Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga vs Kamlakar

Mrs. S. Sujatha. J.—These matters are taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The appellant is in appeal challenging the judgment of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Aland in LAC No. 2/2010 passed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'')- The land owners have also filed cross objection seeking enhancement of die compensation awarded by the Trial Court. Both the cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Brief facts are:

- that the Government has acquired the lands in Sy.No.110/2 measuring 5 acres 28 guntas and in Sy.No. 110/3 measuring 38 guntas belonging to the first respondent, situated at Yelenawadgi village, Kalaburagi district. These lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of petroleum tank. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2006 and award was passed, fixing the market value at Rs.32,000/- per acre. On the reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court after recording the evidence of the parties, passed the judgment and award, enhancing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1,67,300/- per acre.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court contending that the Reference Court adopting the capitalisation method, determined the compensation, taking 6 quintals of Jowar and 8 quintals of Tur per acre, which ought have been 6 quintals for both the crops. It is also contended that the Reference Court has adopted the maximum price of Jowar and Tur without appreciating the evidence placed on record and in fact the average price of the crops would have been taken by the Reference Court to determine the compensation. Smt. Archana R Tiwari, the learned Government Advocate strongly contended that the Reference Court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective while determining the nature of the lands and the same does not require any reconsideration much less further determination of the nature of the lands.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the land owner would contend that the Reference Court has ignored the material evidence placed on record, more particularly, the evidence of RW. 1 who has categorically admitted that the acquired lands are irrigated lands. This is further supported by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer wherein, it is specified that the acquired lands are in the nature of wet lands. The Reference Court not addressing on these material issues despite this contention raised by the land owners, assessed the value of the acquired lands, treating the same as dry lands. Accordingly, he seeks to enhance the compensation determined by the Reference Court, treating the acquired lands as the irrigated lands.

Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel at the Bar and perused the material on record.

I have perused the deposition of RW.l, in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit. It is stated thus:

"The land have B.C. soil, on the fertility the amount of compensation is paid is sufficient. The claimant use to grow Kaarif Tur, Mung. If Tur is grown the jawar for rabbi. He can grow Til, Greengram, Black Gram, Sajji as Kharif then he can grow jawar as Rabbi. Hence, alternative crop of Tur and jawar is grown and the yield per acre is not more than 4 quintals in the village. The yield certificate which is enclosed by the claimant does not belong to the year of 4(1) Notification. The land acquired are irrigated one, as per irrigated land, compensation has been given."

In the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is observed thus:

(Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.)

The categorical admission made by RW. 1 supports the case of the claimant that the acquired lands are irrigated lands. In view of this categorical admission made by RW. 1 and perusing the contents of the award which indicates, the acquired land is in the nature of irrigated lands, I am of the considered view that the acquired lands with its fertility nature and the water source could be safely held to be irrigated lands. If the same is considered, the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,50,950/- per acre.

For the reasons aforesaid, the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate is not worthy of acceptance and requires to be negated in view of the material evidence available on record.

As regards, the primary contention raised by the learned Government Advocate challenging the award passed by the Reference Court, the crop assessed by the Reference Court at 6 quintals Jowar and 8 quintals Tur per acre is based on the fertility of lands and taking into consideration the geographical conditions. No straight jacket formula would be prescribed to determine the market value of the acquired land. It is also observed, while arriving at the figure of Rs. 1,63,300/- per acre, the Reference Court has considered the average of the crops grown based on Ex.P3, Yield Certificate wherein, the Agricultural Officer has shown maximum crop of Jowar at 16 quintals per hectare and minimum yield at 7.5 quintals per hectare. Similarly, maximum yield of Tur is shown at 20 quintals per acre and minimum at 10 quintals per acres, in such circumstances, I do not see any merit in the arguments advanced by the appellant seeking reduction of the compensation awarded.

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant - State is dismissed. The cross objection Hied by the claimant is allowed, modifying the award passed by the Reference Court and determining the market value of the acquired land of the claimant at Rs.2,50,950/- per acre by treating the same as irrigated land. The claimant is entitled to all other statutory benefits available under the Act including the costs.

Decree, to be drawn accordingly.