The Special Land Acquisition Officer, H.D.P. vs Shivaputra Appayya Patil and Another

G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.—These are three appeals by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Ghataprabha Project, against the Award and decree of the Court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum made in L.A.C. Nos. 138/69, 134/69 and 253/69 respectively. M.F.A. No. 537 of 1970 and M.F.A. No. 538 of 1970 are against the common judgment rendered in L.A.C. Nos. 138 and 134 of 1969. The lands acquired in L.A.C. Nos. 138 and 134 of 1969 are dry lands and the lands acquired in L.A.C. No. 253 of 1969 are garden lands where sugarcane crop was grown. The lands in question were acquired pursuant to preliminary notifications issued in the months of March and May 1963. The land acquisition Officer by his Award awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- an acre in L.A.C. No. 138 of 1969 and at the rate of Rs. 600/- an acre in L.A.C. No. 134 of 1969 in respect of dry lands. In L.A.C. No. 253 of 1969, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation varying between Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- an acre.

Notice u/s 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 22-9-1964 in the cases arising in L.A.C Nos. 138 and 134 of 1969. Similar notification in respect of the case arising in L.A.C. No. 253 of 1969 was published on 19-10-1964. It is admitted on behalf of the claimants that notices under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act were also served on the occupants of the lands. But the claimants did not prefer any claim statements in response to the said notices as required by Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act. After the Awards were made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation, u/s 18 of the Act and on the said referenced the court below determined the compensation in respect of the dry lands at Rs. 3,000/- an acre and in respect of the sugarcane growing garden land at Rs. 4,000/- an acre. Aggrieved by the said Awards, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the above appeals.

The common question of law that has been raised by the learned High Court Government Advocate Sri Venkatachala in all these appeals was that the court below had no jurisdiction to award compensation in excess of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in the absence of claim statements filed by the claimants in response to the notices issued u/s 9 of the Act and have produced the notices served on such claim for enhanced compensation is barred by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act, Sri A.V. Albal, learned Counsel appearing for some of the claimants who are Respondents in the appeals, relying on the decision of this Court dated 25-7-1973 rendered in M.F.A. Nos. 341, 342 and 344 of 1973 (Mys.) submitted that in identical circumstances, the Court had found sufficient reason for not making claim statements and the objection raised by the Special Land Acquisition Officer had been overruled. The learned High Court Government Advocate sought to distinguish the above decision of this Court from the facts of these appeals. In our Opinion, for the reasons which we presently state, it is unnecessary to go into the said decision as there is no material on record to show that the conditions attracting the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act have been satisfied.

When at the instance of the claimants who refused to accept the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer a reference is made to the Court u/s 18 of the Act and the Special Land Acquisition Officer contends that the claim for enhancement of compensation is barred by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act, the burden is on the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the pre-requisite conditions which barred the claim for enhancement of compensation have been satisfied in the cases. Sub-section (3) of Section 9, inter alia states that such notice which is required to be served on the occupier of the land shall be served at least 15 days before the date on which the persons concerned have to appear and state their respective interest before the Deputy Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 also provides that the date for appearance before the Deputy Commissioner and making a claim statement shall not be earlier than 15 days after the date of the publication of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. In the instant case, all that we have on record is the fact that notices u/s 9 have been served on the claimants. The notices served on the claimants have not been produced or caused to be produced. If the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his pleadings has raised the contention that the claim for enhancement of compensation is barred by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 read with Section 25 of the Act, then it was for the claimants to produce the notices served on them u/s 9 to show that the conditions laid down under the said Section have not been satisfied by the said notice. In the absence of pleadings on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer there was no duty on the claimants to have produced the notices served on them. Even assuming, without deciding that even in the absence of pleadings if the notices had been put on record, the matter could have been looked into, there is no material before us to show that the notices u/s 9 served on the claimants fixed the date 15 days after the service of the notices to appear and state their respective interests before the Deputy Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not proved the necessary facts to attract the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, the main contention urged by the learned High Court Government Advocate is rejected.

The learned High Court Government Advocate next challenged the correctness of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below. No evidence of transactions relating to sale of lands in the villages during the relevant period has been produced by either side. The lower Court has relied on the evidence regarding the yield from the lands in question. It has expressed the opinion that the evidence o the claimants regarding the yield is exaggerated. However, taking all circumstances of the case, the Court below has fixed the average net Income after making allowance for cultivation expenses at Rs. 155/- an acre. Capitalising the same by multiple of 20, the market value has been fixed at Rs. 3,000/- an acre in respect of dry lands. En respect of sugarcane growing lands, the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 4,000/- an acre, which is just and fair. We see, therefore, no reason calling for interference, with the Awards made by the Court below.

In the result, for the reasons stated above, the above appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.