PARAGOUDA CHANAGOUDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. MFA 3815/01 relates to LAC 1/90; MFA 3816/01 relates to LAC 5/90; MFA 3817/01 relates to LAC 3/90 and MFA 3818/01 relates to LAC 2/90.

(2.) DURING the course of this order, the parties shall be referred to as per their rankings in the Trial court.

(3.) PURSUANT to the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 3. 1. 1985, several bits of the lands belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of bridge across Krishna river. In MFA 3815/01 an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in R. S. No. 176/ 1 A and 176/1b; 0. 5 guntas in R. S. No. 177/14 and 30 guntas in R. S. No. 177/2, totally measuring 4 acres; in MFA 3816/01 an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in R. S. No. 177/7 and 5 guntas in R. S. No. 178/5, totally measuring 1 acre 8 guntas; in MFA 3817/01 an extent of 38 guntas in R. S. No. 177/5 and in MFA 3818/01 an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas in R. S. No. 177/3+4 were acquired under the aforesaid preliminary notification. All the lands are situate in Halyal village. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)relying on the sale statistics awarded a sum of Rs. 8100/- per acre. The claimants not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAO sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In support of their claim, the claimants examined PW. I Malagouda who is the claimant in LAC 1/90 and they also marked as many as 68 documents from Exs P. 1 to P. 68. The LAO who was the respondent in the proceedings in the reference court did not examine any one nor any documents were marked in support of their contention. The main contention before the reference court was that the LAO was not justified in taking the sale statistics for the period of three years immediately prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It was further contended before the reference court that the LAO has not taken into consideration the nature of soil and fertility of the lands acquired. They contended that the sale statistics do not depict the correct consideration amount which was paid to party and necessarily the sale statistics were under valued. The main contention before the reference court was that the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of a bridge across Krishna river. The lands in question are situate in halyal village and these lands are irrigated and sugarcane crops are grown in these lands and they are Bagayat lands. In support of their contention, the claimants got marked record of rights in respect of their respective lands which were marked as Exs. P. 25 to P. 63, which, according to them, clearly show that the lands are irrigated lands by taking water from Krishna river. In the record of rights it is mentioned that sugarcane crops are grown in these lands. It was the contention of the claimants before the reference court that the area is surrounded by several sugarcane factories in Karnataka as well as in Maharashtra States (lands are situate on the border of Maharashtra and Karnataka ). They also got marked Ex. P. 65 the yield certificate given by the asst. Director of Agriculture Athani and Ex. P. 68 the price list. The reference court taking into consideration the material on record and the evidence adduced struck a balance between minimum and maximum and adopting capitalisation method as laid down in the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR1983 SC 1190 , 1983 (2)SCALE1020 , (1983 )4 SCC542 , 1987 (Supp)SCC433 , [1984 ]1 SCR217 came to the conclusion that what is awardable to the claimants in respect of the lands acquired could be Rs. 54,500/ and accordingly passed the award with all additional and statutory benefits. As stated earlier, the claimants die-satisfied with the award passed by the reference court are before this court seeking enhancement of compensation.