IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA No.103210/2014
C/W.
MFA CROB. NO.100173/2015 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.103210/2014
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
DHARWAD, NOW REPRESENTED BY SLAO
KIADB, DAVANGERE DIVISION,
DAVANGERE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.K KAKUBAL SETTY S/O LATE K LAXMAN SETTY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
C/O. SRI VENKATESHWARA SILK
PALACE, MAIN ROAD,
TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE
L.A. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMC HOSPET, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,27,300/- PER ACRE.
IN MFA.CROB. NO.100173/2015
BETWEEN
SRI.K. KAKUBAL SHETTY
S/O LATE K LAXMAN SHETTY
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
C/O.SRI.VENKATESHWAR SILK PALACE
MAIN ROAD, TQ: HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
…CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SPECIAL AND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
DHARWAD, REP BY SLAO
KIADB, DAVANGERE DIVISION
DAVANGERE
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROSS-OBJECTION IN MFA NO.103210/2014
IS UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC
NO.4/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
FIRST
CLASS
HOSPETE,
PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
‘PRONOUNCEMENT
OF
THIS
DAY,
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Lands bearing Sy. No.159/1 measuring 2.73 acres,
Sy. No.160/1 measuring 1.87 acres and Sy. No.160/3
measuring 3.60 acres of Sankalapur village, Taluk Hosapet
were the subject matter of acquisition in terms of the
notification dated 12.07.1984 under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short, ‘the
Act) The final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act
was issued on 07.05.1987. The award under Section 11 of
the Land Acquisition Act was passed on 25.07.1996. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer deemed it fit to determine
market value at Rs.16,800.00 per acre. In addition to this,
statutory benefits were conferred.
2.
The land loser sought reference before the
Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hosapet and sought for
enhancement of compensation. On reference, the case is
numbered as LAC No.4/2002 and the Principal Senior Civil
Judge at Hosapet allowed the petition in part and
4
determined the market value at Rs.1,27,300.00 and
statutory benefits were also conferred.
3.
The beneficiary-KIADB has questioned the
judgement and award of the Reference Court by filing the
present appeal in MFA No.103210/2014. Aggrieved by the
said judgement passed by the Reference Court, the land
loser has filed MFA Cross-objection No.100173/2015
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4.
Both these cases are clubbed and heard
together.
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant-KIADB, Sri.
Shashank S. Hegde and Mrs Preeti Shashank have raised
the following contentions:
(a)
The lands in question when acquired in
1984 were situated in a rural area and the
Reference
Court
committed
an
error
in
providing a 10% escalation to the market
value of the land acquired in 1978.
5
(b)
The preliminary notification having been
published on 12.07.1984 the Reference Court
could not have taken the valuation of the land
in the year 1987 i.e., the year in which the
final notification was issued. It is urged that
the valuation as on preliminary notification i.e.,
as on 12.07.1984 should have been taken into
consideration.
6.
In support of his contention, the learned
counsel for the appellant-KIADB would place reliance on
the judgement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 (General
Manager ONGC vs. Ramesh Bhai). Based on these
grounds, he submits that at the most 5% to 7.5%
escalation should have been given to the lands in question
acquired under the 1978 notification and based on this he
would urge to allow the appeal.
7.
Learned counsel for the cross-objector, Sri.
Laxman T. Mantagani with all vehemence would oppose
the appeal filed by KIADB and in support of his cross-
6
objection seeking enhancement of compensation, raised
the following contentions:
(a) The Reference Court committed an error by
taking the valuation of lands acquired under
1978 notification as the basis to determine the
market value of the lands in question in the
present appeal.
(b) According to him, the lands which were the
subject matter of acquisition in 1978 are at a
distance of 6 kms from Hosapet and the lands
belonging to the cross-objector are 3 kms
away from Hosapet and the lands not being in
the vicinity of the lands which were the subject
matter of 1978 acquisition, the Reference
Court
could
not
have
determined
the
compensation based on the valuation of the
lands acquired under 1978 notification.
(c) The lands being just 3 kms away from
Hosapet town should be treated as urban land
7
and 15% escalation should have been taken to
determine the market value as against 10%
considered by the Reference Court.
(d) The commissioner appointed before the
Reference
Court
has
submitted
a
report
indicating the developments in the vicinity of
the lands in question and the report would
indicate that the lands in question are now part
of Hosapet city and even in terms of the
notification issued by the Government, the
lands are falling within the municipal limit of
Hosapet since 1997.
(e)
The
lands