Back
2007 Supreme(Kar) 690
Karnataka High Court
Judges : MANJULA CHELLUR,A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK VENKATESH DESAI - Respondent
C/W Cross Objection 225 Of 2005
Decided On : 10/11/2007
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23, 24 & 18 - Reduction of yield of second crop - If proper - Land having adequate irrigation infrastructure for potentially raising two crops - Reduction Not proper. [Mrs. Manjula Chellur and A.N. Venugoapala Gowda, JJ.]: The learned Judge has erred with regard to the cost of cultivation of the crops. The yield from the second crop, must in the absence of certain and adequate source of irrigation, be less than the yield from the first crop. At the same time, the yield is directly related to the irrigation facilities available for the land under cultivation. If the land is properly irrigated and the source of irrigation is, adequate and certain, the difference between the yield of the first and second crop would become negligible. The reference Court in the instant case having found that the land in question was an irrigated land, there being material to show that the claimant had installed irrigation pump set for irrigation purpose, it has to be held, that there was adequate irrigation infrastructure and the land was adequately irrigated for both crops. Hence there was no need for reducing the yield for the second crop. The reference Court ought to have allowed the full value for the second crop and if the same had been done, the award would have been Rs.49,500/- for the yield, in which event, the reference Court should have held that the market value of the property as Rs.99,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence on record, it has to be held that the reference Court has erred in awarding Rs. 74,750/- per acre as the market value of the property as against Rs.99,000/- per acre.
( 1 ) LAND bearing R. S. No. 115/2 measuring 4 acres 26 guntas, situated at Hiremuramatti village, Bagalkot Taluk, was notified for acquisition under Section 4 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act ("the Act" for short), on 25. 7. 1996. The said property was acquired for the public purpose of upper Krishna Project, i. e. , submergence in the back water of Almatti Reservoir. The final notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 15. 9. 1997 acquiring the said property for the said purpose. The LAO has passed the award on 27. 2. 1999, determining the market value of the property at Rs. 18,351/- per acre.
( 2 ) THE land owner being dissatisfied with the award made by the lao, contending that the compensation has not been determined in accordance with law and the award was meager, sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court after issue of notice to the concerned, has enquired into the matter.
( 3 ) THE owner/claimant has examined himself as PW. 1 and produced documents in support of the claim made by him, which have been marked in his evidence as Exs. P 1 to P5. The LAO did not lead any evidence and the award passed by him was marked as Ex. D 1.
( 4 ) THE reference Court on consideration of the material placed before it, has determined the market value of the property acquired and the compensation payable for it, at Rs. 74,250/- per acre and has ordered for payment of the statutory benefits in accordance with law. No compensation was awarded in respect of the phot kharab. While passing the said award, the reference Court has adopted the capitalisation method. It has taken 50% as the value for the second crop.
( 5 ) THE State through LAO has filed the main appeal contending that the reference Court has erred in treating the entire property as an irrigated land and that two crops are grown on the property and the compensation thus determined and awarded as illegal.
( 6 ) THE owner/claimant has filed the cross objection contending that the market value determined by the reference Court is unjust, inadequate, inequitable, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and has sought for enhancement. It is further contended that though sufficient material has been placed on record as evidence to assess the income of the second half year, the reference Court has not taken into account consideration of the crops grown on the land and averaging of the income, is incorrect. It is contended that the reference court has not made proper determination of the compensation and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and thus he has claimed enhanced compensation. The owner/claimant has sought to determine the market value at Rs. 99,000/- per acre.
( 7 ) WE heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records of the reference Court.
( 8 ) CLAIMANT has examined himself as PW. 1 and has produced exs. P 1 to P5. LAO has not led any evidence, but by consent, the award passed by him has been marked as Ex. D 1. Ex. P1 is the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act, before the Special LAO, seeking reference to the Civil Court, for correct determination of the market value of the property. Ex. P2 is the copy of the order dated 9. 10. 2002 passed in W. P. Nos. 37830-37840/2002, wherein it was held that, if the authorities do not come forward to state the date on which possession is taken, it is always open to the petitioners, to set out the date on which, they lost possession and that date has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding interest. Ex. P3 is the RTC of the property for the period 1995 to 1997-98, from which, it could be seen that, the property was an irrigated land and crops like cotton, groundnut have been grown by the claimant. Ex. P4 is the extract issued by the office of the Agricultural Department, Bagalkot, for the period 1995-96 to 2001-02, in respect of the yield of the various crops. Ex. P5 is
