GURUPADAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka by a preliminary notification dated 23-3-1976 had commenced acquisition proceedings in respect of lands belonging to the present appellant as also his elder brother Noorandappa and several others who are residents of Kamalapur Village. The present appellant points out that both his brother and he were aggrieved by the compensation awarded and that the matter was therefore taken to the Court for enhancement. The District Court granted some enhancement after which, the appellant's brother carried the matter higher to this Court by way of M.F.A. No. 852 of 1985 and the Government had also appealed against the enhancement by way of M.F.A. No. 1520 of 1984. Both these appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench through a common judgment dated 15-6-1993. The Survey Nos. as far as Noorandappa's land are concerned are relevant because they are Survey Nos. 110/3, 111, 112 and 113. As far as the present appellant is concerned, the land acquired was from the adjoining Survey No. 109. In all, 9 acres 31 guntas of land were acquired from the appellant. All that he points out to this Court is that even though originally the lands relating to the appellant and to his brother Noorandappa were categorised as dry lands under the notification that on the basis of the record before the Court, the compensation came to be awarded to his brother at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per acre for the wet lands apart from certain other amounts. The appellant submits that having regard to the Division Bench decision of this Court that he is also entitled to receive compensation at the same rate.

(2.) In support of his contention, appellant's learned Advocate has produced certain documents before me which indicate that the appellant had dug a well and that he has also got an irrigation pump set, etc. Quite apart from this material, he basically seeks to place reliance on two aspects. One is the type of crops that were raised on the lands as are indicated in the revenue extracts but more importantly, oral evidence led before the lower Court of the petitioner and of several other persons whom he produced as witnesses. Learned Advocate submits that the evidence indicates two things. First is that there are clear-cut unambiguous statements made to the effect that the lands are irrigated. The description of the crops such as paddy, sugarcane, etc. has been given and this version of the appellant which is evidence on oath has not been challenged even though the appellant was cross-examined. Learned Advocate lends support of his argument from the fact that the same is the situation vis-a-vis all the remaining witnesses barring one of whom appears to have got confused in the cross-examination and denied everything. His submission is that for purposes of computation of the compensation, the totality of the material before the Court must be taken into account and that if there is divergence between the entries in the Revenue Records and the rest of the evidence that it is open to the Court to assess the evidence in its totality and to come to a conclusion that may be different from what is reflected in the Revenue Records. The strongest submission that he advanced is that the same standard that has been applied in the case of the adjoining lands which have been acquired from his brother must be applied to the appellant's case.

(3.) The appeal has been strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate. He submits that the appellant and his witnesses are bound to pitch their case as high as possible and that merely because they have made oral statements before the lower Court that these cannot override the presumptive value of the revenue extracts. He submits that under the law, a person who is claiming higher compensation or enhancement is required to substantiate the plea through unimpeachable evidence and it is his case that the appellant ought to have produced documentary evidence in relation to the raising of crops such as sugarcane, paddy, etc. which he could easily have done if he wanted the Court to overrule what is reflected in the Revenue Records. Secondly, what he submits is that merely because the lands are adjoining each other, it does not necessarily mean that they are of the same character but it is a well known fact that even among the adjoining lands some of them may be irrigated and some of them may be dry lands. He has therefore submitted that no parallel can be drawn between the two cases and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. I do concede that there is considerable substance in the submissions canvassed by the learned Government Advocate insofar as one cannot generalise with regard to an entire area and therefore, merely because the Court has taken a particular view in respect of one set of lands would not ipso facto entitle the neighbouring owner to claim a similar order and had that been the position I would have had no hesitation in straightaway dismissing the appeal.