J.N. Shanmukappa Gowda vs Assistant Commissioner and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 1st October 2010 passed in L.A.C. No. 11/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) at Shimoga. The Reference Court by its impugned Judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre to wet lands and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to garden lands. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court the claimant/appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that, the garden land bearing Sy. No. 43 measuring 05 acres 27 guntas, wet land bearing Sy. No. 44 measuring 01 acre 20 guntas and Sy. No. 46 measuring 0.28 guntas situated at Kune Hosur Village, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District have been notified and acquired for the purpose of formation of New Tank of Kolli Bachchalu at Gilalgundi in Sagar Taluk vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act and published in Karnataka Gazette dated 30th June 2005 followed by the Final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, after issuing notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the L.A.O. has passed the award.

Not being satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/claimant has filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation and the same is registered in L.A.C. No. 11/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) at Shimoga.

The said matter had come up before the Reference Court and the Reference Court in turn after consideration of oral evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex. P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in respect of wet land and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre in respect of garden land with all statutory benefits envisaged under Section 23 of the L.A. Act.

Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellant has presented this appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation.

The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the out set is that, due to lack of knowledge and not having the assistance of the Counsel representing the claimant before the Reference Court in valuing the market value of the land in question. It is his further submission that the land in Sy. No. 43 is a garden land measuring 05 acres 27 guntas, Sy. No. 44 is a wet land measuring 01 acre 20 guntas and 0.28 guntas in Sy. No. 46 is also a wet land, all situated at Kunehosur Village, Kumsi Hobli, Shimoga District. The appellant has cultivated aracanut cum Banana and commercial crop in wet land. They could not produce the yield certificate to know the market value and on account of which, they could not make out a case to determine the just and reasonable market value. He further submitted that as per Exs.P1, P2, P3, the Deputy Commissioner/Horticultural Officer determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre in respect of the wet land and in respect of the garden land, the LAO has given the details of trees standing in the land and the yielded value of the fruits. Ex.P3. Without assigning any valid reasons, the Reference Court has arrived at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre which is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, he submits that the matter may be remitted back to the Reference Court for consideration afresh and to determine just and reasonable market value on the basis of the potentiality of the crop grown on the lands in question, reserving liberty to the claimant to file necessary application for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of compensation as envisaged under Article 200 of Constitution of India.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State, inter alia , contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is just and reasonable. He further submitted that the Reference Court after considering the submission made by the appellant found that they have not produced any documents to certify and determine the market value in respect of the wet and garden lands and therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Reference Court has passed appropriate order and it does not call for interference by this Court.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

After careful hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, what emerges is that, the land in question has been acquired for the public purpose and the same is not in dispute. Further, it emerges that after careful evaluation of the records i.e. RTC extracts marked as Exs.P8 to P10, the lands in question are both garden land and wet land and further the Reference Court has not considered the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 on the sole ground that Exs.P1 and P2 the recommendation letter by the Deputy Commissioner for fixing the market value at Rs. 6.00 lakhs per acre for the wet land and garden land at Rs. 12.00 lakhs per acre has not been accepted. It is also not in dispute that the Reference Court without any basis or reasons given in para 10 determined the market value which cannot be sustained. Further, what emerges is that due to lack of knowledge they could not assist the Counsel representing them for determining the just and reasonable market value in respect of the above lands in question are garden land and wet land. If they had produced the yield certificate and the price list the Reference Court might have awarded just and reasonable compensation placing reliance on the Judgment of Apex Court and also this Court. There is some justification in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

The specific contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that, if one more opportunity is offered to the appellant/claimant, they can produce the yield certificate and price list issued by the Agricultural Department (APMC) and they can examine the Horticultural Officer who issued Ex.P3. In such circumstance, the Reference Court will be in a better position to determine the just and reasonable market value. The said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has got some substance and on careful evaluation of the entire material on record, the Reference Court has erred in determining the market value as per the evidence on record.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, without expressing any further opinion on merits or demerits of the case, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to Reference Court to safe guard the interest of the appellant as well as the respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 1st October 2010 in L.A.C. No. 11/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) at Shimoga is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Reference Court to redetermine the compensation in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant and the respondents to adduce further evidence/produce additional documents and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of appearance of both the parties before the Reference Court.

Liberty has been reserved to the appellant and respondents to file necessary application for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

In case such application is filed, the Reference Court is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The appellant and respondents both are directed to appear personally or through their respective Counsel before the jurisdictional Reference Court on 4th February 2015.

All the grounds urged in the appeal are left open.

Office is directed to return the entire original records to the jurisdictional Reference Court immediately.

Further, the Office is directed to refund the Court Fee immediately to the appellant.