SHARANAPPA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge at gulbarga whereby LAC No. 31 of 1984 has been allowed in part and the amount of compensation payable to the appellant-landowner enhanced from rs. 2,000/- per acre to Rs. 4,000/- per acre with consequential statutory benefits. The appellant-landowner has appealed to this Court for a suitable enhancement of the said amount.

(2.) AN area measuring 6 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 8/1 of Village Rajapur near Gulbarga city was notified for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification dated 8-7-1976 for the purpose of construction of a Government Arts and Science College. Six years after the notification, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award determining the compensation payable to the landowners at Rs. 2,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said amount, some of the landowners sought references to the Civil Court for determination of the just and fair compensation payable to them. The reference made at the instance of the appellant herein was registered as LAC no. 31 of 1984 which was by a common order dated 8-2-1988 disposed of by the Court below enhancing the amount payable to the owners to Rs. 4,000/-per acre as already noticed earlier. While doing so, the Reference Court took note of the material placed on record and concluded that the land in question had on account of the development in its vicinity acquired non-agricultural potential. The deposition of the witnesses produced before the Reference court suggested that the land acquired from the appellant-landowner was better situate than that acquired for the establishment of the University campus at Gulbarga. Keeping in view that the land acquired for the campus had been paid for at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre, the compensation payable to the landowners could not according to the Reference Court be less than the said amount especially when the land of the appellant was nearer to Gulbarga city than that acquired for the University campus.

(3.) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Shankar, strenuously argued that the Reference Court was in error in limiting the amount of compensation to 4,0007- per acre only. He submitted that if the land acquired from the appellant was better situate than that acquired for the University campus, there was no justification for the Reference Court to restrict the enhancement to what was paid for the said land. The better location of the land of the appellant in terms of the distance from the city of Gulbarga and its non-agricultural potential should have, according to the learned Counsel, earned a better compensation for the appellant. He urged that the Land acquisition Officer having failed to make any award for nearly 6 years from the date of the preliminary notification, this Court would be justified in awarding compensation to the appellant by reference to the value of the land as on the date of the award instead of the market value prevalent on the date of issue of the preliminary notification. Mr. Shankar also placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in M. F. A Nos. 2107" of 1994 and 239 and connected matters of 1997. He urged that the acquisitions which formed the subject-matter of the said two appeals also related to lands situate in close proximity of the land acquired from the appellant so that the amount held payable to the owners in those cases could be reasonably made a basis for enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in the present appeal.