IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL & THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR M.F.A.No.7623/2014 BETWEEN SRI S.V.RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O WODEYARA HATHUR VILLAGE BELAGUTTI HOBLI HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 256. ... APPELLANT (By Sri A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIMOGA CITY SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT HONNALI CITY HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577566 3. *KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR SURFACE WATER DATA BUILDING ANANDA RAO CIRCLE *Corrected V.C.O dtd. 25-01-2019 BANGALORE-560009 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri RAMACHANDRAN K., ADV. FOR Sri M.R.C.RAVI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
Sri VASANTH V.FERNANDES, HCGP FOR R1) THIS MFA FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.01.2014 PASSED IN LAC.NO.176/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the land owner under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. An extent of 8 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.43/2 of Wodeyara Hattur village in Honnalli Taluk of Davangere District (erstwhile Shivamogga District) was acquired for the purpose of formation of a canal to Upper Tunga Project. Preliminary Notification was issued on 11.09.1997 and was published in the official gazette on 30.10.1997, followed by Final Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 14.10.1999.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 20.03.2001 determining the market value payable at Rs.19,500/- per acre. On reference, the Civil Court has enhanced the market value and fixed it at Rs.1,93,200/- per acre. The Reference Court has treated the land as irrigated land capable of growing sugarcane. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the record of rights, particularly Exs.P-9, P-33, P-34 & P-39, to hold that claimant was growing sugarcane in the land in question as on the date Preliminary Notification was published.
4. The Reference Court has taken note of the fact that respondents did not deny the fact that sugarcane was grown in the land in question by the claimant-land owner. It is also clear from the certificate issued by the BESCOM produced at Exs.P-35 & P-36 that claimant had taken electricity connection and had installed two pump-sets for irrigating the land in question. Thus, having treated the land as irrigated land, wherein sugarcane was grown, the Reference Court has proceeded to apply capitalization method and has determined the compensation by taking the yield of sugarcane at 60 Tonnes per acre and the price of the sugarcane at Rs.644/- per Metric Tonne. Deducting 60% towards cost of cultivation and applying multiplier of 10, the Reference Court has quantified the compensation at Rs.1,93,200/- (Rs.644/- x 60/50). Thus, the net income per acre has been arrived at Rs.19,320/-. After multiplying the same by the multiplier of 10, value per acre has been determined at Rs.1,93,200/-. The said amount has been ordered to be paid along with all statutory sums admissible including interest in terms of the provision under Section 28 of the Act. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and seeking enhancement, the present appeal has been filed.
5. We have heard Mr. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-SLAO and so also the learned Counsel appearing for the beneficiary – Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited.
6. Only point that arises for our consideration is “whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount? If yes, to what extent?”
7. It is urged by the Counsel for the appellant that in respect of land bearing Sy. No.44 situated in Dodderi village of Honnalli Taluk, which is situated at a distance of about 4 Kms. from the land in question, wherein arecanut crop was grown, this Court has fixed market value at the rate of Rs.10,08,000/- per acre, and therefore, as the land belonging to the appellant was also capable of growing arecanut, compensation ought to be awarded on par with the same.
8. We are afraid this contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that while adopting capitalization method, income derived from the land by growing particular crop could become the basis for arriving at the quantum of compensation. It is true nature and fertility of the soil would be also very relevant for the purpose of determining the value of the land. But, once capitalization method based on the crop grown is adopted, one has to go by the nature of the crop grown, the quantum of yield, the price fetched during the relevant year for the proceeds when preliminary notification was issued. It is one thing to say that certain irrigated crops were actually grown and the land was capable of growing such irrigated crops, but it is totally another thing to say that the land was brought under intensive cultivation where fruit bearing trees were grown by the land owner by investing huge sum of money. Hence, mode of calculation by applying capitalization method in the determination of market value depends on the nature of the crop grown. Land where sugarcane is grown and the land which has been developed into arecanut garden cannot be assessed at the same market value.
9. In the instant case, claimant has placed RTC extracts – Exs.P-9, P-33, P-34 & P-39 pertaining to the land. They clearly disclose that in a substantial portion of the land, sugarcane was grown. There is no material to establish that in any portion of the land claimant was growing arecanut. The assertion made by the claimant in his evidence in this regard is not probablized by any documentary evidence.
Therefore, we cannot value the land on the assumption that arecanut crop was grown by the claimant. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the approach of the Reference Court in proceeding to quantify the compensation treating the land as irrigated land, wherein sugarcane crop was grown.
10. However, there is one area where the Reference Court has committed an error in arriving at the price of sugarcane at the relevant point of time when the preliminary notification was published. As already noticed above, preliminary notification was published in the year 1997. The Reference Court has placed reliance on the price list of sugarcane for the year 2001-02 which was Rs.875/- per Tonne. The Reference Court has reduced 30% of the said price towards de-escalation charges and has arrived at price of sugarcane for the year 1997-98 at Rs.644/-. This exercise has been undertaken by the Reference Court in the absence of price list for the relevant year.
11. Neither the claimant nor the respondents have placed any material regarding actual price of sugarcane for the year 1997-98. In our view, reduction of 30% from the price as obtained per Metric Tonne of sugarcane during the year 2000-01 is on the higher side. Even in the absence of any evidence in this regard and taking note of the realities of the situation, we can safely hold that the difference in price during the interregnum from 2000-01 going back to 1997-98, would be only around 10% and not more. Therefore, we are persuaded to hold that de-escalation in the matter of assessing the market value of the land could be only in the range of 10% and not at 30% as arrived at by the Reference Court.
12. If compensation is calculated keeping in mind the above, it will work out as under:
“the price of sugarcane per Tonne Rs.796.50 x 60 (yield per metric Tonne) = Rs.44,790/-. After deducting 50% towards cultivation charges, the net value would come to Rs.23,895/-. Applying the multiplier of 10, the actual market value will come to Rs.2,38,950/- (Rs.23,895/- x 10). In our view, the actual market value per acre has to be fixed at Rs.2,38,950/- per acre by enhancing the same from Rs.1,93,200/- awarded by the Reference Court.”
13. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The market value of the acquired land is enhanced and fixed at Rs.2,38,950/- per acre. The claimant-appellant is entitled for the benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) & 28 of the Act along with proportionate costs. In all other respects, award passed by the Reference Court does not need any interference. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KK