CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA, vs NAGAPPA BY LRS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200516 OF 2022 (LA)
C/W
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200515 OF 2022
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200517 OF 2022
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200518 OF 2022
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200521 OF 2022
IN MSA No. 200516/2022
BETWEEN:
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KURKUNTA, TQ. SEDAM-585222.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
VINUTHA
B S
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
Date: 2026.10.29
15:12:24 +0530
NINGAPPA BY LRS,
NAGESH S/O LATE NINGAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. KASHAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
ALL ARE R/O. HUDA,
TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM-585222.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GULBARGA-585222.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R3 AND R4;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.12.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN LACA NO.193/2020 AND
CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.1995
PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE GULBARGA, IN LAC
NO. 09/1988.
IN MSA NO. 200515/2022
BETWEEN:
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KURKUNTA, TQ. SEDAM-585222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
AND:
1.
BUGGAPPA BY LRS,
DEVENDRAPPA BY LRS,
CHANNAMMA W/O DEVINDRAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. RAMESH S/O DEVINDRAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SURESH S/O DEVINDRAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O. HUDA,
TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM-585222.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GULBARGA-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.12.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN LACA
NO221/2020 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE , GULBARGA, IN LAC NO56/1987.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
IN MSA NO. 200517/2022
BETWEEN:
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KURKUNTA,
TQ. SEDAM-585222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SABANNA S/O KURUMAPPA,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUDA, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER,
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM-585222.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.12.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN LACA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
NO.192/2020 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.12.1995 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE GULBARGA, IN LAC NO.12/1988.
IN MSA NO. 200518/2022
BETWEEN:
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KURKUNTA, TQ. SEDAM-585222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
NAGAPPA BY LRS,
KASHAPPA S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. GOLLA NARASAPPA S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
3. GOLLA LAXMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
All R/O HUDA,
TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM-585222.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GULBARGA-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.12.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM IN LACA
NO.191/2020 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.12.1995 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, GULBARGA, IN LAC NO.11/1988.
IN MSA NO. 200521/2022
BETWEEN:
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KURKUNTA, TQ. SEDAM,
REPRESENTED BY,
EXECUTIVE IN-CHARGE CEMENT CORPORATION
OF INDIA LTD.,
KURKUNTA-585222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KHAILILLULLAUHA HUSSAINI
S/O SYED HABIBULHA HUSSAINI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SEDAM, DIST.
KALABURAGI-585222.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SEDAM-585222.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GULBARGA-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R2 AND R3;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESETNED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.12.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN LACA
NO.348/2019 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.06.2008 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN), GULBARGA, IN LAC NO. 614/2002.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. With the
consent of the counsel for both the parties, the appeals are
taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for both the
parties addressed common arguments on the submissions. All
the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment in LACA
Nos.193, 221, 192, 191/2020 and judgment in LACA
No.348/2019, both passed by the IV Additional District Judge,
Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedam.
3. The appeals before the Appellate Court were filed with the
following delay:
Sl.
MSA.
LACA.
Delay
Date of Judgement
No.
Nos.
Nos.
(in days)
(Reference Court)
1. 200516/2022 193/2020 8820 08.12.1995
2. 200515/2022 221/2020 8828 08.12.1995
3. 200517/2022 192/2020 8820 08.12.1995
4. 200518/2022 191/2020 8820 08.12.1995
5. 200521/2022 348/2019 3835 17.06.2008
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
4. The following substantial questions of law are admitted
for consideration: -
IN MSA.NO.200516, MSA.No.200515/2022, MSA.No.
200517/2022 and MSA.NO.200518/2022 :-
"1. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
overlooking the finding of the Reference Court by
adopting well recognized method of capitalization by
relying upon the yield certificate and price list also the
protest petition Ex.P.1 as well as Ex.P.7 the judgment
and award in LAC No. 94/1985 relied by the claimant
himself, determined the market value at the rate of
Rs.8,000/- per acre, which is just market value as on
the date of 4(1) notification dated 11.09.1980.?
2. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
relying on the judgment in LACA No. 397/2017 wherein
in respect of lands acquired of Indankal village of
Chittapur takuka under 4(1) notification dated
18.11.1999 and the land under appeal, is of Sedam
takuka, is against the settled principles of law. Even in
the case of lands of same village, the comparison
method or capitalization method, category a dry land
was having frontage on National Highway No.47,
Category B was of reclaimed lands with road frontage
which was access to river through reclaimed portions,
determined market value at different market value
determined in the light of the recent judgment of Apex
Court reported in 2022(1) Supreme Page 493 in a case
of Soman Vs. Inland Waterways Authority of India and
others, ?
3. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
adopting the method of reverse deduction of 3% per
annum for 19 years and awarding market value at the
rate of Rs.1,39,719/- and the fact of de-escalation that
too for the period of 19 years 02 months 07 days is
unknown to Land Acquisition Act in the light of the
judgment reported in decision reported in 2015(5) SCC
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
Page 801 in a case of Bhupal Singh and others Vs. State
of Haryana (Para Nos. 26 and 27)?
4. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
condoning the delay of more than 24 years i.e., 8820
days without any sufficient cause made out by the
claimant, which is much against the law and statute laid
down in a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
AIR 2014 SCC 746 in a case of Basawaraj and others
Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and 2022(1)
Supreme 346 in a case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyairao
Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others.
5. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
awarding compensation of Rs.1,39,719/-, when the
claimants themselves have restricted their claim at the
rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre which is against the law
and Statute laid down in a decision reported in AIR 2012
SC 3101 in a case of Girimallappa Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer?."
IN MSA.NO.200521/2022 :-
"1. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
relying on the judgment in LACA No. 397/2017 wherein
in respect of lands acquired of Indankal village of
Chittapur takuka under 4(1) notification dated
18.11.1999 and the land under appeal, is of Sedam
takuka, is against the settled principles of law. Even in
the case of lands of same village, the comparision
method or capitalization method, category A dry land
was dry land having frontage on National Highway
No.47, Category B was of reclaimed lands with road
frontage which was access to river through reclaimed
portions, determined market value at different market
value determined in the light of the recent judgment of
Apex Court reported in 2022(1) Supreme Page 493 in a
case of Soman Vs. Inland Waterways Authority of India
and others. ?
2. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
adopting the method of reverse deduction of 3% per
annum for 19 years and awarding market value at the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
rate of Rs.2,12,829/- and the fact of de-escalation that
too for the period of 19 years 02 months 07 days is
unknown to Land Acquisition Act in the light of the
judgment reported in decision reported in 2015(5) SCC
Page 801 in a case of Bhupal Singh and others Vs. State
of Haryana (Para Nos. 26 and 27)?
3. Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in
condoning the delay of 3835 days without any sufficient
cause made out by the claimant, which is much against
the law and statute laid down in a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SCC 746 in a case
of Basawaraj and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer and 2022 (1) Supreme 346 in a case of Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyairao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others.
4. Whether the first appellate court was justified in law
holding the acquired lands falls under the category of
Port kharb-A without there being any enquiry as
contemplated under law?
5. Whether the first appellate court is justified in
allowing the appeal, when the appellant was not party
before the reference court and said allowing of the
appeal in absence of beneficiary before the reference
court is bad in law?"
5. The lands owned by the private respondents were
subjected to notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 11.09.1980 and 02.05.1988
respectively. In view of the dispute regarding the quantum of
compensation, reference was made to the Additional Civil Judge
at Gulbarga and the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sedam, respectively.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.3,707/- and Rs.2,400
per acre respectively. The Reference Court in LACA Nos.193,
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
221, 192 and 191/2020, by judgment dated 18.12.1995,
awarded enhanced compensation at Rs.8,000/- per acre. In
LACA No.348/2019, the reference Court by judgment dated
17.06.2008 awarded enhanced compensation at Rs.5,000/- per
acre.
5.1 The private respondents, being aggrieved by the
judgments dated 18.12.1995 and 17.06.2008, preferred
appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on
18.03.2020. These appeals were filed with a delay of 8,820,
8,828, 8,820, 8,820 and 3,835 days, respectively. The
Appellate Court, by the impugned order, condoned the delay.
Further, the Appellate Court, following the judgment in LACA
No.397/2017, in respect of lands acquired in Indankal village of
Chittapur Taluka, under Section 4(1) notification dated
18.11.1999, determined the market value at the rate of
Rs.3,24,930/- per acre for dry land. Applying de-escalation for
19 years at the rate of 3% per annum, it awarded
Rs.1,39,719/- per acre in LACA Nos.193, 221, 192, 191/2020
for dry lands. The Appellate Court in LACA No.348/2019,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
awarded the compensation of Rs.2,12,829/-. The Appellate
Court condoned the delay.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the judgment dated 18th December 1985 has been challenged
after 24 years without any sufficient cause having been made
out. It is submitted that the affidavit accompanying the
application for condonation of delay has not provided any
reason, much less an acceptable explanation, to condone such
huge delay. It is submitted that the condonation of delay is
without any justification or reasons.
6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the lands in LACA
No.397/2017 are not identical to the lands involved in the
present appeal. The Appellate Court, without recording any
similarity between the lands of the same type, has incorrectly
taken the compensation in respect of a notification issued 19
years later than the notification in question and wrongly applied
de-escalation at 3%. It is submitted that transactions with a
difference of 19 years cannot be taken as a reference even for
applying de-escalation. In support of the said submission,
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
Court in the case of Bhupal Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2015) 5 SCC 801 .
7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
submits that the compensation paid for acquisition of lands is
based on the transactions relating to, or compensation paid for,
similarly situated lands. It is submitted that, while considering
the case for enhancement of compensation, a liberal approach
is required to be adopted to ensure that the compensation is
just and reasonable.
7.1 It is submitted that, in view of the evidence available, if
similarly situated lands are awarded higher compensation, the
claimants would be entitled to the same compensation on the
principle of parity. It is submitted that, if the case of the
claimants is found to have merit, the aspect of delay is to be
considered liberally. It is submitted that various factors,
including delay in disbursal of compensation and payment of
Court fee, would contribute to the delay and that the delay, if
any, is to be considered liberally.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
7.2 It is submitted that there is no bar to taking the awards
passed by the Courts in respect of similarly situated lands as a
basis and applying escalation or de-escalation, which is a
permissible mode of computing the compensation. It is
submitted that the award passed 19 years later than the award
in the present case cannot be said to be inadmissible. There is
no prohibition against taking such award as a basis. The
Appellate Court, considering the sufficient cause made out and
applying the principles of parity to award just and reasonable
compensation, rightly condoned the delay and enhanced the
compensation.
7.3 Learned counsel further submits that the compensation
awarded by the Reference Court has not been deposited or paid
till date.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent-authorities submits that de-escalation,
considering a transaction 19 years later, cannot be the basis for
determining the compensation. It is submitted that the
compensation awarded has been deposited. It is submitted that
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
the delay of more than 24 years has not been sufficiently
explained.
9. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
10. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on
11.09.1980 and 02.05.1988 respectively. A sum of Rs.3,707/-
and Rs.2,400/- per acre were awarded respectively. The said
orders were the subject matter of reference, in which, by
judgment dated 08.12.1995 and 17.06.2008, the compensation
was enhanced to Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per acre
respectively. A sum of Rs.8,000/- was arrived at by the
Reference Court based on the judgment of this Court, which is
of the year 1994. The private respondents have not raised any
grievance till 18th March 2020 against the award dated
18.12.1995. It appears that the entire case is attempted to be
made out based on the judgment in LACA No.397/2017. The
notification under Section 4(1) in the referred case is dated
18.11.1999. The notification in LACA No.397/2017 relates to
Indankal village of Chittapur Taluk, whereas the notification in
the present case relates to Sedam village, Sedam Taluk.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
11. The Appellate Court, while taking the judgment in LACA
No.397/2017 relating to Chittapur Taluk as an exemplar, has
not assigned any reasons as to how the same can be the basis
for comparing the land situated in Sedam village of Sedam
Taluk. When the lands are situated in two different taluks, they
cannot be taken as exemplars, as the potentiality, approach
and other aspects of each land would vary. In the facts of the
present case, no valid reasons are assigned by the Appellate
Court as to how the compensation in respect of lands in
Chittapur Taluk can be considered as the basis for enhancing
the compensation. Moreover, the notification in LACA
No.397/2017 is 19 years later than the notification in question.
There is no basis for applying de-escalation for 19 years. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bhupal Singh's case ( supra ), held
as under:
26. We are not impressed by the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant when he
submitted that we should take into consideration the fair
market value of the adjacent land determined by the
court which was acquired 10 years subsequent to the
acquisition in question in 1989-1990 and then go on
reducing its value by 10% every year to determine the
fair market value of the land in question. To say the least,
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
this submission is wholly misconceived being against the
settled principle of law relating to land acquisition cases.
27. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent, the fair market value of the acquired land is
required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act on
the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands
similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the
date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not
subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate
cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices
specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in
relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the
market value of the acquired land may be permitted.
Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case
where firstly, no sale deeds were filed by the appellants to
prove the fair market value of the acquired land and
secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take
into consideration the rate of those lands which were
acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in
question and then reduce the value of such land by 10%
every year so as to determine the fair market value of the
acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for
determination is not provided in the Act.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that escalation can
be considered at 10% per annum, considering the sale deeds
relating to adjacent and similarly situated lands, for fixing the
market value of the acquired land. However, the sale deeds
relating to transactions 10 years subsequent to the acquisition,
for applying de-escalation, have been held to be impermissible.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
13. In the present case, the compensation awarded in LACA
No.397/2017 cannot be considered as a basis for more than
one reason. The Section 4(1) notification in the impugned
proceedings are dated 11.09.1980 and 02.05.1988
respectively, whereas, in LACA No.397/2017, the Section 4(1)
notification is dated 18.11.1999. The lands in question are
situated at Sedam village, Sedam Taluk, whereas, in LACA
No.397/2017, the lands are situated in Indankal village of
Chittapur Taluk, at a distance of nearly more than 10
kilometres. The geographical situation and other factors to
establish the identical features of the lands are not forthcoming
from the records.
14. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained. Further, there is no
evidence recorded by the Appellate Court to establish the
similarity of the lands involved in both the cases, namely, the
impugned proceedings and LACA No.397/2017. The impugned
order, therefore, cannot be sustained for the additional reasons
stated herein.
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
15. The appeal was filed with a delay of more than 24 years,
i.e., around 8,820 days. The affidavit accompanying the
application only states that the compensation determined by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. By virtue of
the Section 4(1) notification, the right to receive regular
income from the land is deprived and the respondents have not
satisfied the judgment and award of the Reference Court.
These can, at best, be grounds to challenge the acquisition and
not for seeking enhancement of compensation.
16. It is a settled position of law that every day's delay need
not be explained. However, when a delay of 24 years is
involved, sufficient cause is required to be made out. The
affidavit, except for raising a grievance regarding the
acquisition, does not state any reason as to why the appeals
were not preferred against the judgments of the Reference
Court when it was delivered on 18.12.1995 and 17.06.2008.
The explanation provided should also explain the compelling
reasons that prevented the filing of the appeal within the
statutory period.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
17. Further, if some developments after such length of time
are taken as sufficient cause to condone the delay, it would
defeat the principle of finality. In the present case, as the
similarity of the lands in both the cases, i.e., in the present
case and in LACA No.397/2017, is not established, even the
principle of parity cannot be applied. The principle of parity
cannot be applied in all cases unless prejudice is likely to be
caused due to some arbitrary exercise. This Court finds no such
arbitrariness in the present proceedings on the part of the
acquiring authorities in awarding compensation.
18. Lastly, it is submitted that the award passed by the
Reference Court has not been satisfied. The same is objected to
by the appellant contending that the compensation amount is
already deposited before the SLAO. Non-payment of
compensation cannot be a reason to enhance the compensation
based on the compensation awarded in another case having no
similarity. If the compensation is not paid as per the award, the
private respondents have a separate recourse to recover such
compensation.
19. In the light of the above, the following:
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:8773
MSA No. 200516 of 2022
C/W MSA No. 200515 of 2022
MSA No. 200517 of 2022
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC030016282022
ORDER
i. The appeals are allowed .
ii. The judgment and award dated 15.12.2020 in LACA
Nos.191, 192, 193 and 221/2020 and the judgment
and award dated 04.12.2019 in LACA No.348/2019
passed by the IV Additional District Judge,
Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedam, are hereby set aside .
iii. The appeals in LACA Nos.191, 192, 193 and
221/2020 and 348/2019 passed by the IV Additional
District Judge, Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedam, are
dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay.
iv. The substantial questions of law are answered
accordingly.
v. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KJJ/msr/NB
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 5
Ct:pk