The determination of market value for land acquisition must be based on contemporaneous evidence, with claimants bearing the burden of proof to establish inadequacy of the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

These appeals and cross objections are preferred by the KIADB and the claimants respectively being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Reference Court’ for short). The particulars are as under:

2. The parties henceforth are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court for the purpose of convenience. The land loosers are referred to the claimants and the beneficiary from acquisition is referred to as KIADB.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals and cross objections are that the State Government issued preliminary notification on 24.04.2005 to acquire various extents of lands including the lands of the claimants for establishment of industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the lands at Rs.41,300/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the same under the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2013 at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the KIADB has filed these appeals and the claimants have filed the cross objections.

4. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Reference Court committed grave error in determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre by ignoring the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that the location of the acquired lands is within the developed area as is evident from the Court Commissioner’s report at Ex.C.1 and the sketch at Ex.C.2. However, the Reference Court has not considered the said evidence. It is further submitted that the acquired lands are situated next to the existing industrial area formed by the KIADB and the acquired lands are within 1 Km from Bellary – Bangalore Highway. The Reference Court ignored Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.25 the Yield Certificates issued by the Horticulture Department which indicate that the crops grown in the acquired lands are commercial crops having high yield and the trees standing in the acquired lands are the fruit bearing trees and the Reference Court ought to have considered the same and awarded higher compensation. It is also submitted that if the evidence on record is considered, the claimants are entitled at least Rs.14 to Rs.15 Lakhs per acre as compensation with all statutory benefits. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the claimants.

5. Sri.Gurudev I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the KIADB submits that the claimants have failed to prove the correct market value of the acquired lands before the Reference Court. It is submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in considering Ex.P.1- the Sale Deed of Bellary village as the acquired lands are from Mundargi village. It is submitted that the Reference Court has not assigned any reasons in the impugned judgment to arrive at the conclusion and for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.11,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the determination of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer is based on the nature of lands acquired and its market value as on the date of preliminary notification and the same is required to be confirmed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

* THE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED V/S RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS , MANU/SC/7896/2008

*MAYADEVI(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER, (2018) 2 SCC 474

* BIJENDER AND ORS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS , MANU/SC/1362/2017

* SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS. V/S KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO AND OTHERS , MANU/SC/0690/1997

6. We have heard the submissions of the learned