4IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

MSA NO.100180 OF 2015 (LA)

BETWEEN

PAVITRAGOUDA S/O SHIDDAPPA ARALIHALLI AGE:MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O MAIDUR,TQ. HIREKERUR DIST. HAVERI

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV.,)

AND

1 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,UPPER TUNGA PROJECT RATTIHALLI,TQ. HIREKERUR,DIST. HAVERI

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI,DIST. HAVERI

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND L.A.O. UPPER TUNGA PROJECT,RANEBENNUR TQ. RANEBENNUR,DIST. HAVERI

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LA ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4/8/2015 PASSED IN MA. NO.235/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9/7/2010 PASSED IN LAC. NO.56/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND ITERNARY COURT AT HIREKERUR.

THIS MSA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 54(2) of the land acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 4/8/2015 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in M.A. No.235/2014, confirming the judgment and decree dated 9/7/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) itinerate court, Hirekerur in LAC.No.56/2008

2. Claimant is in appeal. Land bearing Sy.No.19/3C measuring 1 acre 28 guntas of Maidur Village, Hirekerur taluka and district Haveri was acquired for the purpose of Upper Tunga Main canal by issuing preliminary notification dated 13/10/2001 published in official gazette on 29/11/2001 which culminated in passing of the award dated 3/7/2004. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.45,000/- by treating it as irrigated land. Being dissatisfied, the claimant filed petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court

enhanced the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,32,000/- per acre. The claimant filed appeal before the first Appellate Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The first Appellate Court after examining the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the reference Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference Court as well as the first Appellate Court ignoring the documents produced at Exs.P.24 and 25 and so also the oral evidence of PW.3, has treated the land in question as dry land instead of as irrigated land. Hence, he submits that market value of the land in question may be enhanced by treating it as irrigated land.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that in the absence of any evidence, award passed by the reference Court as well as first Appellate Court is justifiable and the same does not warrant any interference.

5. Learned HCGP supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court as well as the first Appellate Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before the reference Court, brother of claimant i.e. Shivaputragouda was examined as PW.3, wherein he has stated that he is also the owner of Sy.No.27, which is adjoining to the land in question. There exists borewell exists in Sy.No.27 and the said borewell was issued for the purpose of irrigating the land in question. He has further stated in the evidence that two crops were being grown in a year in the land in question. To substantiate his claim, he has produced record of rights for the land in question at Exs.P.24 and 25. This evidence of PW.3 has remained unchallenged and the record of rights at Exs.P.23 and 25 clearly discloses that claimant was growing two seasonal crops every year in the land in question. The reference Court ignoring these material documents and also

evidence of PW.3, has treated the land in question as dry land instead of irrigated land. In the absence of contrary evidence, it is held that land in question is an irrigated land and market value of the requires to be enhanced.

8. The claimants have produced copy of the award passed by the Lok-Adalath Court in respect of the irrigated land acquired under the very same notification and also for the same purpose, wherein the market value of the irrigated land is fixed at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Bal Ram and another, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981 the market value of the land in question also requires to be fixed on par with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in LAC.No.60/2016.

9. In view of foregoing discussion, the land in question is treated as irrigated land and the market value is fixed at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 9/7/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) itinerate court, Hirekerur in LAC.No.56/2008 is modified.

ii. The market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre as against Rs.1,32,000/- fixed by reference Court with all statutory benefits including costs and interest.

Sd/- JUDGE

Vb/-