Judicial consistency necessitates uniform compensation for similar land acquisitions; the Reference Court erred in classifying irrigated lands as dry, leading to an underestimation of market value.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 passed in LAC No.157/2009 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s lands measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy.No.43/P4 and 15.5 guntas in Sy.No.35/P2 situated at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Honnalli Taluk, was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value of the land at Rs.29,333/- per acre. Upon reference, the Reference Court recorded the evidence. The other claimants in the common judgment were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. The respondent did not adduce any evidence but with consent, got marked copy of the award as Ex.R1. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, re- determined the market value of the lands in Sy.No.35/P2 and Sy.No.43/P4 at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking higher compensation.

4. Sri.Nagarajappa A, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the impugned judgment and award is without considering the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the Reference Court did not consider the earlier judgments of this Court in MFA Nos.1556/2010, 6788/2012, 7005/2007, 7004/2007 and 7007/2007, wherein the Court fixed the market value of the nearby lands at Rs.150/- per sq. ft. It is further submitted that the claimant's lands in Sy.No.43/P4 and Sy.No.35/P2 at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Honnalli Taluk, are similar in nature and have the same potential as those lands. The lands are only about 8 to 10 kilometres away from Alkola village where similar lands were acquired for the same purpose of Upper Tunga Project. Therefore, the claimant also deserves the same rate of compensation. It is further submitted that valuable trees like tamarind, areca nut, and bevu trees were standing on the acquired lands but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given very low compensation for them. This should have been properly considered while fixing the total market value. It is also submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has awarded higher compensation to the lands where areca nut and other trees are grown. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and award of the Reference Court should be modified and the compensation should be enhanced in line with the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments:

a. B. NAGOJI RAO Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR , Civil Appeal No.9361/2017 dt. 20.07.2017

b. SRI BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.1556/2010 dt. 07.07.2011

c. SRI D.G. PARAMESHWARAPPAJANGLI Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.7480/2012 dt. 29.01.2014

d. SRI VEERAPPA B Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.6847/2012 dt. 29.01.2024

e. SRI K. BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MSA No.91/2013 dt. 25.06.2014

f. ALIMOHAMMAD BEIGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR , (2017) 4 SCC 717

g. SRI VITHAL RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. SLAO , (2017) 8 SCC 558

h. UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER , AIR 2004 SC 3981

i. K. PERIASAMI Vs. SUB-TAHSILDAR , (1994) 4 SCC 180

j. RAJA RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB , (1987 Supp.) SCC 19

k. SRI G