SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, J.
The Deputy Chief Engineer, South Western Railway – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sannamma, W/O Late Huchaiah and ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 57, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62 OF 2023 (LA)
Decided On : 21-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Chandrachud A., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Krishna Raj, Advocate, Sri. Manjunatha V Rayappa, AGA

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgments of the Court based on consent of submissions of both parties are applicable only to the parties therein and not to other parties in other cases, and the appropriate market value needs to be determined based on the evidence produced before the reference Court.

Headnote:

Compensation - Land Acquisition - Bengaluru-Hassan upgradation of railway lane - The Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court have fixed the compensation of Rs.200/-per sq.ft. - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra) has fixed market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and other Co-ordinate Benches (supra) have also fixed the same market value by following the judgment in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra) - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra) has fixed market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and awarded the same, which is followed in other judgments also - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra) was passed based on the submissions made by the parties in the said appeal but not by appreciating evidence on record - The judgments rendered in the case of Venkataramanaiah (supra), and in other decisions of Co Ordinate Bench of this Court are Judgment in Personam, that means applicable to parties therein but not to other parties in other cases - The instant appeals are considered on merits upon appreciating evidence on record - The reference Court has rightly fixed the market value based on the evidence produced before it - The First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that compensation of Rs.250/-per sq. ft. fixed by the reference Court is correct and is based on well reasoning - The Miscellaneous Second appeals are dismissed - The judgment and award passed in RA.No.151/2019 dated 18.03.2020 by the VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and RA.Nos.156/2019, 165/2019, 166/2019, 42/2018 and 153/2019 dated 20.02.2020, 22.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 08.07.2019, and 22.11.2019 by the II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru, are confirmed and the judgment and award passed in LAC Nos.160/2011, 191/2011, 157/2011, 158/2011, 34/2009 and 163/2011 dated 27.04.2017, 29.08.2017, 14.12.2017, 14.12.2017, 09.10.2013 and 13.09.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, are confirmed

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-South Western Railway challenged the compensation fixed at Rs.250/-per sq.ft. by the reference Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, seeking to fix compensation at Rs.200 per sq. ft. based on judgments of the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the judgments of the Division Bench and Co-Ordinate benches of the Court were based on consent of submissions of both parties and not on appreciation of evidence on record, making them applicable only to the parties therein and not to other parties in other cases. The Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgments and awards passed by the lower courts.

Issues: The main issue was whether the judgments of the Division Bench and Co-Ordinate benches of the Court, fixing compensation at Rs.200/-per sq.ft., were applicable to the present appeals when they were based on consent of submissions of both parties and not on appreciation of evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the judgments of the Division Bench and Co-Ordinate benches of the Court were Judgment in Personam, applicable only to the parties therein and not to other parties in other cases. The appropriate market value needed to be determined based on the evidence produced before the reference Court, and the judgments relied on by the appellant were only on the basis of the consent of the claimants therein, not applicable to the present appeals. The Court confirmed the compensation of Rs.250/-per sq ft.

Final Decision: The Miscellaneous Second appeals were dismissed, and the judgments and awards passed by the lower courts were confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

These six appeals are filed by the appellant-South Western Railway challenging the judgment and award passed in RA.No.151/2019 dated 18.03.2020 by VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and RA.Nos.156/2019, 165/2019, 166/2019, 42/2018 and 153/2019 dated 20.02.2020, 22.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 08.07.2019, and 22.11.2019 respectively by II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short) and the judgment and award passed in LAC Nos.160/2011, 191/2011, 157/2011, 158/2011, 34/2009 and 163/2011 dated 27.04.2017, 29.08.2017, 14.12.2017, 14.12.2017, 09.10.2013 and 13.09.2017 respectively, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'reference Court' for short).

2. Both the reference Court and the First Appellate Court have opined that fixing compensation at Rs.250/-per sq.ft., is correct. Challenging the judgments of these two Courts, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred these six appeals with a prayer to fix compensation at Rs.200 per sq. ft. contending that the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court have fixed the compensation of Rs.200/-per sq.ft.

3. Brief facts of the cases in common are:

Respondent No.1 in all the appeals, are the owners of their respective sites measuring 1200 sq.ft. to 2400 sq.ft. and the said sites are assigned municipal members by the Town Municipal Council of Mallaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Town. The aforesaid sites along with other lands/sites were acquired for formation of Bengaluru-Hassan upgradation of railway lane. Respondent No.2, in all the appeals, who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) and Competent Authority for acquiring the land, has initiated acquisition proceedings. Therefore, preliminary notification was issued on 18.01.2007 and final notification was issued on 01.11.2007. Respondent No.2-SLAO has passed an award fixing compensation of Rs.50/-per sq. ft. along with solatium and other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1, the owners of their respective lands/sites, in all the appeals, sought a reference before the reference Court.

4. The reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record in this regard led by both parties, has enhanced compensation from Rs.50/-to Rs.250/-per sq.ft. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred the above said regular appeals before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and appreciating the same has confirmed the order passed by the reference Court granting compensation of Rs.250/-per sq. ft.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred the instant second appeals before this Court by contending that the Division Bench and other Coordinate Bench of this Court have fixed compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. by reducing compensation from Rs.250/-per sq.ft. to Rs.200/-per sq. ft.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-South Western Railway has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer in MFA.No.2207/2016 decided on 28.09.2021 (Venkataramanaiah Case) has fixed compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. in respect of the very same preliminary and final notifications and for the very same project. Therefore, by placing reliance on the following judgments of the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, he prays to allow the appeals:

1. MFA.No.2207/2016 dated 28.09.2021. (Venkataramanaiah Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others)

2. MSA.No.86/2020 dated 15.09.2023. (Mrs. Deivanai Vs. Mrs.Nagamma & another)

3. MSA.No.113/2021 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Srilenkaiah and another)

4. MSA.No.44/2020 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Narayana & another)

5. MSA.No.128/2021 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Smt. Krishnaveni & another)

6. MFA.No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top