SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. SANAGOUDA PARAGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Civil Judge, Belgaum, in LAC. Nos.1036, 1032 and 1034/70. The lands acquired are 26 acres 34 guntas in S.No.98, 12 acres 17 gunats in S.No.72/1 plus 2, 14 acres 23 guntas in S.No.92.3, 1 acre 10 guntas in S.No.96/7, and 1 acre 22 guntas in S.No.96/ 10. The last three lands were the subject-matter of LAC. 1034/70 and the other two are the subject-matters of LAC. Nos. 1036 and 1032 of 1970 respectively. The lands are situated in Majati village, Hukeri Taluk, Belgaum- District. The purpose of acquisition was for the Hidkal Dam Project. The preliminary notifications were issued on 26-6-63, 12-1-62 and 16-9-63. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2500 per acre for Bagayat Class I lands, at the rate of Rs.2000 for Bagayat Class II lands. Rs.1200 for Karesuli Class II lands, at the rate of Rs.1000 for Karesuli Class III lands, at the rate of Rs.1000 for Kempsuli Class II lands, Rs.800 for Kempsuli Class III lands, at the rate of Rs.1000 for Hal soil and at Rs.100 for waste land. The learned Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.3500 for Class I bagayat. lands, Rs.3000 for Bagayat Class II lands, Rs.1500 for Karesuli Class III lands, Rs.1200 for Kempsuli Class III lands, Rs.1800 for Jawar and Ground nut growing lands and Rs.150 for waste lands. He also awarded compensation of Rs.4690 towards the value of the well situated in S.No.98 in LAC.No. 1036/70 according to the valuation made by the Executive Engineer and for which no compensation has been paid by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) The learned Civil Judge considered the oral evidence with regard to the yield and was of the opinion that the figures given by the claimants were exaggerated. The Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence has given the figures with regard to the yield from the respective lands on the basis of the crop cutting experiment held by competent authorities and the rates obtained from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Adopting the rates mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, examined as DW.1, and multiplying the net income so calculated by 20 times, the learned Civil Judge arrived at the value of the lands acquired. Hence, the finding of the learned Civil Judge with regard to the valuation of the lands has to be confirmed.

(3.) The main contention urged on behalf of the appellant-Land Acqisition' Officer in these cases is, that the claim for enhanced compensation is barred under S.25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is relevant to state that the Respondent-Claimant in each of the appeals is the same person. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the claimant who had been served with notices under S.9 of the Act had either refused to make a claim or had omitted without sufficient reason to make such a claim, and is not therefore entitled to claim enhanced compensation. The claimant has admitted that he had been served with the notices under S.9 of the Act, but has not, preferred any claim statements in response to the notices. He has stated in his evidende that he was not aware of the penal nature of the consequences of the failure to file his claim statements after the said notices and therefore did not file his claim statements. He has also pleaded that he is an illiterate villager and was ignorant of the penal consequences of such failure. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his evidence that he is not in a position to state whether the penal consequences flowing from non-compliance with the notices under S.9 of the Act had been explained to the claimant or not since the notices had been issued long before he took charge of his office. The learned Civil Judge held that the claimant has acted in good faith, that there does not appear to be any negligence on his part, that he was not aware of the technical provisions of S:9 and S.25 of the Act, that he therefore failed to prefer claims in response to the notices under S.9, and. came to the conclusion that there was sufficient reason for the omission under S.25(3) of the Act, and that therefore the claimant is entitled to ask for enhanced compensation. The correctness of this conclusion is challenged before us.