SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. HANAMANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bilagi, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 8. 12. 2000 passed in LAC No. 3864/99 on the file of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ). , Jamkhandi, has preferred MFA. 1413/2001 whereas, the owners of the acquired land being aggrieved by the same judgment and award have filed MFA. CROB. No. 76/2002 seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre.

(2.) AN extent of 28 Acres 3 Guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 54 and 56/1 of Girigaon village of Bilagi Taluk was acquired for the purpose of submergence in the back water of Almatti Reservoir by issuing 4 (1) Notification dated 17. 10. 1996. The LAO after conducting the enquiry, awarded compensation of Rs. 12,500/- per acre for 8 Acres 5 Guntas in Sy. No. 54 and Rs. 26,800/- per acre for the remaining extent of wet land comprised in Sy. Nos. 54 and 56/1. The owners not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAO sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short the 'the Act') to the Civil Court. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- for the entire extent of acquired land excluding pot kharab. The LAO has preferred MFA. 1413/2001 contending that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is highly excessive. The owners of the acquired land have also preferred MFA. CROB. No. 76/2002 contending that the rate of compensation determined by the Civil Court at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre is very much on lower than the actual market value and have sought for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for the entire extent of the acquired land.

(3.) WE have heard learned Govt. Advocate for Land Acquisition and Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsel for the cross-objectors/owners. The only contention urged before us by the learned Govt. Advocate for Land Acquisition in support of the appeal preferred by the LAO is that the LAO on the basis of the information and materials available with him awarded compensation at different rates for dry and wet land, but quite curiously the Civil Court without assigning any reason as to why the entire extent of acquired land should be treated as of the same kind, has awarded compensation at common rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and that on that count itself, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsel appearing for cross objectors would contend that as per Ex. P. 13 which is a yield certificate, 50 tons of sugarcane was grown in every acre, but, for no good reason, the yield was taken as 45 tons only by the Reference Court Sri Basavaraj Kareddy would also contend that even taking the yield at 45 tons and the price of the sugarcane at the relevant point of time at Rs. 800/- per ton, the total income would be Rs. 36,000/- per acre and if 50% of the same is deducted towards the cost of cultivation, the net income would be Rs. 18,000/- per acre and in that view of the matter, if multiplier '10' is applied, the Reference Court should have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- p. a. , but the Reference Court completely ignoring its own finding and the evidence on record except Ex. P. 35, which is an award passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi, in LAC. 715/97 dated 16. 7. 1995 whereunder, 10 Acres 39 Guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 389/1 situated in Todalbagi village in Jamkhandi Taluk, has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre. To this, it has added probable escalation of cost at 10% and thereby determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. Sri Kareddy submitted that the above procedure adopted by the Reference Court having regard to the evidence on record is totally unwarranted and the compensation determined is totally unjust and unfair. Countering the claim of the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, learned Govt. Advocate would maintain that Ex. P. 35 is the document produced by the climants themselves and, therefore, they could not havae any legitimate grievance against the Supreme Court placing reliance on Ex. P. 35.