayed for enhancement of Rs. 20,000/- and they have paid Court fee accordingly, and in those circumstances, they would not be entitled for any compensation beyond Rs. 20,000/- per acre, even though, the market value is at Rs. 35,000/ per acre in terms of the finding. This finding according to the learned Counsel requires my interference. 20,000/- and they have paid Court fee accordingly, and in those circumstances, they would not be entitled for any compensation beyond Rs. 20,000/- per acre, even though, the market value is at Rs. 35,000/ per acre in terms of the finding. This finding according to the learned Counsel requires my interference. He invites my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1995 (6) KLJ 435 in support of his submission. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State invites my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR1991 SC 730 , JT1990 (4 )SC 1 , (1991 )99 PLR324 , (1991 )1 SCC174 , 1990 (2 )UJ703 (SC ), (1990 )2 UPLBEC1202 to show that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of higher compensation. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The short question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled for the benefit of enhanced compensation of Rs. 35,000/- per acre with a direction to pay additional court fee in the given circumstances. ( 6 ) MATERIAL on record would reveal that the lands were acquired by the State Government and compensation was fixed. The same was challenged before the appellate Court and as well as before this Court. This Court remanded the matter. On remand, the appellate Judge came to a conclusion that the value of the acquired land is Rs. 35,000/ -. However, he has rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the enhancement sought is only of Rs. 20,000/ -. Let me see as to whether the pleading of Rs. 20,000/- would come in the way of granting of Rs. 35,000/- in terms of the findings of the learned Judge. ( 7 ) IN AIR1985 SC 1576 , 1985 (2 )SCALE246 , (1985 )3 SCC737 , [1985 ]supp2 SCR949 , 1985 (17 )UJ910 (SC ), the Supreme Court has ruled in para 5 as under; "here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law,. ( 7 ) IN AIR1985 SC 1576 , 1985 (2 )SCALE246 , (1985 )3 SCC737 , [1985 ]supp2 SCR949 , 1985 (17 )UJ910 (SC ), the Supreme Court has ruled in para 5 as under; "here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law,. the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional district Judge, there is no reason why the, appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would be tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where as for instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice, with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of true market value when the law in so many terms declares that he shall be paid such market value. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. We are, therefore, of the view that in the present case, the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge should have allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit Court fee and awarded to them compensation at the higher rate or rates determined by them. " (underlining is mine ). We are, therefore, of the view that in the present case, the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge should have allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit Court fee and awarded to them compensation at the higher rate or rates determined by them. " (underlining is mine ). ( 8 ) A Division Bench of this Court in 1995 (6) Kar L. J. , 435 has ruled in para 12 and 13 that just because the claimants made claim for payment of compensation which is less than the market value, that will not preclude the from claiming compensation on the basis of the market value payable to them. These two judgments support the appellant. ( 9 ) AT this stage, I must notice a serious objection of the State with regard to enhanced compensation in the light of a judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR1991 SC 730 , JT1990 (4 )SC 1 , (1991 )99 PLR324 , (1991 )1 SCC174 , 1990 (2 )UJ703 (SC ), (1990 )2 UPLBEC1202. However, a perusal of the entire judgment of the Supreme Court would make it clear that the said finding is not applicable in all cases. The facts in that case were that lands belonging to a co-operative society was acquired. Supreme Court noticed that permission was sought about six years the decision to award compensation and not earlier. It was in those circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that such higher compensation is not permissible in law. The Supreme Court itself has noticed judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR1985 SC 1576 , 1985 (2 )SCALE246 , (1985 )3 SCC737 , [1985 ]supp2 SCR949 , 1985 (17 )UJ910 (SC ) (referred to above) in para 5 of its judgment and ruled that the said enhancement is not possible in the given circumstances. ( 10 ) THE judgment of the AIR1991 SC 730 , JT1990 (4 )SC 1 , (1991 )99 plr324 , (1991 )1 SCC174 , 1990 (2 )UJ703 (SC ), (1990 )2 UPLBEC1202 cannot be pressed into service to the facts of this case. That case stands on totally a different footing when compared to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the facts of this case are as similar as in air 1985 SC 1575. The Supreme Court has ruled that fair and just compensation cannot be denied on technical plea. That case stands on totally a different footing when compared to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the facts of this case are as similar as in air 1985 SC 1575. The Supreme Court has ruled that fair and just compensation cannot be denied on technical plea. Respectfully following the Apex Court dictum, I deem it proper to accept these appeals. The order of the learned appellate Judge is set aside in so far as denial of rs. 35,000/- per acre in terms of the findings is concerned. Appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 35,000/ - per acre in respect of the acquired land and they are also entitled for solatium and interest as awarded by the learned Civil Judge. Appellants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 11 ) ORDERED accordingly. No costs. RGRJ: 28-9-2004 heard the learned Counsel on either side with regard to compliance of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. Both the learned Counsel say that the Court fee paid in this Court is sufficient enough to meet the requirement of my order. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to say that no further Court fee need be paid in the light of the appellant having paid the Court fee on the enhanced compensation at the time of filing of this appeal.