SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PORTS MANGALORE Vs. OVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Port Manglore, and are directed against a common award made by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, South Kanara, in OP.No. 806/67, LAC.Nos.27, 28, 29 and 30 of 1967. Since the claimant is common in all these cases, these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. The lands comprised in these cases are dry, garden, wet II and wet III lands. In regard to the said lands the Land Acquisicion Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000, 3,000, 2,400 to 4,000 and Rs.2,400 per acre respectively. On a reference to the Court at the instance of the Claimant, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000, 13,200, 8,800 to 13,300 and Rs. 6,600 per acre respectively, in regard to the abovesaid lands. Aggrieved by this award, the land Acquisition Officer, has approached this Court in the present appeals. MFA.No.340/69 arises out of OP.No.806/67. MFA.No.341/69 arises out of LAC.No.27/67; MFA.No.342/69 arises out of LAC.No.28 67; MFA. No.343/69 arises out of LAC.No.29/67 and MFA.No.344/69 arises out of LAC.No.30/67. The Original Petition and the Land Acquisition Cases were all cases on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Mangalore. It is relevant to specifically refer to a few particulars regarding some of the lands, in the context of the arguments addressed before us. S.No.26/23 concerned in MFA.No.340/69 is a garden land, measuring 9 cents. The Claimant had claimed initially compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000 per acre. Later, when she asked for a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquistion Act, hereinafter called the Act, confined the claim to Rs.8,000 per acre. The Court treating the garden land as Wet II, for the reason that it was entirely surrounded by wet II lands, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.13,200 per acre. In the same appeal, S.No.26/28, measuring 43 cents, is a wet II land, in regard to which, the Claimant had claimed Rs.25,000 per acre, in response to the notice issued under S.9 of the Act. Later, while asking for a reference under S.18 of the Act, she confined her claim to Rs. 10,000 per acre. The Court, however , awarded Rs.13,200 per acre.

(2.) imilarly in MFA.No.341/69, one of the lands concerned is S.No.26/16, measuring 27 cents, classified as wet II. The Claimant before the LAC. had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000 per acre. Later, while asking for a reference to the Civil Court, she confined her claim to a rate of Rs.10,000 per acre. The Court, however, awarded Rs.13,200 per acre. In MFANo.342/69, one of the lands conerned is S.No.215/2, measuring 22 cents, classified as wet III (One crop land) . The claimant had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer, compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000 per acre. Later, while asking for a reference under S.18 of the Act, she confined her claim to a rate of Rs.5,000 per acre. The Court, however, awarded Rs.6,600 per acre. In MFA.No.343/69, the land concerned is S.No.173, classified as wet III. Here again, the Claimant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000 per acre and subsequently confined her claim to a rate of Rs.5,000 per acre in her application under S.18 of the Act. The Court, however, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.6,600 per acre. It is unnecessary to refer to the other lands and the compensation claimed therein, as the main argument addressed on behalf of the appellant in all these appeals centred round the above referred lands. The lower Court computed the compensation payable by adopting the capitalisation method. To that end it acted upon the 'geni' payable in regard to the wet II and wet III lands. The ruling price of rice on the relevant date has been taken as Rs.55 per mura. On behalf of the appellant, 'geni' or the rent recoverable from the lands and the ruling price of rice per mura was not seriously disputed. But, the following contentions were pressed for consideration by Sri N. S.Chandrasekhar, the learned High Court Government Pleader: (1) that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the application of the capitalisation method was not warranted by the evidence on record; (2) that the garden land concerned in S.No.26/23, which is the subject matter in MFA Nt.340/69, should not have been treated as a Wet II land and compensation awarded accordingly; and (3) that the determination of the compensation in regard to the lands enumerated above, far exceeded the claim made by the respondent in her application under S.18 of the Act; thus, the award is contrary to the provisions of S.25(1) of the Act. The first contention relates to the quantum of compensation. We have been taken through the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. It is clear that the learned Civil Judge has taken 12 muras of geni in regard to wet II land (capable of growing two crops), 8 muras of geni in regard to wet II Patla lands, yielding a single crop and 6 muras of geni per acre in regad to wet III land capable of yielding a single crop. He has also taken into account' the prevailing rate of rice in the year 1966 as Rs.55 per mura. That the rice was being sold at Rs.55 per mura is clear from the Gazette Notification issued by the relevant authority for that year. Having regard to the fact that these are wet lands, it cannot be said that the computation of the market value of the land by the learned Civil Judge is excessive. We, therefore, reject the contention in this regard, urged on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) As regards treating S.No.26 23 as a wet-land, although it is classified as a garden, the contention is that the lower Court was not justified in assuming that it was capable of being converted into a wet II land merely on the basis that it is surrounded on all sides with wet II lands. The fact that S.No.26/23 is classified as a garden land with buildings standing thereon, would not detract from its potentialities for conversion into a wet II land. It is well settled law, in matters relating to land acquisitions, that compensation must be awarded taking into consideration the value of the land with all its potentialities. In the instant case, it appears to us that the claimant has merely left it fallow in order to use it for the purpose of a farm tenant for her residence. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the learned Civil Judge has not erred in any manner in treating it as wet II land, on a par with the surrounding lands, for the purpose of determining the market value. Hence, this contention also fails.