The State of Karnataka vs Jayadevi and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The appellant in MFA No. 33075/2013 is the Acquiring Authority while the land-loser has filed the cross objection in MFA Cross Objection No. 200043/2015. The Acquiring Authority is assailing the judgment and award of the Reference Court contending that the market value as determined by the Reference Court is on the higher side and the same is required to be reduced. The land-loser through the cross objection is seeking enhancement of the market value.

The land bearing Sy. No. 253/1/1 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of wet land situate in Allagi-B Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburgi District was acquired for the benefit of respondent No. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer through the award had determined the market value at Rs. 42,000/- per acre of wet land. The land-loser claiming to be aggrieved filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Afzalpur wherein the matter was numbered as LAC No. 232/2012.

The Reference Court on consideration has enhanced the market value to Rs. 6,72,000/- per acre for wet land. The Acquiring Authority while contending that the market value as determined by the Reference Court is on the higher side would at the outset refer to the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in MFA No. 31613/2012 disposed of on 08.01.2015 to contend that the market value determined by the Reference Court in respect of the acquisition of other lands for the same purpose has been reduced to Rs. 4,15,000/- from Rs. 4,61,250/- per acre along with the statutory benefits. It is therefore contended that when the lands involved in these appeals is also acquired for the same purpose, in the vicinity of the said lands, the similar consideration is required to be made. The said contention on behalf of the Acquiring Authority by the Learned Government Advocate is supported by the learned counsel for the beneficiary who is arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3 to the said appeal. In that light, it is contended that the market value as determined by the Reference Court be reduced by allowing the appeal.

The learned counsel for the land-loser would on the other hand contend that the market value as determined by the Reference Court will call for further enhancement. It is his case that the consideration as made by a Division Bench of this Court as relied by the Learned Government Advocate was in respect of the lands where sugarcane was claimed to be grown, but the same was not established. It is contended that in the instant case, the crop grown is Banana which was considered by the Reference Court, based on which a conclusion has been reached and therefore, the judgment relied upon cannot be made the basis in the instant case. The learned counsel would contend that when the Reference Court on the other hand has kept in view the documents at Ex. P2 and P3 relating to the yield and price of the Banana, the Reference Court ought to have considered the maximum of the yield and the price indicated therein instead of the procedure presently followed. As such, if the said error committed by the Reference Court is corrected, the land-loser would be entitled for enhancement of the market value as against the sum awarded by the Reference Court. In that view, he contends that the appeal be dismissed and the cross objections be allowed.

In the light of the rival contentions, we have perused the appeal papers. At the outset, since strong reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No. 31613/2012 dated 08.01.2015, we have taken note of the judgment. A perusal of the same would indicate that the matter therein was considered in the background of the contention that sugarcane was being grown in the said land and as such the price of sugarcane as also the jaggery was sought to be kept in view. However, that was proved before the Reference Court. That apart in the cases involved therein, it was not established that the land concerned was irrigated land. This Court in that regard had taken note of the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer and the finding of the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that it is not established that the lands are sugarcane growing irrigated lands. Hence, the amount awarded in an earlier appeal was noted and determined the market value. In the instant case, since the Reference Court has relied on the documents to come to the conclusion that it is irrigated land and Banana had been grown and when capitalization method is being followed for the purpose of determination of the market value, the nature of land, the source of irrigation and the crop grown in the said land becomes relevant for the said purpose.

If the said aspect of the matter is kept in view and the judgment rendered by the Reference Court in the instant case is taken into consideration, from the evidence tendered by the land-loser before the Reference Court, the yield relating to Banana crop and the price thereof are the very documents that have been relied on. The fact that Banana was being grown is also established by the document at Ex. P4 viz., the certificate issued by the Village Accountant which in any case has been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the general award itself. In fact in MFA No. 31613/2012 relied on by the acquiring authority, this Court has taken the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer as the basis to accept the nature of the land recorded therein. If in that light the documents at Exhs. P2 and P3 are taken into account, the Reference Court in fact has taken into consideration the yield in the said area and the price that the crop could fetch during the relevant year.

Though the learned counsel for the land-loser would contend that the maximum yield and the price as indicated in the said certificates ought to have been considered, we are unable to accede to the said contention. We are of the said opinion for the reason that as rightly noticed by the Reference Court, considering the quantum of yield as contended, if the Banana was being sold in open market, the land-loser-claimant would have had relevant documents to indicate the actual price for which the Banana had been sold. In the absence of such documents, when the certificate issued by the competent authority is taken into consideration and in that light the value indicated is accepted, in the present facts and circumstance, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court was justified in the manner in which it had concluded and had determined the market value.

Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

In the result, the appeal as well as the cross objections stand disposed of as being devoid of merits.