Narayan Hanamant Satwik and Others vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer

B. Veerappa, J.

The present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Athani, in LAC. No. 100/2004, allowing their Reference in-part awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre for the irrigated lands except pot-kharab and granting 30% solatium on the enhanced market value along with 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) notification to the date of award passed by the SLAO, and also granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value from the date of dispossession for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till realization.

Brief facts are:

"It is the case of the appellants that the property bearing No. RS. No. 332 measuring 3 acres situated at Shirahatti village, Athani taluk, Belgaum District, belongs to them. The respondents issued preliminary notification on 18.5.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project and subsequently the State Government issued final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 26.09.2000 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 10.01.2002 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarding compensation of Rs. 40,800/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, appellants filed application under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for reference. Accordingly, he has referred the matter to the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Athani. The Reference Court after considering the entire material on record, allowed the reference application in-part by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.4.2006 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits for irrigated lands except Pot-kharab land."

Against the said judgment and award, the present appeal is filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Sri. Anil Kale, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the reference court failed to apply the exact yield per acre and price per ton and the reference court has not assigned any reasons while taking yield as 42 Ton per acre and Rs. 915/- per ton while determining the market value and even if the average price of Rs. 996/- per ton is considered the yield should be at 50 Ton per acre and the market value of the land would be Rs. 24,900/- per acre. Therefore, the award of the reference court is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.

The learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Dhareppa Dhareppa Shirahatti, passed in MFA.435/2005 and connected matters dated 08.01.2008 wherein for the acquisition of the year 2000 this court has taken the yield of 50 tons at the rate of Rs. 950/- per ton of the sugarcane and has arrived at Rs. 2,37,500/- per acre by adopting multiplication method as has been done by the Reference Judge and same would be around Rs. 2 lakhs per acre as against Rs. 8 lakhs per acre claimed by the claimants. Therefore, he sought for enhancement.

The learned AGA vehemently opposed for enhancement and sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court and further contended that the lands in the present case and the lands in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for appellants are entirely different and yields also vary. Therefore, he states that the judgment on which the appellants have placed reliance may be applied but the enhancement cannot be Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

It is not in dispute that the lands of appellants acquired for the purpose of UKP Project were irrigated lands and appellants have grown sugarcane crops in the said lands as on the date of notification. There is no dispute with regard to the type of crops grown and the date of taking over possession of the respective lands and entitlement of market value of the respective claims as on the date of notification. The only dispute is regarding yield per acre. According to the claimants, they are getting yield of 50 tons per acre but according to the Reference Court they may get 42 tons per acre. Therefore the conclusion arrived at by the SLAO on the basis of sales statistics is without any basis. This Court in the aforesaid judgment while dealing with similar notification of the year 2000 has come to the conclusion that the average yield of sugarcane was 50 tons per acre and therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Similar principle has to be applied in the present case.

Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court requires modification by enhancing the compensation. The yield of sugarcane grown by appellants would be taken at 50 tons per acre and priced at the rate of Rs. 950/- per ton. Thus the market value of the land comes to Rs. 2,37,500/- by adopting multiplication method as has been done by the Reference Judge, and the same may be rounded of to Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre as against the claim of Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre claimed by the appellants.

It is also to be seen that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of another matter in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Daso Appaji Kulkarni, in MFA.5262/2005 and connected matter, dated 28.01.2008, while considering the notification of the year 1998 in respect of neighbouring village acquired for the same project and relying upon the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in MFA.435/05 and connected matters, dated 08.01.2008, has taken the yield of the sugarcane at 50 tons per acre and market value at Rs. 950/- per ton and arrived the market value at Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre of land under acquisition with all statutory benefits, such as, solatium and interest under Section 23(1A) on the enhanced market value and interest at 9% and 15% per annum as provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act upon the compensation awarded.

In view of the law declared by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court is to be modified by enhancing the market value at Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part. The impugned judgment and award is modified fixing the yield at 50 tons per acre and taking the market value at Rs. 950/- per tone which comes to Rs. 2,37,500/- rounded of to Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre of land under acquisition. The appellants are entitled to the market value of Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, such as, solatium and interest under Section 23(1A) on the enhanced market value and interest at 9% and 15% p.a. as provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, upon the compensation awarded in this judgment with costs of these proceedings, less the amounts already received. The Award of the reference court is modified accordingly.

The appeal is allowed in-part with costs in terms stated above.