Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2067 (KAR)

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. v. Basappa

2019-10-10

ALOK ARADHE, P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant viz. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, has assailed the validity of the judgment, dated 8th July 2009, passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.16/2006, by which, the amount of compensation in respect of 23 guntas of land of the respondents, has been enhanced from Rs.35,000/- per acre to Rs.35,000/- per gunta on the ground that the land in question is non-agricultural land. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Reference Court, the respondents have filed M.F.A. Crob No. 772 of 2011. 2. Facts necessary for decision of this appeal and cross objection are that respondents are the owners of land ad measuring 23 guntas forming part of Sy. No.6/2 at Hooli village. The aforesaid land was required by the appellant for the purpose of construction of canal under Renuka Lift Irrigation Project. Thereupon, the proceedings under the Act was initiated and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 01.07.2004. Eventually, an award was passed on 08.11.2005 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer treated the land in question to be agricultural land and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.35,000/- per acre. 3. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the respondents on 10.01.2006. Thereupon the respondents filed a petition seeking reference to the Deputy Commissioner on 23.02.2016. On reference being made, the Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties and by the impugned judgment, dated 08.07.2009, inter-alia, held that the land in question was non-agricultural land and determined the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per gunta. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal and cross objection have been filed. 4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the same project, in M.F.A. No.22947/2011, has determined the market value of the agricultural land for the year 2007-08 at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per gunta in respect of the agricultural land and the said judgment has been upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.39384 of 2013. They further submit that, in the instant case, the acquisition was initiated on 01.07.2004, therefore, deduction to the extent of 30% of the market value be made and the compensation be determined accordingly. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions jointly made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them as well as taking into account the fact that the market value of the agricultural land required for the same project has been determined at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, we deem it appropriate to make a deduction of 30% as the acquisition pertains to the year 2004 and determine the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per acre as the land in question is an agricultural land. 6. The respondents, along with cross-objections, have filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which an order of diversion is sought to be placed on record. However, it is pertinent to note that under Order XLI Rule 27 an application to produce the additional evidence can be allowed only if the trial Court has refused to admit evidence and the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed; or the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. In the application, which has been filed by the respondents in the cross-objection, there is no whisper of any of the grounds mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no order of diversion to show that the land in question, at any point of time, was diverted for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid application. In the result, the same is rejected. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, we determine the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per acre. Needless to state that the respondents shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits under the Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid application. In the result, the same is rejected. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, we determine the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per acre. Needless to state that the respondents shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits under the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the award, dated 8th July 2009, passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 16/2006, is hereby modified. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross-objection are disposed of.