Kalyani S/O Chintamani Kalal @ ... vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 506 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                         AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              MFA No.102946/2015 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

1.    KALYANI S/O CHINTAMANI
      KALAL @ PANALKAR
      AGE:63 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

2.    NINGAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA MARANUR
      AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALKOT
                                          ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.B M ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UKP, BILAGI
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRASHANT MOGALI, HCGP)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.10.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.1806/2000 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL AGAINST THE ORDER.
                              2



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGEMENT

The appellants-land losers seek exception to the

judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (for short, 'the Reference Court')

in LAC No.1806/2000 which is allowed in part on

23.10.2013, adjudicating the compensation payable in

respect of standing trees in 28 guntas of land bearing

Sy.No.162/2A situated in Mudhol village, Mudhol taluk.

2. The Reference Court has awarded

compensation of Rs.3,18,184/- along with statutory benefit

under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The papers placed on record would reveal that

this adjudication relating to compensation payable to 28

guntas of land is pursuant to the remand order dated

19.04.2012 passed in MFA No.20560/2010 by this Court.

In the said appeal, this Court has directed the Reference

Court to consider the compensation payable in respect of

trees standing in 28 guntas of the land acquired. As far as

remaining portion of the land acquired which belonged to

the claimants is concerned, this Court in MFA

No.20560/2010 has awarded the compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Thus, the question to be

adjudicated in this appeal is confined to the quantum of

compensation payable in respect of trees in 28 guntas of

land.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would bring

to the notice of this Court that in respect of similar lands

covered under the same notification belonging to some

other land losers, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Civil Appeal No.11359/2016 and the Hon'ble Apex

Court has awarded Rs.6,50,000/- per acre to the similar

lands acquired under the same notification i.e. notification

dated 11.02.1999.

5. Placing reliance on the said order of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the appellants

would urge before this Court that, appellants have paid the

court fee for enhancement of compensation even in

respect of the land other than 28 guntas which was the

subject matter of adjudication pursuant to remand order

dated 19.04.2012.

6. We are unable to agree with the submission of

the learned counsel for the appellants to consider the

prayer for enhancement of compensation in respect of the

land which was not the subject matter of adjudication

when the matter was remanded to the Reference Court.

pursuant to the remand the Reference Court, in terms of

impugned judgment and award has only considered the

compensation payable in respect of standing trees in 28

guntas of land. Hence, this Court has heard the argument

on compensation payable in respect of the trees standing

in 28 guntas of land.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that there were 50 mango trees, 60 coconut trees 4

lemon trees and 3 arecanut trees in 28 guntas of land

which is the subject matter of acquisition. According to the

learned counsel for the appellants, award of Rs.3,18,184/-

by the Reference Court is on the lower side. The Reference

Court has quantified the compensation as under:

1. Mango Trees : 50 x Rs.2,958 = Rs.1,47,900/-

2. Lemon Trees : 04 x Rs.0,406 = Rs.0,01,624/-

3. Pomegranate Trees : 03 x Rs.0,600 = Rs.0,01,800/-

4. Coconut Trees : 60 x Rs.2,781 = Rs.1,66,860/-

Rs.3,18,184/-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would invite

attention of the Court to Exs.P.90, 91 and 92. These are

the awards passed in LAC Nos.402/1999, 145/2002 and

the award passed on compromise in LAC No.385/2012.

Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in the

aforementioned awards passed by the Reference Court,

higher compensation is awarded in respect of the mango

trees and coconut trees. It is further urged that the State

has paid the compensation amount to the land losers by

complying the mandate of the awards referred above. And

on the ground of parity it is urged that same compensation

should be paid to the present appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants would also

urge that as far as number of trees are concerned, there is

no dispute by the respondents and the admitted fact need

not be proved.

10. We have considered the materials placed

before the Court.

11. As already observed the dispute is relating to

compensation payable in respect of trees standing in 28

guntas of land. Though it is vehemently urged that there is

no dispute in respect of number of mango trees and

coconut trees standing in 28 guntas of land acquired, the

Court is not under obligation to accept the said contention

relating to number of trees merely because the contesting

party has not disputed the existence of the trees. Though

under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act the Court can

treat the facts admitted as having been proved, the

proviso to the said section enables the Court to insist for

proof if the Court deems it necessary. The claim relating to

existence of 50 mango trees and 60 coconut trees in 28

guntas of land is on the face of it unacceptable. In this

regard, when the Court put the specific question as to how

it is possible to grow 60 coconut trees and 50 mango trees

in 28 guntas of land, the appellants could not give

acceptable answer. Both coconut tree and the mango tree

require adequate space in between two trees. If such

spacing is provided which would ensure normal healthy

growth of trees then it is not possible to have 60 coconut

trees in 28 guntas of land. Thus, in addition to 60 coconut

trees which is not possible to accommodate in 28 guntas of

land additional 50 mango trees cannot be conceived at all.

12. The judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court would indicate that there are 60 coconut

trees and 50 mango trees. However, the Reference Court

has blindly taken the said figure of 50 mango trees and 60

coconut trees as against claim of 75 mango trees and 114

coconut trees claimed by the appellants. Even to this

finding, there is no justification. This Court is unable to

accept the existence of as many trees in 28 guntas of land.

As there is no challenge to the said finding and award of

compensation by the Reference Court, this Court is of the

view that compensation awarded in terms of the impugned

judgment and award is on higher side, given the fact that

the Reference Court has taken into consideration 50

mango trees and 60 coconut trees while awarding

compensation. As there is no challenge to the judgment

and award by the respondents, this Court is not reducing

the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Since

we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by

the Reference Court in terms of the impugned judgment

and award is on higher side, there is no scope at all to

allow the appeal and to award higher compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal must fail and appeal is dismissed.

13. There is no order as to cost.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE sh