Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1192 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Sayabanna

2020-06-23

G.NARENDAR, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT G Narendar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the cross objectors landlosers. 2. The appeals are by the beneficiaries and the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the State, the Cross objections are by the landlosers. 3. The acquiring Authority have acquired the lands of landlosers vide 4(1) Notification dated 13.08.2009 for the purpose of construction of percolation tank under Minor Irrigation Project. The authority has passed an award on 18.01.2011 awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre. The landlosers being aggrieved, filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking for enhancement of the compensation and on reference the reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.4,83,750/- per acre. 4. The appellants are the acquiring authority while the landlosers have filed the cross objections. 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. On the other hand the cross-objectors -landlosers are before this Court seeking enhancement of the market value. 5. The short point that is canvassed by the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the deduction of a sum of Rs.200/- per quintal towards cost of conversion of sugarcane to jaggery is contrary to the settled law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hirabai and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner, (2010) 10 SCC 492 . 6. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate would invite the attention of the Court to paragraphs 15 to 17, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had placed reliance on the material document of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of capitalisation method and after calculating the conversion price of sugarcane to jaggery at Rs.700/- per quintal and proceeded to approve the formula as adopted by the Hon'ble High Court and approved the deduction of 40% of the value of the jaggery towards cost of conversion of sugarcane to jaggery and further deducted 50% of the balance amount towards cost of cultivation and upheld the net realization as the amount of capatilisation and by applying the multiplier of 10 and approved the capitalisation method for the purpose of calculating the market value in respect of lands where claims involved conversion of sugarcane to jaggery. 7. In the instant case also there is no dispute that the landlosers have put-forth a claim of growing sugarcane for manufacturing jaggery. The reference Court while disposing of the reference petitions has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.200/- per quintal as the cost of conversion of sugarcane to jaggery and proceeded to assess the market value for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,83,750/- per acre. 8. Prima facie, the calculation adopted by the reference Court is contrary to the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hirabai's case (supra). The learned counsel for the cross-objectors would fairly to concede the same. 9. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors would endeavour to make an attempt to convince this Court to look into the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA No.33075/2013, rendered on 18.11.2015 and the judgment in MFA No.32189/2013 rendered on 12.02.2015. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would object the same and would contend that the lands which are the subject matter of those appeals were acquired for the purpose of lift irrigation and that the instant lands are acquired for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank and that the lands are not situated in the same village. Hence, the market value assessed in those proceedings would not apply to the instant proceedings. 11. Hence, the market value assessed in those proceedings would not apply to the instant proceedings. 11. We have perused the records and having heard the arguments, the short question that would arise before this Court is as under ;- "Whether the judgment and award passed by the reference Court requires any interference by this Court?" 12. The cost of conversion fixed by the reference Court is contrary to the formula approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hirabai's case (supra). In that view of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the reference Court calls for interference. 13. Be that as it may. We have gone through the materials more particularly Ex.P.10 - yield certificate and Ex.P.11 - price list. On perusal of Ex.P.11, it is seen that the reference Court has adopted the maximum price fixed for the revenue year 2008-2009. There is no dispute that 4(1) Notification is issued in the month of August, 2009. In that view of the matter, the appropriate price that ought to have been adopted by the reference Court is the price fixed for the revenue year 2009-2010. The maximum price is fixed at Rs.3,200/-. No independent evidence has been placed on record by the claimants with regard to the price realized by them. If that being the factual aspect of the case, we are of the opinion that, the average price that could be adopted by this Court for the purpose of calculating the market value. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.2,900/- per quintal would be the appropriate price in terms of Exs.P.10 and 11. The average yield in the judgment is fortified, there is no dispute nor there is any material produced and is contrary to the same. 14. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.2,900/- per quintal would be the appropriate price in terms of Exs.P.10 and 11. The average yield in the judgment is fortified, there is no dispute nor there is any material produced and is contrary to the same. 14. In that view of the matter, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hirabai's case (supra), 40% of amount is deducted towards cost of conversion of sugarcane into jaggery and further deducted 50% of the amount towards cost of cultivation and as per Ex.P.11, price list, if an amount of Rs.2,900/- per quintal is held as value of sugarcane then the market value requires to be recalculated and quantified in the following manner ;- Rs.2,900x40/100=1,160/-, then this amount of Rs.1,160/- is deducted from Rs.2,900/- then it comes to Rs.1,740/- (Rs.2,900- 1160=1,740/-), Then 50% of amount will have to be deducted towards cost of cultivation, then it would be - Rs.1,740x50/100=870/- This Rs.870/- price arrived per quintal then as per Ex.P.5, the yield of sugarcane out of which jaggery is converted per acre is 45 quintal. Therefore, Rs.870/- is to be multiplied with 45 quintal of jaggery then it come to Rs.39,150/-. Rs.870x45=39,150/-. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and judgment of this Court a standard formula multiplier 10' is adopted then the market value would be - Rs.39,150x10=3,91,500/-. In all, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,91,500/- per acre and same is rounded off to Rs.3,92,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits. 15. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed. The market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.4,83,750/- per acre is modified and the market value is fixed at Rs.3,92,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits. 16. In the light of the appeals filed by the State and beneficiaries being allowed, the cross-objections stand rejected.