The court affirmed the Reference Court's authority to enhance compensation for land and trees, validating solatium and additional market value despite appellant's claims otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court questioning the enhancement and assessment of compensation for yield of trees i.e., mango as well as questioning the calculation on solatium, additional market value and award of interest in LAC Nos.11/2013, 23/2013, and 13/2013.

2. The case of the appellant - Assistant Executive Engineer, Visveswaraya Jala Nigam Limited, Upper Bhadra Project, in all these appeals, before this Court is that the preliminary notification dated 08.11.2010 was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 18.11.2010 notifying several lands including the lands involved in these appeals in respect of Bettathavarekere village belonging to respective respondent-landowners. The final declaration was published in the Gazette on 24.11.2011.

3. The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘the Act’, for brevity) awarding compensation in respect of lands as well as trees. Being aggrieved by the said award, respondent-landowners of the respective properties sought reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation both for land as well as yield of trees.

4. Thereafter, the Reference Court, having recorded the evidence, enhanced the compensation and assessed the yield of mango trees and also calculated the solatium and additional market value and awarded interest in the respective cases. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Apart from urging several contentions, the appellant has predominantly urged as under:

i) The Reference Court has erred in awarding additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A), solatium at the rate of 30% as provided under Section 23 (2) and also interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession of the land by the respondent- SLAO, both on the compensation awarded by the SLAO, as also on the enhanced compensation awarded by it. In view of the same, the award reflects that solatium at the rate of 30% has been calculated both on the enhanced compensation as well as the award that is passed by the SLAO, when in fact, SLAO has awarded solatium under Section 23 (2) and additional market value under Section 23 (1-A) on the land value. The SLAO has omitted to award those statutory benefits on the valuation of the trees and other fixtures on the land, which according to the appellant is lawful. Hence, awarding of statutory benefits under Section 23 (2) and 23 (1-A) both on the compensation awarded by the SLAO and also on the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court is erroneous.

ii) Furthermore, interest under Section 28 of the Act is to be calculated either on the amount which is in excess to the amount that has been awarded by the SLAO, or on the amount that has been enhanced by the Reference Court. However, in the impugned judgment and award, interest under Section 28 has been calculated both on the enhanced amount awarded by the Reference Court including solatium at the rate of 30% as also on the amount awarded by the SLAO, which, according to the appellant is untenable.

iii) The Reference Court has further erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of a period of one year, till the payment of entire compensation as provided under Section 28 of the Act both on the amount awarded by the SLAO as well as on the enhanced compensation, when there was no referenc