The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project vs Hanamanth and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bilagi, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 8-12-2000 passed in LAC. No. 3864 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi, has preferred M.F.A. No. 1413 of 2001 whereas, the owners of the acquired land being aggrieved by the same judgment and award have filed M.F.A. CROB. No. 76 of 2002 seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre.

An extent of 28 acres 3 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 54 and 56/1 of Girigaon Village of Bilagi Taluk was acquired for the purpose of submergence in the backwater of Almatti Reservoir by issuing Section 4(1) Notification dated 17-10-1996. The LAO after conducting the enquiry, awarded compensation of Rs. 12,500/- per acre for 8 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 54 and Rs. 26,800/- per acre for the remaining extent of wetland comprised in Sy. Nos. 54 and 5671. The owners not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAO sought reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the ''Act'') to the Civil Court. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- for the entire extent of acquired land excluding pot kharab. The LAO has preferred M.F.A. No. 1413 of 2001 contending that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is highly excessive. The owners of the acquired land have also preferred M.F.A. CROB. No. 76 of 2002 contending that the rate of compensation determined by the Civil Court at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre is very much on lower than the actual market value and have sought for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for the entire extent of the acquired land.

We have heard learned Government Advocate for Land Acquisition and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Counsel for the Cross-objectors/owners. The only contention urged before us by the learned Government Advocate for Land Acquisition in support of the appeal preferred by the LAO is that the LAO on the basis of the information and materials available with him awarded compensation at different rates for dry and wetland, but quite curiously the Civil Court without assigning any reason as to why the entire extent of acquired land should be treated as of the same kind, has awarded compensation at common rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and that on that count itself, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Counsel appearing for cross-objectors would contend that as per Ex. P. 13 which is a yield certificate, 50 tonnes of sugarcane was grown in every acre, but, for no good reason, the yield was taken as 45 tonnes only by the Reference Court. Sri Basavaraj Kareddy would also contend that even taking the yield at 45 tonnes and the price of the sugarcane at the relevant point of time at Rs. 800/- per tonne, the total income would be Rs. 36,000/- per acre and if 50% of the same is deducted towards the cost of cultivation, the net income would be Rs. 18,000/- per acre and in that view of the matter, if multiplier ''10'' is applied, the Reference Court should have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/-p.a., but the Reference Court completely ignoring its own finding and the evidence on record except Ex. P. 35, which is an award passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi, in L.A.C. No. 715 of 1997, dated 16-7-1995 whereunder, 10 acres 39 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 38971 situated in Todalbagi Village in Jamkhandi Taluk, has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre. To this, it has added probable escalation of cost at 10% and thereby determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy submitted that the above procedure adopted by the Reference Court having regard to the evidence on record is totally unwarranted and the compensation determined is totally unjust and unfair. Countering the claim of the learned Counsel for the Cross-objectors, learned Government Advocate would maintain that Ex. P. 35 is the document produced by the claimants themselves and, therefore, they could not have any legitimate grievance against the Reference Court placing reliance on Ex. P. 35.

Having heard learned Counsels for the parties, the only question that arises for decision is whether the rate of compensation determined by the Reference Court reflects the correct market value of the acquired land on the date of the Section 4(1) notification i.e., 17-10-1996. As per Ex. P. 13 the yield certificate, 50 tonnes of sugarcane was grown in the acquired land. The evidentiary value of Ex. P. 13 is not in contest. If that is so, the Reference Court ought to have taken the yield as 45 tonnes, instead of 50 tonnes. Be that as it may. Even taking the yield at 45 tonnes, the net income of 45 tonnes of sugarcane even after deducting 50% towards cultivation cost would come to Rs. 18,000/- (45 x 800 = 36,000/- - 18,000/- i.e., towards the cost of cultivation = 18,000/-). If multiplier ''10'' is applied, the compensation to be paid to the owners/claimants would be Rs. 1,80,000/-. No doubt, Ex. P. 35 was produced by the claimants themselves, but only on the basis of Ex. P. 35, it would be totally unreasonable and arbitrary to defeat the claim of the owners of the acquired land to higher rate of compensation. The rate of compensation awarded by the Reference Court could be sustained on the basis of the other substantive legal evidence adduced by the claimants. The substantive legal evidence produced by the owners are Ex. P. 13, yield certificate and Ex. P. 17, price list. The validity of the above two documents is not contested by the acquisition authorities. If Exs. P. 13 and P. 17 are taken into consideration, it is trite, the owners of the acquired land would be entitled to compensation at a rate more than the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre. However, the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs. 1,80,000/-. It needs to be noticed that Ex. P. 35 relates to a land situated in Todalbagi Village, that is to say, in a different taluk. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Reference Court is not justified in determining the rate of compensation at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre.

We do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate for Land Acquisition with regard to the Reference Court awarding compensation at a common rate for the entire extent of the acquired land. It is true that the LAO had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- for dry lands and at the rate of Rs. 26,800/- for wetland per acre. But, this calculation made by the LAO for the purpose of determining the different rates of compensation could not be sustained/supported by virtue of Ex. P. 34. We have perused the original of Ex. P. 34. In the said report, it is dearly stated that the entire acquired land is irrigated land and when the author of the document visited the land, sugarcane crop was existing in 95% of the acquired land. It is also submitted that the sugarcane crop was grown year after year in the acquired land. Therefore, the calculation made by the LAO for the purpose of determining'' the different rates of compensation could not be sustained in the light of the clinching evidence, Ex. P. 34.

In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss M.F.A. No. 1413 of 2001 with costs and allow M.F.A. CROB. No. 76 of 2002 in part with costs and in substitution of the award passed by the Court below, we declare and direct that the cross-objectors/landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.