ALLISAB Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate in this case. To start with, the appellant's learned Advocate has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of JADE BASAPPA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ILR1995 KAR 2474 , 1995 (6 )KarLJ130 in which this Court had observed as follows:

(2.) All this stage, it is necessary for me to record that the appellant who had lost approximately 3.40 acres of land had claimed that the yield from the land was 7 to 8 quintals per acre in his evidence and that in cross-examination, the case put to him was that the yield was only 5 to 6 quintals per acre. Again, certain figures from the A.P.M.C. had been produced. The appellant had contended that the price range was Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per quintal whereas the case put to him by the learned Government Advocate in cross-examination was that it would work out to Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal. The learned District Judge has taken the lower of the two figures whereas the appellant's learned Advocate submits before me that a benevolent approach ought to have been adopted and the higher of the two figures ought to have been taken. He does not dispute the fact that 40% fixed towards cost of cultivation is correct and if one were to take the yield at Rs. 250/- per quintal and the quantum at 6 quintals instead of 5, that the compensation would work out to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,000/- per acre to Rs. 6,000/- per acre and it is with regard to this aspect of the matter that this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate has defended the order and it is her submission that it is well settled law that the party claiming enhancement of compensation must satisfy the Court through cogent and concrete evidence that the enhanced amount claimed is fully justified on the basis of the principles applicable to such cases. She seriously contested the correctness of the argument that if the State itself put forward the case that the price would be anywhere between Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal and that the yield would be only between 5 to 6 quintals per acre, that these figures are the lowest possible for purposes of awarding compensation. It is her. submission that when the correctness of the figures put forward by the claimant are disputed that even if some alternate figures are suggested that these are no barometer for purposes of the ultimate fixation of compensation because in law the onus lies on the claimant to justify any higher award of compensation.