Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1224 (KAR)

Ramu v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

2022-09-16

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and award passed in LAC No.53/2001 dtd. 3/3/2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi, at Jamkhandi, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the trial Court is that, the property belongs to the claimant/appellant is acquired to the extent of 3 acres and 14 guntas of Todalbagi village, Jamakhandi taluka in Survey No.303/1+2+3/3, and award has been passed in LAQ-SR-2/98-99, vide award dtd. 13/7/1999. The respondent has considered the appellant land as dry lands and awarded Rs.13, 725.00 per acre. Being dissatisfied by the compensation amount, the appellant has filed reference application and the reference application was allowed in part and enhanced the market value to an extent of Rs.96.250 per acre with all statutory benefits vide Judgment dtd. 3/3/2010. The reference Court has adopted the capitalization method in arriving at the market value and hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the counsel before this Court is that, the reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that, the land which was acquired is having non-agricultural potentiality and the very approach of the reference Court by adopting capitalization method is erroneous. The claimant even though had produced the copies of the sale deeds to substantiate his case, but the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons has declined to accept the same. The trial Court has overlooked the fact that, the appellant was running a Dhaba (road side hotel), over the part of the acquired land which itself demonstrate that, the acquired lands are abutting to the main road and have the non-agricultural potentiality. The sale deeds which have been produced before the trial Court, which are near to the acquired land and the evidentiary value of the said witnesses which have been examined in respect of the sale deeds, were also discarded by the trial Court and hence, committed an error in appreciating the material on record. 4. The counsel also would submits that, Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14 are the sale deeds of the year 18/2/1998, 15/11/1996, 22/11/1976 and though sale deeds are prior to the acquisition of the subject matter of this land and 4(1) notification was issued on 23/4/1998 in respect of the acquired land. 4. The counsel also would submits that, Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14 are the sale deeds of the year 18/2/1998, 15/11/1996, 22/11/1976 and though sale deeds are prior to the acquisition of the subject matter of this land and 4(1) notification was issued on 23/4/1998 in respect of the acquired land. The acquisition is also for rehabilitation center and evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the abutting land owners who came before the Court and adduced their evidence and their evidence has also not been considered and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would submits that, Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.10 are the sale deeds under which adjacent lands were acquired and though the sale deeds are prior to three years of the notification, admittedly, the land acquired is agricultural land and the same is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and also other witnesses and the trial Court also, when rejecting the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 assigned the reasons and reasoned order has been passed and when such being the case, the question of allowing the appeal does not arise. 6. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellants would submits that, the lands which have been acquired are interior agricultural lands, but this property is adjacent to highway i.e. abutting the highway and other survey number sale deeds which have been relied upon in respect of Survey No.181 and the same is abutting straight road and hence, the same cannot be yardstick to compute the fair compensation and hence, it requires interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State/respondent and also on perusal of the material available on record and also the grounds urged in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are : (i) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in fixing the market value of Rs.96, 250.00 per acre and whether it requires enhancement? (ii) What order ? 8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the materials, there is no dispute with regard to the notification and also the award passed by the trial Court and also enhancement made by the reference Court. (ii) What order ? 8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the materials, there is no dispute with regard to the notification and also the award passed by the trial Court and also enhancement made by the reference Court. The reference Court also considered the point for consideration particularly the point Nos.2 and 3 and taken note of the lands which are in question which are acquired situated abutting to the Bijapur-Jamkhandi highway and it is the claim of the claimant that it has got non-agricultural potentiality. The main contention is that, the surrounding lands have been converted into nonagricultural lands. On the contrary, it is contended by the respondent counsel that, after visiting the spot and on inspection of the acquired land, the compensation was determined. The claimants examined the son of the original owner as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contention of the claimant in his evidence and he was cross-examined and in his evidence also he reiterated that the land is having non-agricultural potentiality. But in the evidence also, he categorically admitted that, the portion of Dhaba consequent to the order passed by the High Court was not included in the acquisition and remaining land has been acquired. In the cross-examination, he admits that Chikkalaki Cross is located at the distance of 20 kilometers from Jamkhandi, but he claims that, from Chikkalaki Cross to Todalabagi there is a distance of 1, 1/2 kilometers to 2 kilometers, but it was suggested that it was at the distance of 4 kilometers and the same has been denied. In the further crossexamination, he admits that, Survey No.305 is adjacent to the land of the land which was acquired and also he admits that Survey No.305 is on the west of the survey No.304. It is suggested that Survey No.305 was sold on 22/2/1997 for an amount of Rs.60, 000.00, but he says that, he is not aware of the same and further suggestion was made that, out of the said survey number, 04 acres 17 guntas was sold for an amount of Rs.17, 500.00 which is also abutting Bijapur-Jamkhandi road and also he gives an answer that he was not aware of the same, but he has not denied the said suggestion. He also admits that, Survey No.304 was also acquired for rehabilitation center and the same was questioned and an amount of Rs.24, 000.00 was awarded and the said suggestion denied. He admits that, the distance between Chikkalaki and Chikkalaki Cross is 1, 1/2 kilometers to 2 kilometers. In the further cross-examination he admits that, Survey No.303 to 305 are located adjacent to each other. It is suggested that out of Survey No.305/1A, 4 acres were sold on 22/2/1997 for an amount of Rs.40, 000.00 and the same was denied. But he admits that, the land which was acquired belongs to them was agricultural land and also he admits that, he has not produced any document to show the income. But he claims that, in the year 1997, they were growing groundnut and sunflower. He admits that, the adjacent land was also acquired and award was passed and the compensation was also paid. The other witnesses are P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who comes and gives deposition before the Court that, they have got converted the land for nonagricultural purpose and P.W.2 in his evidence claims that, the land which was converted is at the distance of 100-200 feet from the acquired land. His land is also abutting to the Hubli-Bijapur Highway. But in the cross-examination, he admits that, his land is coming within the area of Chikkalaki village and he converted the land in the year 1998 for non-agricultural purpose. He also admits that, the said land is not attached to the Todalbagi village. He admits that, in the year 1995-1998 in Todalbagi village, total 128 lands were sold to the public. He further admits that, the maximum sale consideration per acre was Rs.15, 000.00 i.e. in between three years of 4(1) notification. He admits that, his land is at the distance of 2 kilometers from Chikkalaki village and Todalbagi is 3 kilometers from that cross. It is further important to note that, he admits that, he converted his land in the year 1998 to the non-agricultural land and till 2001, only one plot was sold and having considered this statement, the trial Court has not considered his evidence. The other witness is P.W.3 who claims that, his land is nearer to the acquired land and converted the same for non-agricultural purpose and sold it to the public. He relied upon the sale deed at Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. The other witness is P.W.3 who claims that, his land is nearer to the acquired land and converted the same for non-agricultural purpose and sold it to the public. He relied upon the sale deed at Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. But he admits that, the plots sold are for a negligible area and also he admits that, in order to establish the hotel and get loan, he got converted the same for non-agricultural purpose and hence, the trial Court has not considered his evidence. The other witness is P.W.4. He claims that, he is one of the purchaser of the plot out of the layout formed by the P.W.3 and he purchased the plot on 22/12/1997 for Rs.11, 500.00. The said plot is at a distance of 2 plots from the acquired land. But in the cross-examination he admits that before the establishment of the rehabilitation center, near Chikkalaki cross, there are only hotels which were in existence and there was no any electric connection in Chikkalaki cross. He also admits that the acquired land is at a distance of more than 20 kilometers from Jamakhandi and hence, his evidence is also not accepted. The other witness is P.W.5 i.e. ADLR of Jamakhandi and the document at Ex.P.4 got marked and he categorically admits that in their Office they are not having the sketch pertaining to two villages and no details in Ex.P.4 and the original Ex.P.4 was also not brought and no details of direction in Ex.P.4 and also he admits that he is not having any document or sketch showing adjoining to the land of Todalabagi and hence, the trial Court has not admitted the evidence of P.W.5 since Ex.P.4 is prepared to help the claimant and also taken note that in Ex.P.4, there is no mark showing North-South or East West direction, the same was not accepted. No doubt, it is the contention of the appellant counsel that, the property which was acquired was having nonagricultural potentiality and no dispute that, in the land acquired by the respondent, there was a Dhaba and the same has been excluded and the remaining land has been acquired and there is no dispute with regard to the said fact. Merely because there exists Dhaba in the survey number, it cannot be held that, it has got non-agricultural potentiality. Merely because there exists Dhaba in the survey number, it cannot be held that, it has got non-agricultural potentiality. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 not helps the claimants to comes to the conclusion that it has got non-agricultural potentiality and though the land was acquired belongs to P.W.2 and he categorically admits that only one plot was sold and also he categorically admits that the maximum sale consideration per acre is Rs.15, 000.00 in between 1995-1998 in Todalabagi village in respect of 121 lands which were sold to the public and this acquisition is also in the year 1998, and while calculating the sale consideration to take note of three years prior to the notification and though P.W.1 says that, the distance between Chikkalaki to Todalabagi is 1, 1/2 kilometers. P.W.3 has categorically admitted that, the distance is 3 kilometers and P.W.4 says it is 4 kilometers and no doubt the sale deeds are produced at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.13 to show that, the sale deeds are made in respect of converted land and admittedly the land which was acquired is agricultural land and P.W.1 categorically admits in the crossexamination that in the year 1997 they have grown groundnut and sunflower and based on the said materials only, the trial Court adopted the method of capitalization and comes to the conclusion that the property is not having non-agricultural potentiality and calculated the same based on the price of the groundnut and as well the sunflower in paragraph No.12 of the Judgment and also taken note of the yield of sunflower per acre 11 quintals and yield of groundnut is taken at 7 quintals per acre. It is not the case of the appellants that they were getting more yield, having taken note of by the trial Court and also it is not the case of the appellant that the price was more than the trial Court has taken and only based on that price and yield 50% was deducted towards cost of cultivation and arrived at an amount of Rs.96, 250.00 per acre by applying multiplier 10' and when such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court and the trial Court has given its anxious consideration to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 in toto and in order to substantiate the fact that, it has got non-agricultural potential, no other material is placed before the Court and the trial Court has rightly not considered the document at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14 and admittedly, P.W.2 says that, the value was Rs.15, 000.00 in between 1995-1998 per acre and other witness also have categorically admits in their evidence the lands were sold even below the price of the trial Court has taken Rs.96, 250.00 and particularly, P.W.1 in the cross-examination when the suggestion was made that when the adjacent land was sold for an amount of Rs.60, 000.00 and Rs.70, 500.00 he did not deny it specifically and intelligently he has given the answer that, he was not aware of the same and it was not his case that, at that price the land was not sold. It is also important to note that, when he categorically admits that in the year 1997, the land was used for growing groundnut and sunflower, the very contention that, it was having non-agricultural potentiality cannot be accepted and the trial Court considered the evidence of each of the witnesses and the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the land which was acquired not having non-agricultural potentiality and it was an agricultural land and hence, has rightly adopted the capitalization method taking the yield as well as the price and hence, no grounds to reverse the finding of the trial Court. Hence, I answer the point as negative. 9. Answer to Point No.2 : In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.