Ratnamma W/O Tammanna vs The Chief Engineer Knnl And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7421 Kant

                           1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                       PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200367/2014 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

01.   RATNAMMA W/O LATE TAMMANNA
      SINCE EXPIRED ON 13.01.2019 BY HER LRS.

01A. GANAPATI S/O LATE TAMMANNA
     AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

01B. SMT. SAKKUBAI W/O GANAPATI
     AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD

01C. VASUDEV S/O LATE TAMMANNA
     AGE: 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

01D. SMT. LALITA W/O VASUDE
     AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     ALL R/O: YELMAMADI VILLLAGE
     TQ: CHINCHOLI DIST: KALABURAGI.

                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S. S. SAJJANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
                           2

AND:

01. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KNNL
    IPC ZONE, GULBARGA - 585 101.

02. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL
    LMP, DIVISION NO.3, SULEPETH
    TQ: CHINCHOLI DIST: GULBARGA-585 101.

03. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
    MINOR & MEDIUM IRRIGATION PROJECTS
    GULBARGA
    TQ:DIST: GULBARGA-585 101.

04. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    GULBARGA-585 101.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
BY SRI. J. SATISH KUMAR, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)

       THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT CHINCHOLI DIST: GULBARGA IN LAC.NO.21/2011
VIDE ANNEXURE-I AND PLEASED TO MODIFY BY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL BY RE-DETERMINING THE COMPENSATION AT
`.15,40,000/- PER ACRE WET LAND FROM `.6,25,000/- PER
ACRE AS AWARDED BY REFERENCE COURT, WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS AND INTERESTS AND WITH COST TO
MEET THE REAL ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
       THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, S. RACHAIAH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     3

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved

by the judgment and award dated 28.03.2013 in

LAC.No.21/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at

Chincholi.

02. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :-

The appellant is the owner of the irrigated land

bearing Sy.No.102/2/3 measuring 07 acres 08 guntas. By

issuing a preliminary notification dated 21.02.2008

followed by final notification, the land of the appellant was

acquired for the construction of "Lower Mullamari

Irrigation Project." The respondent No.3 considering the

potentiality of the land and also the standing crops

thereon, determined the market value of `.75,000/- per

acre for wet land. Being not satisfied with the market

value determined by the respondent No.3 i.e., the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant has sought for

reference to the Court under Section 18 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act. The reference Court by order dated

21.04.2011 in LAC.No.21/2011 has enhanced the

compensation from `.75,000/- to `.6,25,000/- per acre.

03. The appellant being not satisfied with the

enhancement made by the reference Court has preferred

this appeal by seeking enhancement in terms of

capitalization method.

04. Heard Sri. S. S. Sajjanashetty, the learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gourish S.

Khashampur, the learned counsel for the respondents

No.1 and 2 and Sri. J. Satish Kumar, the learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.3

and 4.

05. Sri. S. S. Sajjanashetty, the learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the enhancement of

compensation by the reference Court is required to be set-

aside as it contains non-application of mind. The learned

counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

reference Court ought to have considered the documents

which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 for the purpose of

enhancement of compensation. Further the learned

counsel submits that the reference Court has erroneously

considered the lower price at `.500/- per quintal instead

of taking maximum price at the rate of `.770/- per

quintal. If the maximum amount is considered for 25

tonnes of banana which comes to `.3,08,000/- per acre,

after deducting of 50% towards the cost of cultivation

which comes to `.1,54,000/- per acre. If it is multiplied by

10, in view of the capitalization method, the compensation

would be `.15,40,000/- per acre of wet land. Further in

support of his argument a reference has been made to the

case, LAC.No.144/2009 and stated that there was a

consent decree passed in the above said case, which was

fixed at the rate of `.9,00,000/- per acre, in respect of dry

land, acquiring for the purpose of power plantation. As

such, he sought to allow the appeal.

06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

No.1 and 2 while justifying the award passed by the

reference Court submits that the reference Court has

passed the award after having considered the report

submitted by the competent authority and also verifying

the yield of the crops etc., Further, learned counsel for the

respondents No.1 and 2 submits that mere production of

exemplar would not be sufficient to show that all the crops

should yield as per the report issued by the authority. The

learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits

that, it is a routine practice that average of the yield of the

crops should be taken into consideration. Further the

learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, usually

the authority will consider the average yield and

potentiality and minimum average rates per quintal. The

reference Court after considering the same, passed an

award, which is relevant and correct. Hence, it is not

required to interfere in the award passed by the reference

Court.

07. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and

4 in support of the arguments of the learned counsel for

the respondents No.1 and 2 contended that the award

passed by the reference Court by considering the quantity

and the minimum price fixed by the competent authority

is absolutely correct. Interference by this Court is not

required. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

08. Having heard all the learned counsel for the

respective parties and after having considered the

documents on record, the points which arise for our

consideration are:-

I. Whether the Reference Court award dated

28.03.2013 in LAC.No.21/2011 is justifiable?

II. Whether the appellant has made out grounds for

enhancement of the award as against the award

passed by the Reference Court?

09. It is the case of the appellant that, the

Reference Court has not considered the maximum amount

per quintal for banana and maximum yield as per the

report. If the maximum amount had been considered, the

amount would have come to higher price than the award

passed by the reference Court. He further contended that,

under the capitalization method, while determining the

market value of the property, usually the maximum

amount should be considered. He further contended that,

the reference Court should have considered the benefit

which is favorable to the land looser. Having failed to

consider the benefit, the appellant has filed this appeal

seeking enhancement of the compensation.

10. It is settled principle of law that the onus to

prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon

the claimants. In other words, the burden is on the

claimants to establish that the amounts awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer or the reference Court is

inadequate and they are entitled for more compensation.

Once such burden is discharged, then the burden will be

shifted to the State to justify the award.

11. In the present case, the appellant has

produced Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 which are the yield

certificates issued by the authority. Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 the

price lists issued by the authority show that in the

particular year i.e., 2008-09, the rate of banana was

`.500/- to `.770/-. The reference Court considered the

minimum average price and also the average yield. Hence,

we find no good grounds to interfere with the award of the

reference Court.

12. At the cost of some repetition, we may notice

that the provision of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land

Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), have been

enacted by the legislature with certain objections made.

The intention of the legislature is an important factor in

relation to interpretation of statues. The statues law and

the case law go side by side and quite often the

relationship between them is supplementary. The

statutory law as well as the judgments pronounced by the

Courts have consistently taken the view that

compensation has to be determined strictly in accordance

with provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.

13. When compensation is awarded in terms of

Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the question before the

Court of law is that whether the factual situation before it

false within the general descriptions and principles in the

statues. The provision opens with the words, that in

determining the amount of compensation to be awarded

for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into

consideration the market value and also standing crops if

any. While awarding compensation the Courts keeping in

mind the potentiality and utility of the acquired land, can

award compensation to ensure that injustice is not to be

done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their

property without grant of fair compensation.

14. As far as the claimant/appellant is concerned,

he has not produced and proved any documents to justify

his claims relatable to and based upon capitalization

method. In fact, we do not hesitate in observing that the

claimant/appellant has failed to discharge his onus fully

and satisfactorily.

15. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the

Special Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry

of the land and also relying on the documents, has

determined the market value. However, on reference being

made, the compensation amount was enhanced to

`.6,25,000/- per acre, which is considered as fair market

value and also reasonable. As such we are of the

considered opinion that the appellant has not made any

grounds to interfere with the award of the reference Court.

16. In view of the above discussions, we have

answered the point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2

in the negative.

17. In view of the observation made above, we pass

the following;

ORDER

I. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

II. The judgment and award dated 28.03.2013 passed

LAC.No.21/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge

at Chincholi is confirmed.

III. The registry is directed to transmit the record to the

reference Court for necessary steps/ compliance.

In view of disposal of main appeal, the pending I.A.

does not survive for consideration. Hence, they are

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ