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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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 -
comparable 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 -
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 -
between 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 -
it 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 -
the 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 -
211/2 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 -
pomegranate 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 -
valuation. 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 -
any 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 -
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 -
Land 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 -
dispute. 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 -
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
