TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 7th of November, 2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior division, Jamkhandi in L. A. C. Nos. 3347 and 3348 of 1999, whereby compensation payable to the respondent-landowners has been enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- per acre to Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre and the entire extent of land acquired held to be wetland.

( 2 ) LAND measuring 2 acres and 25 guntas in Sy. No. 12/3 and 2 acres and 13 guntas in Sy. No. 12/2 of Koppa S. R. Village in Bilagi Taluk was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for submersion in the backwaters of Almatti Reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer in due course made an award, whereby he determined a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre in respect of irrigated land measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas in Sy. No. 12/3. Dissatisfied with the award, the owners sought a reference to the Civil Court, who has, as stated earlier, raised the compensation to Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre besides holding that the entire extent of land in the two survey numbers mentioned above was irrigated land. The Reference Court has also enhanced the compensation payable to the owners of the farmhouse in L. A. C. No. 3347 of 1999. Aggrieved by the order made by the Reference Court, the special Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present appeals.

( 3 ) MR. K. P. Ashok Kumar, learned High Court Government Advocate made a twofold submission. He urged that the Reference Court was in error in determining a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre as compensation for the land in question. He contended that the Reference Court had proceeded on the assumption that the landowners were cultivating two crops, the yield wherefrom was comparable. He argued that whenever two crops are raised in any land used for agricultural purposes, the yield from the second crop has to be taken as 50% of the yield from the first crop. The Reference Court was, according to the learned Counsel in error in ignoring the said principle in determining the compensation as though the yield from both the crops was the same. In support, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special. Land acquisition Officer v Smt. Irasangavva.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the lands in question were irrigated land situate on the bank of Krishna river and that the yield from the same was certified by the Assistant Director of agriculture, Bagalkot in terms of his notification dated 18th of March, 1985 marked as Ex. P. 4. It was contended that compensation for comparable land situate in the Village Gothe in the neighbouring Jamakhandi had been determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre in l. A. C Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1995. The Reference Court was therefore justified in determining an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation based on the capitalisation method and having regard to the material produced by the claimants not only in regard to the yield but also the prevalent price thereof during the relevant period.

( 5 ) THE Reference Court has adopted the capitalisation method for purposes of determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners. It was relying upon the testimony of one of the claimants and the yield certificate. Ex. P. 4, issued by the Assistant Director of agriculture, Bilagi, taken the yield of hybrid maize at 20 quintals and groundnut at 12 quintals at Rs. 12 per acre. In the case of sunflower, the reference Court has taken the yield to be 6 to 8 quintals per acre from irrigated land. Relying upon the rate list, Ex. P. 5, for the year 1995-96, the average price of groundnut during the relevant period has been taken as Rs. 1,124/- per quintal, that of maize at Rs. 406 per quintal and sunflower at Its. 1,203/- per quintal. The Court has on that basis concluded that the landowners were earning Rs. 13,488/- per acre from groundnut and Rs. 9,624/- per acre from su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document