Karnataka High Court
Thimmappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
-1-
MFA No.102507/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102507 OF 2016 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THIMMAPPA
S/O. THIMMANNA NARASIMHAPPA RAJANAL,
AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O: TULASIGERI, TAL: BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
G.R.B.C., M.P.III, DHARWAD.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
K.N.N.N., M.B.C., DIV.NO.I,
GADDANAKERI, BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH (BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1;
COURT OF SRI SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
KARNATAKA
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION, 1894, PLEASE TO
ENHANCE THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.25,68,750/- PER ACRES TO
THE APPELLANT AS LAND BEARING R S NO.3/2A/2 MEASURING 0-25
GUNTAS SITUATED AT TULASIGERI VILLAGE OF BAGALKOT TALUK
DIST:BAGALKOT AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/04/2012
PASSED IN LAC NO.212/2009 BY THE HON'BLE IIND ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND ETC.,
-2-
MFA No.102507/2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
RESERVED ON 26.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
and
HON'BLE JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE BASAVARAJA)
1. Appellant/Claimant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 02nd April, 2012 passed in LAC No.212 of 2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their rank and status before the Reference Court.
3. Brief relevant facts leading to this appeal are that claimant is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.3/2A/2 measuring 25 guntas of land situated in Tulasageri village. This land was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for formation of Canal under GRBC Scheme by publishing preliminary notification dated 15th December, 2005 in No.LAQ/SR/124/04-05 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short hereinafter referred to "the Act"). The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on -3- MFA No.102507/2016 31st July, 2008, while determining the value of the land as Nil, awarded compensation of Rs.76,825/- for 25 coconut trees; Rs.1,52,200/- for 50 Chikku plants; and Rs.1,23,000/- towards 300 pomegranate plants, totally Rs.3,52,025/- with statutory benefits; and further awarded Rs.27,328/- to the bore-well existed in the land. The award notice was served on the claimant on 12th December, 2008. Being aggrieved by the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant, , sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, on 02nd February, 2009. Thereafter, the case was referred and registered in LAC No.212 of 2009 for determination of actual market value of the property. On reference, both the parties appeared before the Reference Court. Opponents No.1 and 2 have filed their separate objections. The substance of objection statement is that, the acquired land was of low quality at the time of acquisition. The raising of crop in the acquired land depended only upon the uncertain rainfall. Therefore, it was difficult to raise even one crop per year and it had no irrigation facility. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has visited the acquired land and has made thorough enquiry about the quality of land and the crops raised in the said land and properly determined the market value of the acquired land. Absolutely, there are no grounds to enhance -4- MFA No.102507/2016 the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and that there are no materials to come to conclusion that the compensation awarded is inadequate. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the Reference Petition.
4. To prove the case of the claimant/appellant, one Parashuram Gopal Kakandgi was examined (common evidence was recorded in LACs No.212, 215 and 216 of 2009). Four documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14. On closure of claimant's side evidence, respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf. The certified copy of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was marked as Exhibit R1, with consent. Having heard arguments on both sides, the Reference Court dismissed the Reference Petition by confirming the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the Reference Court, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri M.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the land in question is an irrigated land as the claimant is having a bore-well in the land and is taking two crops a year. He further submits that in the spot inspection, the official has specifically given a finding that the land in -5- MFA No.102507/2016 question is irrigated land and therefore, the non-consideration of the bore-well by the Reference Court is bad and therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further it is submitted that the Assistant Executive Officer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, Kaladagi has prepared valuation report for the bore-well in the land in question at Rs.27,328/-.
6. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act pertaining to the land in question in Official Gazette on 15th December, 2005 for the purpose of formation of canal under GRBC Scheme. Exhibit P4- Gazette notification issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in No.LAQ/SR/120/04-05 dated 15th December, 2005, reveals that the same Special Land Acquisition Officer has issued preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to secure the lands of Ganganbudihal, Jalageri and Bandgeri villages of Badam Taluk for formation of Canal under GRBC Scheme, vide notification dated 28th January, 2006, within a gap of one month eleven days. The land in question and the lands acquired in Exhibit P4, which is a general award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer pertaining to Ganganbudihal, Jalageri and Bandgeri villages of Badam Taluk, -6- MFA No.102507/2016 are very close to each other. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, to the lands in Jalageri village of Badami Taluk, situate in Sy.No.211/1A, 211/1B, 211/2 and (211JMC) measuring 28 guntas, has awarded compensation at Rs.1,12,965/- for 86 pomegranate plants, Rs.4,73,450/- for 48 Chikku plants; Rs.3,60,697/- for 39 coconut trees in total Rs.9,47,112/- as per valuation report submitted by the Senior Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Zilla Panchayat, Badami Taluk. Whereas, the same Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation to the land in question by determining the value of coconut trees at Rs.3,073/- each; Rs.3,044/- and Rs.410/- for each Chikku and pomegranate plant. In both the cases, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation to the horticulture crops viz. Chikku, Coconut and Pomegranate, on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Zilla Panchayat, Bagalkot. But the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not assigned any reason for fixing less market value for coconut, Chikku and pomegranate plands in the land in question. The respondents have not adduced any evidence to discard the evidence of PW1 and countenance of Exhibit P4. PW1 has clearly stated that the land in question and the lands falling in Exhibit P4 general award, are one and the same as to -7- MFA No.102507/2016 the locality, quality and fertility of the soil is concerned. However, the respondent No.1 has ignored the same and without any evidence, the Reference Court has rejected the reference petition without appreciating evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer itself reveals that there is a bore-well in the land in question and the appellant has grown Pomegranate and Chikku plants, as also, Coconut trees. Though the Special Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned about the bore-well in the land, he has considered this land as dry land, which prima facie reveals that the order of Special Land Acquisition Officer is illegal and contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court. Without assigning any reasons, the Special Land Acquisition Officer discriminated in awarding compensation to the land in question and passed an award in respect of the lands shown in Exhibit P4, which are situated in the same district and near the lands, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On all these grounds sought to allow the appeal by awarding compensation, as per the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per Exhibit P4.
7. As against this, Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the official -8- MFA No.102507/2016 respondent and Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submit that the Reference Court has passed the award in accordance with law and facts which does not call for any interference in this appeal and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Official Respondent, and on perusal of appeal papers and original records, the following points would arise for our consideration:
1. Whether the Reference Court is justified in confirming the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer?
2. What Order or award?
9. Our answer for the above points is:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order
10. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is appropriate to mention as to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA AND ANOTHER -9- MFA No.102507/2016 reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, has observed as under:
"4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day.
It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most
- 10 -
MFA No.102507/2016comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
- 11 -MFA No.102507/2016
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior
at a distance from the
Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the
area. depressed portion to be
filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special
acquistion. disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx.
- 12 -
MFA No.102507/2016between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense."
11. In view of the abovesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as Judgment of the trial Court open or exposed challenge before the Court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. Court has treat as original proceedings before
- 13 -
MFA No.102507/2016it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
12. In the instant case, PW1 has clearly deposed in his evidence that the land in question is an irrigated land. The claimant has grown horticulture crops like pomegranate, Chikku and coconut. Respondents have not passed just compensation to these trees. The respondent has acquired lands at Ganganabudihal, Jalageri and Bandageri also for the purpose of formation of Canal under GRBC Scheme vide No. LAQ SR 120/2004-05 and on the basis of the award in respect of Survey No.211 of Jalageri village which belong to Bheemappa, Mokashi and others, in which the owners of land have grown pomegranate, Chikku and coconut, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1,12,965/-, 4,73,450/- and 3,60,697/-, in total Rs.9,47,112/-. Further, he has deposed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,314/- each for pomegranate plant; Rs.9,864/- to each Chikku plant; and Rs.9,249/- for each coconut tree, whereas in the instant case the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation at Rs.410/- and Rs.3,044/- per pomegranate and Chikku plant respectively, and Rs.3,073/- for a coconut tree and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.2,68,285/-. He has further deposed that
- 14 -
MFA No.102507/2016the nature of soil, weather, yield and market value as per the valuation report issued by the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, the quality and fertility of lands in Jalageri village and the land of the appellant, are one and the same. However, the respondent without assigning any reason, has awarded unjust and unscientific compensation to the land in question causing economic loss to the claimant. He has also produced the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which is marked as Exhibit P4 which pertains to Ganganabudihal, Jalageri and Bandageri villages of Badami Taluk.
13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to examine the material placed by the claimant. Exhibit P4 is the general award dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, III-Malaprabha Project, Dharwad in LAQ SR 120/2004- 05 pertaining to preliminary notification issued on 26th January, 2006 for acquisition of lands situated in Ganganabudihal, Jalageri and Bandageri villages of Badami Taluk which were acquired for similar purpose. It is evident from this award that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,12,965/- for 86 pomegranate trees, Rs.4,73,450/- for 48 Chikku trees and Rs.3,60,697/- for 39 coconut trees grown in land in Survey No.211/1A, 211/1B,
- 15 -
MFA No.102507/2016211/2 and (211 JMC) measuring 28 guntas as per the valuation report submitted by the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture (Zilla Panchayat), Badami.
14. Exhibit R1, the copy of the general award passed in LAQ JSR 124/2004-05 dated 31st July, 2008 pertaining to preliminary notification dated 15th December, 2005, pertaining the land in question, i.e. Survey No.3/2A/2 of Tulasageri, in which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has observed that the said land measuring 25 guntas belongs to Thimmanna Narashimappa Rajanhal and as per the pahani extract, it is a dry land, but on inspection he found that there is a bore-well and the said land is an irrigated land through bore-well water and he has awarded compensation of Rs.76,825/- for 25 coconut trees; Rs.1,52,200/- for 50 coconut plants and Rs.1,23,020/- for 300 pomegranate trees on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Senior Director of Horticulture (Zilla Panchayat), Bagalkot talluk. He has also awarded an amount of Rs.27,328/- to the bore-well, as per valuation report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, MBC, Sub-Division-12, Kaladgi and he has not awarded any compensation to the land, as the land was covered with abovesaid trees and had a bore-well. If we calculate this amount for each tree, it comes to Rs.410/- per
- 16 -
MFA No.102507/2016pomegranate tree; Rs.3,044/- and Rs.3,073/- per Chikku plant and coconut tree respectively.
15. It is evident from Exhibit P4 that, one O. Kishan Chand, KAS Officer, Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the General Award pertaining to LAQ SR 120/2004-05 which pertains to preliminary notification issued on 26th January, 2006 for acquisition of lands in Ganganabudihal, Jalageri and Bandageri villages of Badami Taluk. Exhibit R1 is the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer pertaining to land in question in LAQ JSR 124/2004-05 which is acquired vide preliminary notification dated 15th December, 2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, has also been passed by the same Special Land Acquisition Officer of Malaprabha Project-I, Bagalkot. Both the awards will not indicate as to on what basis the Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value of pomegranate, Chikku and coconut trees. However, it is observed that the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that on the basis of the concerned Assistant Director of Horticulture, he has awarded the compensation. The age and yield of the trees, have not been disclosed in both the awards. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has to produce and prove the material used by him for making his
- 17 -
MFA No.102507/2016valuation. In the case on hand, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has not disputed the award passed by him as per Exhibit P4 and Exhibit R1. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to place relevant material before the Reference Court. However, the Reference court has ignored the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the claimant has failed to adduce the evidence to award compensation as sought for though the claimant has produced undisputed document, i.e. the general award Exhibit P4, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Taking note of the distance between Tulasageri of Bagalkot Taluk and Jalageri of Badami Taluk, which is 13.2 kilometers as per Google Map, as also, considering that the nature of land, fertility, quality, locality and the weather conditions are one and the same as stated by PW1, which is not disputed by the other side, so also, the gap of preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in No.LAQ JSR 124/2004-05 dated 15th December, 2005 and in LAQ SR 120/2004-05 dated 26th January, 2006, is only one month and eleven days, and also in the absence of any contra evidence placed by the claimant, we are of the view that without any material or without assigning
- 18 -
MFA No.102507/2016any proper reason, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has made discrimination in awarding the compensation to the land in question. It is also necessary to observe here that appellant has produced a copy of Compromise Award passed in LAC No.575 of 2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami arising of the application of the claimants filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of land bearing Survey No.134/1 and 134/2 measuring 3 acre 15 guntas situated at Yandigeri village, was referred to Lok Adalat, Badami. In the Lok Adalat, the claimants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer of GRBC MP1, Bagalkot, compromised the Reference case. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as per which the case was decreed enhancing the market value in respect of 25 coconut trees at Rs.9,250/- per tree, 10 tamarind trees at Rs.13,450/-, Rs.9,860/- per sapota tree; Rs.6,150/- per pomegranate tree; Rs.3,960/- per guava tree; Rs.5,500/- per lemo tree; and Rs.37,400/- per mango tree; and Rs.1,00,000/- per teak tree situated in the land bearing Survey No.134/1 and 134/2 mesuring 3 acre 15 guntas of Yandigeri village. The said document is not disputed by the other side.
- 19 -
MFA No.102507/2016
16. Taking into consideration all these materials placed before this Court and keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,314/- and Rs.9,864/- per each pomegranate and Chikku plants and Rs.9,248/- per coconut tree, as awarded to the similar standing crops situate in the land acquired at Jalageri village of Badami Taluk as per Exhibit P4. With regard to bore-well is concerned, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.27,328/- as per the valuation report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, Malaprabha, which is not in dispute and the claimant has also not sought any enhancement of compensation in this regard. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the bore- well needs no interference by this Court.
17. With regard to compensation in respect of the land of the claimant is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent has acquired the land bearing survey No.3/2A/2 measuring 25 guntas. It is also admitted fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation to the land in question for the reason that he has already awarded compensation to the standing crops as also the bore-well situated in the said land. The reason assigned by the Special
- 20 -
MFA No.102507/2016Land Acquisition Officer cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR v. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS ETC. rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.5611/5612 of 2021 and connected civil appeal decided on 09th September, 2021; and in the case of AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2011(9) SCC 325. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, we have to examine the case on hand to determine the actual market value of land as on the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. PW1 has deposed that the land in question would value more than Rs.20.00 lakh per acre. To substantiate this, the claimant has not produced any other document except Exhibit R1, which is the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Admittedly, the land in question is a Bhagayat (irrigated) land situate in Tulasageri of Bagalkot taluk. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation to the land in question. However, on the basis of average sale statistics from 15th December, 2002 to 15th December, 2005, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.98,090/- to the bagayat (irrigated) land of Tulasageri village, which is not in
- 21 -
MFA No.102507/2016dispute. The Reference Court has committed an error in not considering this undisputed documentary evidence placed by the parties, i.e. Exhibit R1 and rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is not sustainable under law. Since there is no evidence placed before this Court to enhance the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Bagayat (irrigated) land situated in Tulasageri, it is appropriate to determine the actual market value of the land on the basis of the admitted document Exhibit R1 and accordingly, we have determined the market value of the land in question at Rs.98,090/- per acre. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2
18. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed with costs;
(ii) Judgment and award dated 02nd April, 2012 passed in LAC No.212 of 2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot is set aside;
(iii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.98,090/- per acre to the land in survey No.3/2A/2
- 22 -MFA No.102507/2016
measuring 25 guntas situate at Tulasageri of Bagalkot Taluk, with all statutory benefits;
(iv) The appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation for the standing crops, per each plant/tree, as follows:
Awarded Enhanced
Sl.No. Standing Crop by SLAO amount
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
1. For each
410.00 1,314.00
Pomegranate plant
2. For each Chikku
3,044.00 9,864.00
plant
3. For each coconut
3,073.00 9,249.00
tree
(v) The appellant is entitled for statutory benefit, like solatium, additional market value and interest as contemplated under Sections, 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
(vi) Draw award accordingly;
(vii) Registry to transmit the trial court records along with a copy of this judgment and award to the Reference Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE lnn