SUSHILA SIDDANA KHADE Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by claimants-appellants, is directed against the judgment and award dated 9* august 2004 in LAC No. 92/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hukkeri at hukkeri, on the ground that, the reference application filed by claimants-appellants have been rejected by Reference Court, confirming the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) LAND bearing R. S. No. 193/2 measuring 33 guntas situate at Kamatnur Village, Hukkeri Taluk, belgaum District, has been notified and acquired by Government through the respondent herein vide its preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20th August 1992 for the purpose of irrigation'. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking all relevant factors into consideration, by classifying the land in question as 'dry land', has fixed the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 16,000, per acre by his award dated 28th march 1995. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants-appellants herein filed the application for Reference under Section 18 (1) of the Land acquisitin Act and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the same to the jurisdictional reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court, in turn, after thorough evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, by adopting capitalisation method, taking 'chilli' as the crop grown in the land in question, taking the yield of the same in pursuance of the yield notification and the price list issued by the competent authority, giving necessary deduction towards the cost of cultivation at 50%, held that, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition officer is just, proper and reasonable and it does not find any ground for enhancement of compensation and thereby passed the judgment and award dated 9th August 2004. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by Reference Court, rejecting the reference petition filed by claimants-appellants, claimants-appellants herein felt necessitated to present this appeal for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court.

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for claimants-appellants and learned Government pleader appearing for respondent. After careful evaluation of the original records available on file threadbare and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Reference Court, it is manifest on the face of the judgment and award passed by Reference Court that, it has committed a grave error and material irregularity in rejecting the reference application filed by claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court has assigned reasons at paragraph 10 of its judgment stating that, since the major crop grown is 'chilli' and as per the price list for the year 1992-93, the rate of chilli was at Rs. 01,000/- per quintals. By adopting capitalisation method, as per the yield notification, the Reference Court has taken the yield of 'chilli' at 3. 01 quintals per acres. If 3. 01 quintals is multiplied by Rs. 01,000/- per quintal, it comes to Rs. 03,010/- and has deducted 50% towards cost of cultivation, which comes to Rs. 01,505/- Relying upon the Apex Court decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, the reference Court has adopted permissible multiplier '10' and arrived at Rs. 15,050/ -. It has further observed that, when Land Acquisition Officer himself has awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,000/- the claimants-appellants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. The yield of 'chilli' taken by Reference Court is contrary to the notification issued by the competent authority as per Ex. P5. In the notification issued by the competent authority, the yield of superior 'chilli' is known as 421 Kg. i. e. 04 quintals 21 kgs. per acre but the Reference Court has committed an error by taking the yield at 3. 01 quintals per acre. Further, the Reference Court has also committed an error in deducting 50% towards the cost of cultivation when it has treated the land as 'dry land' and applied the right multiplier by adopting capitalisation method. It is well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, in catena of judgments that, if the land is treated as 'dry land' then the just and reasonable deduction towards cost of cultivation in respect of 'dry land' is 40% and not 50% which is to be deducted if the land in dispute was 'wet land'. But, in the instant case, the Reference Court has committed an error in deducting 50% towards cost of cultivation.