N Savitha vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 11249 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

             DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                           PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                             AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7954/2014(LAC)
                             C/W
        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6429/2015(LAC)


IN MFA No.7954/2014

BETWEEN:

N. SAVITHA
D/O NARAYANASWAMY,
W/O ARJIN SRINIVASA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O PALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.                                 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
       PANDAVAPURA,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
                             2




2.   DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
     WILD LIFE DIVISION,
     ASHOKAPURAM,
     MYSORE -570008.
3.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     VIDHANASOUDHA BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-01.

4.   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

5.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     MANDYA DISTRICT,
     MANDYA-571401.                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, AGA A/W
MS. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)


IN MFA No.6429/2015

BETWEEN:


1.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     VIDHANASOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     BENGALURU -560001.
                               3




3.     THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
       WILD LIFE DIVISION,
       MYSORE-570001.

4.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       MANDYA DISTRICT,
       MANDYA-571401.

5.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       PANDAVAPURA,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.                  ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M. ARUNA SHYAM, AGA A/W
Ms. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

AND:

SMT. N. SAVITHA,
D/O NARAYANASWAMY,
W/O ARJIN SRINIVAS MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O PALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571438.                     ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

     THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2014 PASSED IN LAC
NO.35/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE,
& JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
PETITION COMPENSATION.

     THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   4




                            JUDGMENT

Miscellaneous First Appeal 7954/2014 is filed by the landlady

seeking enhancement of award of compensation and Miscellaneous

First Appeal 6429/2015 is filed by the State seeking reduction of

award of compensation awarded by the Reference Court by the

impugned common judgment and award dated 14.8.2014 passed in

LAC No.35/2011 awarding compensation of Rs.30,49,200/- per acre

and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees standing on the land along with

other statutory benefits.

2. The State Government issued preliminary Notification

dated 24.11.2008 under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for

acquisition of the land of the appellant bearing No.81/2 measuring

0.20 guntas of Bechark Revenue Village, Belagola Hobli,

Srirangapatna Taluk for expansion of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary

at Srirangapatna Taluk followed by Final Notification under the

provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act in the year 2009. Accordingly,

the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 8.10.2010 fixing

the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.21,488/- per

gunta and Rs.13,348/- for four coconut trees. Not being satisfied

with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the

owner/land loser filed protest petition under Section 18(1) of the

Act. On reference and on re-appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence relied upon by both parties, the Reference

Court by the impugned judgment and award dated 14 th August,

2014 awarded a sum of Rs.30,49,200/- per acre in respect of the

land in question and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees standing on the

land. Hence, the Land loser/owner filed the appeal for

enhancement of compensation and State has filed the appeal for

reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the

lis.

4. Sri P. Mahesha, learned Counsel for the appellant-

claimant/land loser/owner contended that the impugned judgment

and award passed by the Reference Court awarding a sum of

Rs.30,49,2000/- per acre is very meager and contrary to the both

oral and documentary evidence on record and therefore, the said

award amount requires further enhancement. He would further

contend that though the Reference Court has held that the land

acquired is situated by the side of Ranganatittu Bird Sanctuary and

nearby Mysore - Bangalore Highway road as per Ex.P.11, this Court

in the case of Smt. Rathnavasudev -vs- Special Land Acquisition

Officer in MFA No.6146/2011 has fixed the market value at the rate

of Rs.400/- per sq.ft. and the concerned Reference Court in LAC

No.134/2008 awarded a sum of Rs.375/- per sq. feet and the same

was confirmed by this Court in MFA No.11008/2011. The Reference

Court without considering the said material on record in proper

perspective, has erroneously awarded lesser compensation. He

would further contend that the material on record - Ex.P.17 depicts

that award passed by the very respondent for acquisition of land for

the purpose of formation of Mysuru-Bengaluru Double Railway

Broad Gauge in the year 2011 was for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs per

acre for agricultural land. Therefore, the Reference Court ought to

have considered the said material document and awarded the said

amount of compensation of Rs.60 lakhs per acre in the present case

also and as such, awarding meager amount has resulted in

miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he sought to allow the

miscellaneous first appeal filed by the claimant/land owner.

5. Per contra, Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional

Government Advocate, contended that the Land Acquisition Officer

considering the material on record has awarded a sum of

Rs.21,488/- per gunta i.e., Rs.8,59,520/- per acre and Rs.13,348/-

for four coconut trees. On being reference made, the Reference

Court awarded a compensation of Rs.33,600/- for four coconut

trees and Rs.30,49,200/- per acre which is exorbitant and without

any basis. She further contended that Exs.P.7 to 10 - the Sale

Deeds relied upon by the learned Counsel for the land loser/owner

are in respect of properties situated within the limits of Grama

Thana. Therefore, the said documents are in no way helpful to the

present case. She further contended that Ex.P.11-judgment of this

Court made in MFA No.6146/2011 and Misc.Cvl.No.14675/2011

dated 02.01.2012 awarding Rs.400/- per sq.ft. is not in respect of

the lands adjoining the lands involved in the present appeals and it

is a different land away from the land in question. Therefore, the

said judgment has no relevancy to the case on hand. She further

contended that the Reference Court was not justified in awarding

Rs.30,49,200/- per acre and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees on the

land as the same is exorbitant and contrary to the material on

record since the claimant/land loser/owner has not produced any

material documents to show that the land acquired in the present

case has high potential value. Admittedly, it is the agricultural land

and no conversion order has been passed by the concerned Deputy

Commissioner and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal filed by

the land loser/claimant for enhancement and allow the appeal filed

by the State for reduction of compensation awarded by the

Reference Court.

6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, the points that arises for our

consideration in these appeals are:

"i) Whether the claimant/land loser has made out a

case for enhancement of further compensation,

in the facts and circumstances of the cases?

ii) Whether the State has made out a case for

reduction of compensation, in the facts and

circumstances of the cases?"

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

entire material including original records of the Reference Court,

carefully.

8. In order to prove the case of claimant before the

Reference Court, the owner/claimant herself got examined as P.W.1

and three witnesses examined as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, and marked the

documents Exs.P.1 to P.24. On behalf of the State, Sri M.Shivappa

was examined as R.W.1 and the documents Exs.R.1 to R.6 were

marked.

9. The claimant filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief

reiterating the averments made in the claim petition stating that

the land acquired is situated at Karimanti village and there are no

residential houses in the vicinity. The residential houses are

situated at Palahalli. Therefore, the lands situated at Karimanti

near the world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary are suitable

for non agricultural purposes. On both the shores of Cauvery river

running in front of Ranganathittu, there are resorts and many

hermitages viz., Omkareshwara hermitage, Chandravana

hermitage, Bambam hermitage, Sairam hermitage, etc.; Though

many people are ready to purchase the land, no lands are available

for sale and therefore, most of the properties are not sold for

correct market value. Around 4 to 5 decades ago, Ranganathittu

Bird Sanctuary was a common pond on the shores of Cauvery River

which had not earned much fame, and was called by the name

'Bommana Madu'. Later, in order to develop the said place, on four

to five occasions, the Government acquired the lands situated

adjacent to the place by paying meager compensation to the land

losers, assuring them of providing various facilities. Therefore,

neither the claimant/owner nor her family members have

approached any Court seeking higher compensation. But, the said

assurance has not been fulfilled and has remained as assurance

only. Therefore, they have been put to irreparable loss and injury.

They are eking out their livelihood depending on agriculture alone.

In the lands already acquired, the Government has constructed

Hotels, Shops, Vehicle Parking lots, Parks and Boating Centers for

the entertainment of tourists. So also, constructed Inspection

Bungalows, Office Room, Guest Houses and Other Structures

required for its Officers, and is earning lot of money by converting

the acquired agricultural lands into non-agricultural purposes.

Likewise, lands acquired by the Government got developed, day by

day attracting tourists from various parts of the World, became

world famous and gained high potentiality and the rates are higher

than the gold and the place has become world famous

'Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary'. Even prior to the date of issuance

of 4(1) Notification, the land acquired had value of more than

Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. The claimant's land is a property situated

adjacent to Srirangapattana which is having ancient and historical

heritage of over 2000 years; it is located at a distance of 1 km

from Mysuru-Bengaluru State Highway, half a kilometer from

Bengaluru-Konanuru road, one furlong from Palahalli village and 10

kms from the centre of Mysuru city (Palace Circle). The Karnataka

State Government and the Government of India have established

an Independent Autonomous Organization to protect the Wild Life

and Birds. The statistics show that the land of the claimant

acquired by the Government is earning income of Rs.1,59,360/-

during the year 1990-91, but Rangana Thittu Bird Sanctuary is

having income of Rs.1,58,85,472/- during the year 2010-11. The

land acquired is more suitable for commercial and non-agricultural

purpose having high potentiality and therefore, compensation has

to be paid by measuring the extent of acquired area in terms of

square feet. Since the land has high potentiality and commercial

value the owner/claimant was intending to open hotel/

lodging/resort and to make it a good source of income for her

family and his next generations. In this regard, the request made

by the owner/claimant for conversion of land to non agricultural

purpose was rejected by the authorities mainly on the ground that

the property is situated adjacent to the world famous Ranganathittu

Bird Sanctuary. Thereby, her desire was not fulfilled. She further

stated about the number of coconut trees existing in the acquired

land, their age, yield and market value of each tree.

10. It is further stated that at the time of fixing market value

before the SLAO, the respondents had assured and agreed to

provide a Government job to one person in the family of each

awardees and one shop to do business and had agreed to pass a

consent award. But they failed to fulfill the same. She further

stated that in respect of the land belonging to Smt.Rathna Vasudev

acquired for Bengaluru Mysuru Highway layout, Rs.375/- per sq. ft.

was awarded in LAC No.18/2018. When said award was

challenged in MFA No.6146/2011, this Court enhanced it to

Rs.400/- per sq.ft. The Land Acquisition Officer has not considered

the said material while fixing the market value in respect of the

claimant's land. The claimant further stated that, her land is having

high potential value and therefore, sought to allow the Reference.

11. In the cross-examination, the claimant has specifically

deposed that the land acquired by the State is her ancestral

property. Except the said bit of land, she has no other land. The

land is irrigated land. She denied the suggestion that she having

received the compensation amount as per the market value

prevailing during the year 2008. She further deposed that there is

no lodge or resort in the vicinity, but they are situated at a distance

of half a kilometer; She admits that there are no resorts in

Ranganathittu. But there is a hotel; There is no Inspection

Bungalow at Ranganathittu, but there is a Guest House.

Omkareshwara hermitage is situated at Enneholekoppalu. Bambam

hermitage is in Belagola village; Not produced any document to

show that the value of the land during the year 2008 was

Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. She denied the suggestion that the distance

to the acquired land from various places stated by her in the

evidence is false. She also denied the suggestion that her land is

not a fertile land.

12. P.W.2-Anilraju examined on behalf of the claimant

deposed that he has seen the land of the claimant. It is adjacent to

world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. The said land is more

suitable to do non agricultural activities like running Hotel, lodge,

etc., as tourists from different parts of the world visit the bird

sanctuary. The claimant's land acquired by the Government is 50

times more valuable than the land sold by him. He produced the

sale deed executed by him as per Ex.P.9. In the cross-

examination, P.W.2 answered that the land mentioned in the

schedule to the sale deed-Ex.P.9 belongs to him. Four acres of land

was given to the Grama Panchayath. In turn, three sites were

allotted in their favour. He does not know the survey number and

extent of claimant's property. He admits that except hotel, there is

no resort near Ranganathittu. He also admitted that he has not

produced any documents to show that the claimant's land is 50

times more valuable than his land. He further stated that since the

land is situated adjacent to Ranganathittu, it has high potentiality.

13. P.W.3-Umesh, examined on behalf of the claimant stated

on par with P.W.2. In the cross-examination, he also admits that

except hotel, there is no resort near Ranganathittu and denied the

suggestion that he is giving false evidence with an intention to help

the claimant.

14. P.W.4-Mahesh, also deposed on par with claimant and

deposed that the acquired land is adjacent to world famous

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary and the land is suitable to run

hotel/lodge. He also deposed that the claimant's land is 50 times

more valuable than his land. In the cross-examination, he admitted

that he has not produced any document to prove that the

claimant's land is 50 times more valuable than his land. He

deposed that the claimant's land is on elevated area and denied the

suggestion that in order to support the claimant, he has deposed

falsely.

15. In order disprove the case of the claimant, one

M. Shivappa, Range Forest Officer was examined as R.W.1 on

behalf of the respondents. He deposed that the claimant's land has

been acquired for the purpose of developing Ranganathittu Bird

Sanctuary. There are no hotels, resorts, residential houses,

industries, bus stand, railway station or schools and colleges near

to the acquired land. Mahazar will be drawn in respect of the crop,

open well, trees, house situated in the acquired land in the

presence of the claimant and on the basis of revised rates provided

by the officials of the concerned departments, compensation will be

granted. Accordingly, the claimant was paid compensation at the

rate of Rs.21,488/- per gunta i.e., Rs.8,59,520/- per acre.

16. R.W.1 further deposed that National parks, wild life

sanctuaries are income fetching places for the Government.

Therefore, claimant's land is required for expansion of

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. To bring an atmosphere where the

birds and wild life animals can wander freely, it is essential to bring

down the number of resorts around the sanctuary, though it

decreases the income to the Government. Therefore, he deposed

that the market value fixed in respect of the land in question is just

and proper. He produced Exs.R.1 to R.5.

17. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 deposed that he has no

personal knowledge of the case and he has given evidence based

on the documents. He is aware that, earlier the land of the

claimant was acquired twice and on the third occasion, the

possession was taken. He denied the suggestion that the claimant

agreed for acquisition of land on the assurance given by the

Government that one shop, one employment and 1/4 th of income

derived from the land acquired will be given to the claimant. He

admitted that the birds are not staying in the acquired land and

denied that the acquired land is being developed only for the

benefit of the tourists.

18. R.W.1 further answered that the land acquired is for the

benefit of tourists and bird sanctuary. He denied the suggestion

that though the land acquired is valued more than Rs.1 Crore, the

Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner assured that

they will pay Rs.60 Lakhs per acre and that there is resolution

dated 16.12.2013 to that effect. He deposed that he is not aware

of the letter written in this regard by the Deputy Commissioner to

the State Government. He further denied the suggestion that in

view of the restrictions made around Ranganathittu, no person is

coming forward to purchase the land near the bird sanctuary. He

pleaded ignorance about the existence of hermitages, travelers

bungalow, within a radius of 10 kms from Ranganathittu Bird

Sanctuary. He denied the suggestion that the request of the land

owners for conversion of their lands from agricultural purpose to

non agricultural purpose was rejected, because, if the non

agricultural lands are acquired, more compensation has to be paid

to the claimants. He further answered that there are 14 permanent

staff working in Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary, i.e., 3 watchers, 1

Range Forest Officer, 2 Foresters, 5 Guards, 1 First Division

Assistant, 1 Driver and 1 group-D employee. In addition, there are

10 boat men and 3 sweepers. Contract will be given to run the

canteen and maintain the garden by calling the tenders. He denied

the suggestion that the claimant requested to give them a job and

demanded 1/4th of the income. He further answered that he does

not know whether there are coconut trees in the claimant's land,

whether they live for 100 years and yield 200 coconuts per year.

He denied the suggestion that compensation at the rate of

Rs.40,000/- has to be given for one coconut tree. He answered

that he has not seen the lands acquired in Indavalu village. He

further answered that he has no knowledge whether the land

acquired under Ex.P.17 for the benefit of railway department is

within a radius of four kms and whether the said land is not fit for

non agricultural use and is fit only for agricultural purpose. He

denied the suggestion that Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary is famous

and has earned No.1 place in India. He denied that the acquired

land is valued more than Rs.10 crores per acre; in 2008 the price of

one coconut was Rs.6 to Rs.8 and as on the date of recording his

cross-examination, it was Rs.20. He is not aware that the trees

existing in the acquired land is 14 to 18 years old. He does not

know the judgment passed by this Court vide Ex.P.11.

19. From the above oral and documentary evidence on

record, it is not in dispute that the land of the claimant was

acquired by the respondents for the purpose of expansion of world

famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary.

20. According to the claimant, the land acquired is valued

more than Rupees One Crore per acre. Though the claimant has

produced the documents Exs.P.1 to 24, has not produced any sale

deed pertaining to the adjacent lands to show the correct market

value of his land. The specific contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant/claimant is that in MFA No.6146/2011 and

Misc.Cvl.No.14675/2011 dated 02.01.2012, this Court has awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.ft. in respect of the

land situated on Bengaluru-Mysuru road, Srirangapattana. But, the

land acquired in the present appeals is situated by the side of

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary, near to Mysuru Bengaluru Highway,

but very near to Palahalli and Srirangapattana. Therefore, the said

judgment and award passed by this Court in the aforementioned

Miscellaneous First Appeal will in no way assist the case of the

claimant/land owner. Exs.P.7 to 10 are the certified copies of the

sale deeds executed prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification, in the

year 2008. As already stated supra, the said Sale Deeds pertain to

house sites measuring 40 ft x 55 ft situated in Grama Thana limits

and the same cannot be the basis for awarding compensation in

respect of agricultural lands.

21. Though the material on record clearly depicts that the

land of the appellant/claimant acquired for the purpose of

expansion of world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary which

attracts tourists from different parts of the World, the fact remains

that there are hotels and the Government has established Boating

Centre, Gardens and Guest House, no resorts are found in the

vicinity.

22. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued that

award passed in LAC No.18/2018 wherein, the land was acquired

for the purpose of four lane Bengalur-Mysuru Highway in the year

2005 and Rs.375/- per sq.ft was awarded to the land losers, which

was confirmed by this Court in MFA No.6146/2011. The said lands

were situated at Kirmatti village acquired for different purpose and

they are not adjacent to the land of the claimant in the present

case. Therefore, she contended that the said judgment will in no

way assist the case of appellant.

23. Much reliance is placed on Ex.P.17 wherein Rs.60 lakhs

per acre was awarded in respect of the lands acquired for the

purpose of formation of double line railway broad gauge in the year

2011, i.e., three years after the notification issued in the present

case. Considering the evidence on record, and by careful

consideration of the impugned award passed by the Reference

Court and the document produced as Ex.P.17- letter of the revenue

department and proceedings of SLAO clearly depicts that for the

land acquired in the year 2011 for different purpose, Rs.60 lakhs

per acre was awarded.

24. The market value of a property has to be determined

while having due regard to its existing conditions with all existing

advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most

advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential

value or not primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to

which it is put or its reasonable capacity of being put and also its

proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas/ institutions.

The existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the

possibility of their further extension and development or prospects

of development has to be taken into consideration.

25. In the present case, there is no dispute that the land was

acquired in the year 2008 and Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary is

world famous and has good connectivity, there exists wonderful

park, tourist bungalow and property acquired is well developed.

Therefore, taking into consideration the fate of the land owners who

lost their lands forever, they are entitled to proper and reasonable

market value as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land

Acquisition Act.

26. Admittedly, in the present case, though Ex.P.17 relied

upon by the claimant is in respect of the property acquired in the

year 2011 for the purpose of formation of double line railway broad

gauge between Bengaluru and Mysuru cities and the award came to

be passed at the rate of Rs.60 lakhs per acre, the said material

document has not been considered by the reference Court.

27. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant/

claimant already lost the land in the acquisition for the purpose of

expansion of world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary and now,

the land is only a dream for the land loser, and the State

Government developed the Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary which is

now world famous and the fact that the acquired land is well

developed with good connectivity and has potentiality and taking

into consideration Ex.P.17, we are of the considered opinion that

the claimant has made out a case for further enhancement of

compensation.

28. Though the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.21,488/-

per gunta and the same was further enhanced by the reference

Court at the rate of Rs.76,230/- per gunta i.e., 30,49,200/- per

acre, considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on

record and considering the potentiality of the land acquired and in

view of the compensation granted at Rs.60 lakhs as per Ex.P.17 for

the lands acquired in the year 2011 for the formation of railway

line, and as the present land is situated adjacent to world famous

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary which is more beneficial for the State

Government for expansion of the said Bird Sanctuary, we are of the

considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to just and

reasonable compensation at Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs) per

acre. The said conclusion is reached by us taking into consideration

the development of the land acquired and on the basis of guess

work nearer to reality, as there is always some element of guess

work and the said guess work is based on Ex.P.17.

29. It is also relevant to consider that R.W.1 who is the

Range Forest Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that

personally he is not aware of the market value of the land in

question as on the date of the notification, but he is deposing based

on the documents available. He also admitted that the land in

question is acquired for expansion of world famous Ranganathittu

Bird Sanctuary. The State Government has not disputed Ex.P.17,

the letter of the Revenue Department and proceeding of the Special

Land Acquisition Officer awarding Rs.60 lakhs per acre in respect of

land acquired for different purpose situated adjacent to the land in

the present cases.

30. In view of the above, the first point raised for

consideration is answered partly in the affirmative holding that

the claimant has made out a case for further enhancement of

compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

31. Consequently, the contention raised by the learned

Additional Government Advocate in the appeal filed by the State for

reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court cannot

be accepted. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the State

Government fails and the second point raised for consideration

has to be answered in the negative holding that the State

Government has not made out any ground to reduce the

compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

32. In view of the above, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) MFA No.7954/2014 filed by the claimant/land owner is

allowed in part, with costs;

(ii) MFA No.6429/2015 filed by the State Government is

dismissed as devoid of any merit;

(iii) The impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2014

made in LAC No.35/2011 on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapattnana is

hereby modified;

(iv) The appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation at

the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) per

acre with all consequential statutory benefits;

(v) The award passed by the Reference Court in respect of

coconut trees on the land is hereby confirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

Judge

Sd/-

Judge

Nsu/-

kcm