IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4828 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR-572 101 2. CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR-572 101 … APPELLANTS (BY SMT K.R. ROOPA, HCGP) AND:
MOHAMMED SARDAR S/O BADE KASHIMADASAB R/O ISLAMPUR AMMANAGHATTA POST GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2012 IN L.A.C.NO.327 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T “Whether the award of compensation of Rs.2,000/- per eucalyptus tree by the Trial Court was just and reasonable?” is the question involved in this case.
2. The respondent is the owner of land bearing Sy.Nos.133/1, 133/5 of Ammanaghatta village of Gubbi Taluk. The appellants acquired 1 gunta out of Sy.No.133/1 and 10 guntas out of Sy.No.133/5 for the purpose of formation of Hemavathi Canal issuing 4(1) notification dated 24.08.1995 and 6(1) notification dated 19.09.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award granting compensation of Rs.12,950/- and Rs.13,081/- respectively for the said lands.
3. On the application of the respondent, the matter was referred to the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gubbi which was registered in L.A.C. No.327/2006. The respondent contested the said case. The Trial Court on recording the evidence and hearing the parties, by the impugned award granted compensation of Rs.1,333/- per gunta.
4. The Trial Court held that there were 54 standing eucalyptus trees in Sy.No.133/1 and 300 eucalyptus trees in Sy.No.133/5 and valued them at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per tree and awarded compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- towards such trees. The Challenge in this appeal is only with regard to the rate of compensation awarded for the said eucalyptus trees.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation awarded towards the trees was at the higher side.
6. The appellants did not adduce any evidence to prove the age or value of trees. Whereas the claimant produced Ex.P7 the estimate of valuation of the forest trees which was issued by the forest department. As per the said report, each eucalyptus trees aged over 15 years valued at Rs.3,555/-. There was no contrary evidence to this by the appellants’ side.
7. Though the respondent claimed that the age of the trees were 16 years. The Trial Court held that eucalyptus trees were admittedly harvested once in four years. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the trees were four years old. Further, the Trail Court based on the report Ex.P7 and the oral evidence regarding the age of the trees, fixed value of the trees at Rs.2,000/- per tree. Before the Trial Court absolutely there was no evidence from the side of the present appellants to rebut either the number of the trees or the value of the trees.
Under such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the rate fixed by the Trial Court for the trees was unjust and unreasonable. The appeal deserves no merit, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
Since the existing material was sufficient to dispose of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 for adducing additional documents is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KG