The Defence Estate Officer, Karnataka & Goa Circle vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Sea Bird and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1.

Since this Miscellaneous Second Appeal is virtually covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notice to private respondents has to be dispensed with to avoid unnecessarily driving them to Court.

Though the matter has come up for Orders, by consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA, the same is taken up for final hearing.

The appellant who was respondent No. 2 before the Reference Court and respondent No. 2 before the lower appellate court has filed this miscellaneous second appeal against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2013 made in RA (LAC Appeal) No. 114/2008 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, confirming the judgment and award dated 16.08.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Karwar, in LAC No. 34/2002, fixing the market value of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta.

The respondent - Land Acquisition Officer after issuing notices in compliance with the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act, has acquired the land of the present claimants for establishment of Seabird Naval Base Project at Karwar, and has passed the award on 16.08.2007 awarding a sum of Rs. 31,622/- per acre. The claimants, not being satisfied with the said award, preferred a Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court. The Reference Court considering the evidence of claimants, as well as respondents and considering the both oral and documentary evidence on record, has allowed the reference application in-part and declared that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, with all statutory benefits and also enhanced compensation in respect of the trees in the acquired land, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the reference court, the Land Acquisition Officer filed appeal in RA (LAC Appeal) No. 114/2008 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, who after hearing both the parties, by his impugned judgment and decree dated 05.01.2013 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and award of the reference court.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the both the courts below, the present appeal is filed seeking to modify the impugned judgment and award.

I have heard P.N. Hosmani, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for respondent No. 1.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended, that fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta uniformly by the reference court and confirmed by the lower appellate court, is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Both the courts below erred in relying upon the award made in LAC No. 84/1992 to fix the compensation at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, which is bad in law and also contended that the land involved in the aforesaid case was of Sea Beach Resort and the said land comes within the municipal limits of Karwar City since 1999 as per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, and the said land was a commercial land having potentiality of developing into a Beach Resort and is only 5 Kms. away from Municipal limits. But in the present case, the land acquired is situated more than 18 Kms away from Municipal limits of Karwar City and therefore, the compensation awarded in LAC No. 84/1992 cannot be applied to the lands acquired in the instant case. Accordingly, the appellant sought to set aside the impugned judgment and award of the courts below.

Learned Government Advocate supports the case of the appellant.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the land of the claimant/s has been acquired by the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Officer for the establishment of Seabird Naval Base Project, Karwar, and the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 31,622/- per acre. On being not satisfied with the same, the claimants sought for Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court. The Reference Court considering the entire material on record, has allowed the Reference in-part and declared that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, with all statutory benefits along with enhanced compensation for the trees in the acquired land.

During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the parties brought to the notice of this Court, that in respect of the very same Project of Seabird, Naval Base, Karwar, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Sea Bird Officer vs. Ramdas B. Shirodkar and others, in MFA. 7593/2005 dated 4.4.2007, while dismissing the appeal and confirming the award of the Reference Court, has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta. It is also not in dispute, that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Defence State Officer vs. Murari Sairu Naik, made in SLP. Nos. 26548-26549/2010 & connected petitions, has dismissed the special leave petitions on 13.09.2012 re-affirming the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and this Court, fixing the market value at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, and the review petitions filed seeking review of order dated 13.09.2012 made in Review Petition (C) Nos. 693-859/2013 were also dismissed on 24.07.2013 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court observing that, the order of which review has been sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration.

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench judgment of this Court, a perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, makes it clear that the Reference Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the award made in LAC. No. 84/1992 in respect of the similarly situated land acquired for the very same project, has rightly enhanced the market value at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per gunta, and the said award is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and award on the basis of legal and cogent evidence on record, which does not suffer from any error of law or material irregularity calling for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of Orders itself, without reference to private respondents.