Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1217 (KAR)

Sagareppa v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

2022-09-16

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants is that the structure was acquired by Notification dtd. 18/7/1991 and the same was published in the Grama Chavadi on 9/6/1992 and award was passed in the year 1995. The Notification under Sec. 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was served on 28/12/1995. Reference application was filed by the claimants before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1/3/1996 and the same was received on 19/4/1997 by the Court. 3. The claimants being aggrieved by the award passed in LAQ/SR No./210/91-92 filed a reference application and the same is numbered as LAC No.129/1997. The trial Court after considering the reference application and taking note of the fact that admittedly the structure is acquired by the authorities comes to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of 50% over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of the house property. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.4,63,065.00 and the same has been divided in respect of VP No.9a and 9b and awarded Rs.2,31,532.00. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the document Ex.D.1 which is the house estimation report produced by the respondent and has failed to determine market value as per estimation report. He further submits that the appellants have examined P.W.3, Range Forest Officer who has categorically stated that the total wood used for the construction of the acquired house is 29.340 sq. mtr. Hence, the Reference Court should have considered the evidence of PW-3. Accordingly, he submits that the judgment and award of the trial Court calls for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that while the document Ex.D.1 is marked and estimation was made but the same has been strike out and the author of the document Ex.D.1 with regard to the estimation is concerned has not been examined. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that while the document Ex.D.1 is marked and estimation was made but the same has been strike out and the author of the document Ex.D.1 with regard to the estimation is concerned has not been examined. P.W.3 who has been examined in respect of the claim of the appellants is only the Officer who was a successor but he has not identified the signature of the Forest Officer who estimated the cost and when such being the case, the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.D.1 cannot be accepted and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants was not accepted. However, the trial Court has granted 50% compensation over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the judgment and award of the trial Court does not call for any interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the reference Court has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ? (ii) What order ? 7. Answer to Point No.1 : Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material the P.W.1 is examined before the reference Court and he claims in his evidence that, the house which was acquired was constructed by using teakwood and while assessing the value, it is considered as Jungle wood. He was also cross- examined before the trial Court. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, in order to assess the valuation of the house, the Engineer had visited the house. He admits that, the house was constructed by his father and also house was constructed 15 years ago and also admits that the Engineer had mentioned that the house was constructed 22 years ago and he cannot tell how much amount was spent for the construction of the house and also he cannot estimate the cost of construction. He also admits that, in terms of Ex.P.3, the respondents have given 50% more compensation. He also admits that, in terms of Ex.P.3, the respondents have given 50% more compensation. The claimants also examined P.W.2 an Engineer who assessed the value of the house as Rs.19,81,000.00 and this assessment was made in the year 2000 and he admits the same in the cross-examination and apart from that, he admits that, he cannot tell what was the condition in the year 1992. He also admits that, while assessing the house property in terms of Ex.D.1, assessed the value of the wood used. He also admits that, he went alone without taking the owner of the house while inspecting the house and he cannot tell the valuation made by the Engineer as well as the valuation made by him what would be the difference. He also admit that, the respondents while assessing the value of the house called the experts from Forest Department and assessed the value and also taken the measurement of the wall. He also admits that, the Government has taken DSR rate and respondent considering the same prepared the estimation and assessed the property valuation. The claimant also examined P.W.3 who is the Range Forest Officer who succeeded the office of earlier Officer, who conducted the inspection and in his evidence, he says that, while drawing Ex.D.1, taking note of the use of the teakwood and in terms of estimation it was assessed Rs.6,43,866.00. In the cross-examination he admits that, he did not visit the house and he cannot tell what type of wood was used while constructing the house and also he admits that, in Ex.D.1, it was mentioned that, it was a Jungle wood and also he cannot tell the actual value of the wood which is mentioned in Ex.D.1 and he cannot tell the actual cost of the wood in terms of Ex.D.1. 8. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also the material on record, no dispute with regard to the fact that the structure was acquired by the Government by issuing the notification in the year 1991 and subsequently, the award was passed in the year 1995. 8. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also the material on record, no dispute with regard to the fact that the structure was acquired by the Government by issuing the notification in the year 1991 and subsequently, the award was passed in the year 1995. The main contention of the appellant counsel is that, in terms of Ex.D.1, the Forest Officer taken note of the wood which was used for construction of the house and though it was assessed for a sum of Rs.6,45,000.00, and the same was striked out and no explanation is given by the Government for striking out the same and on the other hand, it is the contention of the State that, the author of the document at Ex.D.1 has not been examined and also no explanation for the reason why it was striked out and in terms of Ex.D.1, which is dtd. 7/6/1993, the same is conducted by the Range Forest Officer and specifically it is mentioned that, the VPC No.9A & B and rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State that, the author of the document has not been examined. It is also important to note that, the very claimant examined particularly two witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 estimated the same in the year 2000 and subsequently to the award and the award was passed in the year 1995 itself and conducting the inspection in the year 2000 that too, without taking the owner which is admitted by him, the same cannot be believed and hence, the reference Court has not accepted the evidence of P.W.2. No doubt the claimant also examined the P.W.3, and P.W.3 also categorically admits in the cross-examination that while assessing the value the same is rightly assessed taking note of the wood which was used and the assessment made is proper, but P.W.3 claims that, it was assessed taking note of the using of the teakwood for an amount of Rs.6,43,866.00, but in the cross-examination he also admits that, even he cannot assess the value in terms of Ex.D.1 and also he cannot tell the assessment made in terms of Ex.D.1, is also proper. He also admits in the cross-examination that he cannot tell whether they have used Jungle wood or teakwood and also he cannot tell the value of the wood which was used, which is mentioned in Ex.D.1 and also he admits that in Ex.D.1 a reference was made that they have used the Jungle wood and the main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that there was a reference in the document in Ex.D.1 with regard to the use of the teakwood, but the same has been striked out and no explanation on the part of the appellants also and the witness examined before the Court is also not the witness who conducted inspection and regarding the striking out the value which is mentioned in the Ex.D.1 dtd. 7/6/1993 has not been corroborated by examining the author of the document and the author of the document can only give an explanation with regard to why it was striked out and when such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The reference Court has also taken note of the said fact into consideration. However, while passing an award, apart from the award amount passed by the LAO, considered the claim of the appellant and awarded 50% of the award amount and when such being the case, I do not find any force in the argument of the appellant counsel to enhance the same by taking note of the Ex.D.1, which is striked out and no explanation is found with regard to the said fact and the right person to speak with regard to the same is the author and when the author has not been examined, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 9. Answer to Point No.2 : In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.