The main legal point established in the judgment is that in matters of land acquisition, the determination of compensation should consider previous awards for similar lands, and interest should be awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard and disposed of by this Common Judgment.

( 2 ) THESE appeals and cross-objections are filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, malaprabha Project, Saundatti and the claimants respectively being aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed in LAG No. 345/2000 and connected matters dated 22. 11. 2001.

( 3 ) THE appellant has acquired the lands in question situated in Budihal Village, Bailhongal taluk, for a public purpose, for the submergence of Malaprabha Project. Preliminary notification was issued on 31. 7. 1997 followed by a Final Notification dated 17. 9. 1998. The appellant has passed an award on 15. 4. 2000. Possession of the lands was already taken on 29. 8. 1985.

( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. Being dis-satisfed with the award, the claimants filed applications under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference before the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Bailhongal. By the judgment and award impugned in these appeals, the Reference Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court awarded interest on the enhanced amount from the date of possession. e. from 29. 8. 1985.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Lokesh malavalli, learned Counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors.

( 6 ) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate contends that the award of Rs. 50,000/- per acre is excessive and exorbitant more so because the lands are dry lands. He further contends that the award of interest from the date of its possession is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BUDH SINGH AND ORS. He argues that since possession was taken prior to the date of Preliminary Notification, interest is required to be awarded only from the date of Preliminary Notification. He has also placed reliance on the division Bench decision of this Court in the case of LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. VEERABHADRAIAH, for the said proposition.

( 7 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the award of compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per acre is too low and is contrary to the material on record. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. BASANNAGOUDA SANGAPPAGOUDA AND ORS. he submits that in identical circumstances, this Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. He points out the finding of fact recorded by the Reference Court that the average price of DCH Cotton per quintal during the relevant period is Rs. 2,200/- and the average yield per acre is 6. 5 quintal and the gross income per acre comes to Rs. 12,150/ -. Even if the lands are treated as dry lands and 40% of the gross income is deducted towards cost of cultivation, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 7,290/ -. On application of standard multiplier of 10, the market value comes to Rs. 72,900/ -. He submits that the claimants are atleast entitled to Rs. 70,000/- per acre towards compensation. He further argues that since possession of the land was taken much earlier to the date of Preliminary notification, the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of taking possession. In this connection he relies on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREM NATH kapur AND ANR. v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED and ORS. , SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER and the decisions of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, malaprabha PROJECT IV, RAMDURGA v. SANKAPPA KALLAPPA KALASAD (DECEASED) BY L. R. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA project IV, RAMDURGA v. VIRUPAXIGOUDA LINGANAGOUDA PATIL AND ANR. , hal v. MUNISWAMY REDDY and the decision of the Bombay High Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document