The court considered the similarity with a previous case to determine entitlement to compensation and escalation rate, modifying the Reference Court's decision

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 29/1/2011 passed in LAC No. 44/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case of the appellant are as under:

Appellant is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 147/2 of Batakurki Village and the said land has been acquired by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of 1 acre 23 guntas for the purpose of construction of GRB canal in the year 2007 by issuing a preliminary notification dtd. 5/7/2007 under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short). Respondent No. 1 has passed an award 22/7/2010 fixing the market value at Rs.23,000.00 per acre. Appellant being dissatisfied with the market value fixed by respondent No. 1, filed an application under Sec. 18(1) of the Act. The matter was referred to Reference Court. The Reference Court has raised the Reference as LAC No. 44/2010. The petitioner has filed the claim petition stating that the acquired land is very fertile and having irrigation facility growing commercial crops like sugarcane, onion, DCH cotton and getting annual income of Rs.60,000.00 per acre. At the time of acquisition of acquired land, the market value was around Rs.6,00,000.00 per acre. Ignoring all those aspects, respondent No. 1 has fixed the market value at Rs.23,000.00 per acre. Hence he prayed for enhancement of compensation. Respondent No. 1 has filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the Reference Application and contended that the application filed under Sec. 18(1) of the Act is barred by time and further contended that respondent No. 1 after considering relevant records has fixed the market value at Rs.23,000.00 per acre and the same is fair and proper. Hence he prayed to dismiss the Reference Application. Appellants mother was examined as pw-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9. Respondents have not led any oral evidence. Copy of award and award statements are marked with the consent of parties as Ex.R1 and R2. The Reference Court after considering the material placed on record has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,75,450.00 per acre and allowed the Reference Application in part. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed an error in awarding Rs.1,75,450.00 per acre which is on a lower side and also committed an error in escalation at 5% per annum for a period of two years. Hence he submits that the market value re-determined by the Reference Court is on the lower side. Hence he prays to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and award.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

7. It is not in dispute that the land of the appellant was acquired for the purpose of construction of GRB canal in the year 2007 under preliminary notification and respondent No. 1 has fixed the market value at Rs.23,000.00 per acre. The claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sec. 18(1) of the Act. The appellant has relied upon the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 78/2008. In the said case, respondents have acquired the land in Batakurki Village and the purpose of acquisition of land in both the cases is similar in nature. The land of the petitioner and the land in LAC No. 78/2008 are situated in the same village and they are similar in nature. In the said case, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.1,59,500.00. The Reference Court relying upon the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 78/2008 has fixed the market value in the present case