In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Review Petition No. 340/2014 BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYA NARAYANA, HCGP) AND:
1. SRI N. SATHYANARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ... PETITIONER SON OF LATE LAE NARASIMHEGOWDA, RESIDENT OF ALISANDRA VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 418. (DEAD BY LR’S) 1(a) SMT. VIMALA WIFE OF LATE N. SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA AGED 50 YEARS.
1(b) MOHANKUMAR SON OF LATE N. SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
1(c) VINOD KUMAR SON OF LATE N. SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
2. SHIVANNAGOWDA SON OF NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. NANJUNDEGOWDA SON OF THAMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF ALISANDRA VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA – 571 418.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SURENDRA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; NOTICE SERVED ON R1 (A TO C) & R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2013 PASSED IN M.S.A NO. 160/2011(LA).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned Government Pleader for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, and also perused the records.
2. The claimant was the owner of 7 guntas of land in survey No.80/1 of Alisandra village, Nagamangala Taluk with twelve standing coconut trees. This land was notified for acquisition. The land acquisition officer assessed the potential market value of garden land at Rs.43,200/- per acre and at Rs.12,700/- per acre for dry land, and insofar as the claimant’s land, award was made for payment of market value as garden land. The claimant being aggrieved submitted an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhancement which was referred to the reference Court for re-assessment of the market value. The reference Court, while deciding such reference along with other references, re-assessed the potential market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre for garden land and at Rs.50,000/- per acre for the dry land. The reference Court also assessed the market value for the standing coconut tree at Rs.6,000/- per tree.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by such judgment by the reference Court, filed separate appeals, and these appeals are disposed of by the appellate Court confirming the assessment of the market value for the garden land and the dry land. However, insofar as the award towards standing coconut trees, the appellate Court has set aside the award. The appellate Court has concluded that the Reference Court after having assessed the market value of the acquired land as a Garden land, erred in awarding a further sum of Rs.6000/- for each coconut tree. In the appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, this Court vide the Order dated 4.9.2013 restored the order of the reference Court and granted compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.6,000/- for each of the coconut trees with consequential benefits excluding the interest on the delayed period.
4. The review petition is filed on the ground that this Court has erred in granting separate amounts towards the standing coconut trees despite the valuation of the garden land at Rs.70,000/- per acre. The review petition is admitted placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in ILR 1974 Kar.120. The Division Bench has held as follows:
“4. The Court below has relied on the report of the Mahajardars (Exbt. R-1) for valuing the garden land at Rs.2,500 per acre. That there were 86 cocoanut trees at the time of acquisition is not in dispute. The complaint of the learned High Court Government Advocate Sri Venkatachala was that if the land is valued as garden land, then, a separate compensation cannot be awarded for the fruit growing trees standing on the said land for the reason that the land becomes a garden land on account of the existence of the fruit growing trees on it. If the cocoanut trees did not exist, the land would not be classified as garden land at all was the submission made. This argument of the learned Government Advocate, in our opinion, is well founded. When a coconut garden, areca garden or a mango garden is acquired, the proper method of valuation is not to value the land separately and trees separately, but to consider the market value of the cocoanut garden or the areca garden and the like. In that view, the award made by the Court below insofar as the garden land with the coconut trees standing on it, cannot be supported.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer himself has awarded compensation for the garden land at Rs.1,500/- an acre besides Rs.130/- per cocoanut tree. Since the Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed the error of valuing the land and the coconut trees standing on it separately, the proper course for us to adopt would be to affirm the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer.”
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kayappathodi M. Ayishu Umma vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 SC 2027 has declared that where there is reliable and acceptable evidence as regards the annual income from the fruit bearing trees, the market value of the acquired land will have to be capitalized by multiplying the annual net income for 15 years. This method would be proper and fair. However, both the methods viz., the determination of the market value based on the potential value and on the basis of the yield with necessary capitalization method cannot be adopted simultaneously. If the form viz., evaluation of market value based on the potential value is adopted, separate value for the standing trees could be granted as value of the timber but subject to deduction towards harvesting and removing trees from the land. The Hon’ble Supreme has held as follows:
“It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable' evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land.”
6. It is undisputed that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court have decided on the potential market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre, and have assessed value of a standing Coconut tree at Rs.6000/- per tree. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.6000/- per standing coconut tree could only be towards timber. The learned counsel for the claimant – respondent also submits that the amount as per the order dated 4.9.2013 is also deposited and withdrawn. Therefore, there is no apparent error, and the review petition is accordingly dismissed.
nv Ct:sr Sd/- Judge