Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 249 (KAR)

Executive Engineer v. Irappa Ningappa Gaddi

2005-03-31

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2005
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The claimants land measuring 16 guntas in Sy. No. 285/02 of Kottur Village in Saundatti Taluk, is acquired by the K.P.T.C.L. by preliminary notification dated 8.7.1999. The L.A.O. has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,500/- per acre. The reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per acre. The K.P.T.C.L has filed the appeal challenging the quantum as excessive. The claimant has filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It appears from the records that the claimants volunteers to surrender the land for acquisition at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. It is therefore argued by the Counsel for the K.P.T.C.L. that the admitted value of the land is only Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Hence, the grant of compensation more than Rs. 25,000/- is bad in law. 3. The contention of the KPTCL is untenable. Upon the offer made by the claimant, no consent award is passed as required under Section 11(ii) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is acquired by exercise of the State power envisaged under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. When there is no consent award passed under Section 11(2), it is deemed that volunteer offer is impliedly rejected. The claimant is entitled to reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. 4. The record of rights of Sy. No. 282/2 shows existence of Well and cultivation of commercial crops. It is argued that the claimants have not proved that the Well had sufficient potential to irrigate the entire land. The argument is untenable. It was expected of the L.A.O. to collect all necessary details about the potential of the Well. Immediately after issuance of 4(1) notification, the L.A.O. as State Officer, he should have taken assistance of the geologists and other competent authorities to assess the potential of the well. After lapse of several years, it cannot be argued that the claimants should prove the potential capacity of the Well to irrigate the entire extent of the land. The record of rights shows the existence of Well. In the absence of contra evidence collected by the L.A.O. it is to be inferred that the Well had potential to irrigate the entire extent of the land. 5. The record of rights do show cultivation of the sugar cane in the land. The record of rights shows the existence of Well. In the absence of contra evidence collected by the L.A.O. it is to be inferred that the Well had potential to irrigate the entire extent of the land. 5. The record of rights do show cultivation of the sugar cane in the land. The reference Court has assessed the yield of the sugar cane at 35-40 tonnes per acre which is excessive. The yield to be assessed at 25 tonnes per acre. The rate to be assessed at Rs. 1,100/- per tonne. The gross yield would be Rs. 75,000/-. The cultivation expenses to be deducted at 50% and 10 multiplier to be applied to assess the net value. Thus the claimant is entitled to a compensation at the rate of 1,30,000/- per acre as sought for in the cross-objection. The request for reduction of the compensation by the State and the KPTCL is dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the cross objection is allowed. The claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- with statutory benefits and costs. 7. The learned H.C.G.P. is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.