Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1892 (KAR)

Mangaldas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

2019-08-28

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. These three appeals and cross objection are with reference to acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.26, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, land bearing Sy.No.97/1, measuring 3 acres 3 guntas of Berde and Nellurkanchinbail villages, respectively, in Ankola taluk of Karwar district. 2. Admittedly the common appellant in MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011 is owner of land bearing Sy.No.26 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.97/1 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas respectively in aforesaid villages. The said lands were subject matter of acquisition under preliminary notification dated 4.11.2006. Admittedly the said acquisition is for the purpose of Sea Bird Project of Indian Navy. 3. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award in quantifying the compensation payable to the owner of the land herein by award dated 2.6.2009 which is communicated to the appellant by notice of award under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short), dated 15.9.2009. Thereafter the appellant herein has filed an application for reference under section 18(1) of the Act, which is dated 11.11.2009. It is on the basis of this, two proceedings in LAC Nos.4 and 5 of 2011 were initiated before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kumta, where the parties were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their claim for escalation. 4. In the said proceedings, the reference Court, by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in SLP No.23379/2004 arising out of LAC No.59/1991, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar, which was subjected to appeal before this Court in MFA No.1075/2003 is decided on the basis of several such matters where the compensation which is required to be considered across the taluka of Ankola is at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta as of the year 1986, which is base price, the same is not disputed by the appellant herein and as well as acquiring body namely the State and the beneficiary Indian Navy, who are respondents in these appeals. 5. In the reference Court, relying upon the said judgment as the basis, escalation is considered at 3% per annum for the consequent years and the compensation is revised at Rs. 20,770.18 for acquisition of the year 2006 which is rounded of to Rs. 20,770/- as compensation payable per gunta. 5. In the reference Court, relying upon the said judgment as the basis, escalation is considered at 3% per annum for the consequent years and the compensation is revised at Rs. 20,770.18 for acquisition of the year 2006 which is rounded of to Rs. 20,770/- as compensation payable per gunta. In addition to that the permissible statutory benefits were also ordered to be paid. The said judgment in LAC Nos.4 and 5 of 2011 is subject matter of challenge in these appeals namely MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011. 6. When these two appeals are filed by the claimants, the beneficiary also thought it appropriate to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation arrived at by the reference Court, in LAC Nos.4 and 5 of 2011. Hence, an appeal in MFA No.103178/2014 is filed, which was in challenge to the judgment and award passed in LAC No.4/2011. However with reference to LAC No.5 of 2011 is concerned, no appeal was filed, instead, cross objection in MFA CROB No.100039/2016 was filed in the said appeal on service of notice. 7. The appeal and cross objection filed by the beneficiary is in contending that the compensation fixed at Rs. 20,770/- per gunta of land as compensation is on higher side. These three appeals and cross objection are taken up together for consideration. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and as well as contesting respondent State and also the beneficiary. 9. On going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that the scope for intervention of this Court in these matters is limited. Admittedly there is vast extent of land acquired by the State for and on behalf of the Indian Navy, particularly for Sea Bird Project. It is not in dispute that several acquisition proceedings which were decided earlier were subject matter of challenge before this Court and the Apex Court where in principal the compensation that is required to be calculated with reference to the land in question is already decided at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta as of the year 1986. 10. Now the point in dispute is whether the escalation considered at 3% per annum for appellant in MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011 is on lower side, if so, whether the same should be considered at 10% per annum. 11,500/- per gunta as of the year 1986. 10. Now the point in dispute is whether the escalation considered at 3% per annum for appellant in MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011 is on lower side, if so, whether the same should be considered at 10% per annum. The claimant/appellant in support of his argument would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Ramesh Bhai Jivan Bhai Patel, (2008) AIRSCW 5947 and particularly rely upon the relevant portion of the judgment at paragraph No.7 which reads as under: 7. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no evidence of any out-of -ordinary developments or increases in prices in the area. We are of the view that providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15, would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of acquired lands. 11. He would state that in the instant case the land of the claimant being situated in semi urban area, escalation should be considered at 10% per annum over and above the sum of Rs. 11,500/- fixed for the year 1986. Though such an argument is put forth by him, the said argument is not supported to demonstrate that the land which was lost by the appellant in MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011 is in semi urban area as against the reference of rural area mentioned in paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid judgment. 12. In that view of the matter, though this Court accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant so far it pertains to 7.5% escalation per annum, not inclined to accept his further argument that the same should be taken at 10% escalation per annum, for the land of the appellant. In this background this Court would come to the conclusion that the compensation which is fixed by the reference Court at Rs. 20770/- is required to be reconsidered by taking Rs. 11,500/- as basic compensation payable for the year 1986 and to that,7.5% escalation is required to be calculated per annum on cumulative basis. The said exercise shall be considered by the beneficiary and acquiring body and accordingly they should calculate the compensation and deposit the same before the reference Court within 12 weeks from this day. 13. 11,500/- as basic compensation payable for the year 1986 and to that,7.5% escalation is required to be calculated per annum on cumulative basis. The said exercise shall be considered by the beneficiary and acquiring body and accordingly they should calculate the compensation and deposit the same before the reference Court within 12 weeks from this day. 13. With aforesaid observation, these two appeals of claimants in MFA Nos.24748 and 24749 of 2011 are allowed. 14. In view of the appeals filed by the claimant for escalation being considered, question of reducing the compensation payable to the claimant by taking up the appeal filed by the beneficiary in MFA No.103178/2014 and MFA CROB No.100039/2016 does not merit consideration and accordingly the appeal and cross objection filed by the cross objector are dismissed. 15. In view of disposal of these appeals and cross objection, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.