SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. BALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals arise out of a common order made by the Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi whereby L. A. C. Nos. 3 to 12 of 2000 have been partly allowed and compensation payable to the respondents-landowners enhanced to Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre as against Rs. 17,400/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 26,100/- per acre for wetlands awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) A large extent of land situated in different survey numbers of takkalaki Village in Bilagi Taluk was notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in connection with the construction of the Almatti reservoir. This included an area measuring around twenty acres notified in March 1996 which was meant to submerge in the backwaters of the reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award by which he determined Rs. 17,400/- per acre as compensation for dry lands and Rs. 26,100/- per acre for wetlands. This assessment was based on sale statistics which did not satisfy the landowners. At their instance, land acquisition references were made to the Civil Judge at jamkhandi. The Reference Court has by the judgment impugned in this appeal held that the entire extent of land forming the subject-matter of the aforementioned references was irrigated land. It has further found that the market value of the land determined by the capitalisation method was not less than Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre. The references were accordingly disposed of enhancing compensation with statutory benefits like solatium and additional market value. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced market value for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years has also been awarded. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the said judgment as noticed earlier.

(3.) MR. Ashok Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant in all these appeals contended that the Reference Court was not justified in holding that the entire extent of land acquired from the respondents was irrigated land. He urged that the evidence on record did not support that conclusion. Alternatively, he submitted that the Reference Court had fallen in error in holding that the market value of the land in question was Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre. The yield and the income from the same were not according to the learned Counsel determined correctly.