Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2031 (KAR)

Mallappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

2019-09-19

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants in L.A.C.No. 103/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for acquisition of their land bearing Sy.No. 162/1 + 2B measuring 4 acres 18 guntas situated at Honnalli Village, taluka Bilagi. 2. The aforesaid land was subject matter of acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 17.10.1996. The award was passed by SLAO in LAQ:SR:41/1995-96 on 07.05.1999, which was intimated to the claimants vide notification under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter an application is filed by them seeking enhancement of compensation which was referred to Civil Court, where it was registered in L.A.C.No. 103/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi. 3. The material on record would indicate that the appellants herein, claimants in the Court below contended that the land in question though categorized as dry land, where he would claim that out of 4 acres 18 guntas an extent of 3 acres is irrigated land and the dry land is only to an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas. That there is an attempt to demonstrate that an extent of 3 acres of irrigated land was utilized for cultivation of pomegranate fruit. Though the said contentions were raised before the reference Court, the same was not accepted. On the contrary the reference Court considered the entire extent of 4 acres 18 guntas, as dry land. That, the compensation payable was considered on capitalization method in awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,15,580/- per acre. The said award is subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 4. When this appeal was taken up for consideration at an earlier point of time, this Court referred the matter back to the reference Court for conducting an enquiry to consider whether pomegranate trees are planted in the land bearing Sy.No. 162/1 + 2B. Pursuant to said order dated 20.02.2013, the entire records was sent to reference Court for further enquiry. Accordingly enquiry was conducted before the reference Court wherein, though the planting of pomegranate plants on the land in question was noticed, the same were held to be saplings. It was observed that they were not fruit yielding trees as on that day. As such the reference Court did not consider revising the compensation which was earlier awarded at Rs. Accordingly enquiry was conducted before the reference Court wherein, though the planting of pomegranate plants on the land in question was noticed, the same were held to be saplings. It was observed that they were not fruit yielding trees as on that day. As such the reference Court did not consider revising the compensation which was earlier awarded at Rs. 1,15,580/- per acre on the contrary held that the said award is correct. 5. It is thereafter, this appeal is taken up for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel Sri. N.L.Batakurki appearing for appellants and learned AGA Smt.Veena Hegde on behalf of respondent-State. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to rely upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Shivappa S/o Prabhappa Mugalalli and Another vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bilagi in an unreported judgment dated 24.11.2011 in MFA No. 24595/2010 (LAC), which is with reference to the land which is situated adjacent to the land of appellants herein, which is subject matter of L.A.C. No. 103/2005. According to him in the said appeal, enhancement of compensation was considered with reference to the adjacent land where pomegranate trees and as well as grapes were grown. According to him, in a negotiated settlement between the State and the land looser, the valuation which is adopted for compensation with reference to pomegranate growing land, was Rs.5,75,000/- per acre and in the land where grapes were grown at Rs.10,50,000/- per acre. 7. Hence, the appellants would state that the same value should be accepted to the facts of the case since the land which was subject matter of acquisition in MFA No.24595/2010 also situated adjacent to the land of appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants would try to rely upon the judgment in the aforesaid matter as base value for pomegranate growing area on the premise that, the land which was lost by appellants was also utilized for growing pomegranate to an extent of 3 acres out of 4 acres 18 guntas. The learned counsel for the appellants would try to rely upon the judgment in the aforesaid matter as base value for pomegranate growing area on the premise that, the land which was lost by appellants was also utilized for growing pomegranate to an extent of 3 acres out of 4 acres 18 guntas. In support of his argument, the counsel for appellants would rely upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda, AIR 2010 (0) SC 2322, wherein at paragraph 34 sub paragraph 2, the Apex Court would observe as under: “Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, it will also be just and fair to adopt some liberal approach with some element of guess work to provide the Claimants with just and fair market value of the land in question. It must be remembered that, the entire land including village Sanaba and all other villages was acquired for the purpose of submerging the lands because of the water coming from the Hemavathi Dam. In view of the cumulative discussion referred to above, we are of the considered view that it will be just, fair, equitable and in consonance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the market value of the land as on 4th April, 2002 can safely be taken as Rs.2,30,000 per acre in the case of garden land and, applying the accepted principle of reducing the said compensation in the case of dry lands by one third, the rate will be Rs. 1,53,400 per acre in the case of dry land keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record. Claim in regard to interest payable on taking of possession.” 8. When the material available on record in this appeal and the aforesaid judgments are seen, it is clear that the land of the claimants in this proceedings and also the land of the claimants in MFA No.24595/20 10 disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.11.2011 are situated adjacent to each other. Admittedly, the land involved in the said proceeding was also utilized for growing of pomegranate and as well as grapes. With reference to the value of the land which was utilized for growing pomegranate is concerned, it was arrived at Rs.5,75,000/- per acre. Admittedly, the land involved in the said proceeding was also utilized for growing of pomegranate and as well as grapes. With reference to the value of the land which was utilized for growing pomegranate is concerned, it was arrived at Rs.5,75,000/- per acre. So far as the land of the appellants is concerned, the evidence on record would indicate that the same was utilized for planting of 1000 saplings to an extent of 3 acres out of 4 acres 18 guntas held by the appellants. 9. Therefore, even though the crops which were raised in the land of the appellants had not reached the stage of yielding returns, the same should be considered for granting compensation relying upon the judgment in the matter of Karigowda's case referred to supra wherein the Apex Court has held that, when the lands situated adjacent to each other identified as being utilized for growing similar crops with reference to the land having potentiality to grow very same crop and situated adjacent to the land where compensation is considered as garden land, the benefit of the same should be applicable to the adjacent land to an extent of 2/3rd of its value. 10. If that analogy is taken into consideration, in the instant case, to an extent of 3 acres of land utilized for cultivation of pomegranate, the compensation should be considered at 2/3rd of the value of Rs.5,75,000/-per acre which was fixed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.24595/2010 (LAC). Accordingly, this Court would observe that, in the instant case, for 3 acres of land of the appellant in Sy.No. 162/1 + 2B which was utilized for growing of pomegranate should be considered for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,83,334/- per acre. However, with reference to the remaining extent of 1 acre 18 guntas is concerned, the compensation which is awarded by the reference Court at Rs. 1,15,580/- itself is just and proper compensation and the same should be continued. 11. With aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed. It is needless to say that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the land acquisition act. Accordingly this appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.