Date of preliminary notification is pivotal in determining market value; incorrect land classification affects compensation outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 passed in LAC No.56/1994 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short) seeking for higher compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.95 situated at G.Mallenahalli Village, Tiptur taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Hemavathi canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the market value and awarded compensation at Rs.2,38,443/-. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought a reference. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the reference petition and the refusal to enhance compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Sri. Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the Reference Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record. It is submitted that the Reference Court failed to consider that the acquired land is garden land and wrongly treated it as dry land while fixing the compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that very low compensation was awarded for coconut trees, wells, and other improvements, ignoring the reports of the Agriculture Department and other competent authorities. It is also submitted that the Reference Court applied an incorrect multiplier and relied on old decisions without considering present economic conditions and the Reference Court did not consider the fertility, irrigation facilities, future potentiality, increase in land value, and incidental damages suffered by the appellant. Hence, he seeks that this Court may interfere with the findings of the Reference Court and re-determine the compensation in a just and reasonable manner.

5. Per contra, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and submits that the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and correct as on the date of acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the market value, nature of the land, annual yield, existing trees, buildings and other relevant factors and has arrived at the valuation. It is further submitted that the said valuation was fixed in accordance with the existing parameters prescribed by the Government. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the valuation is just, fair and adequate and does not warrant any reassessment. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

7. The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas situated in Sy.No.95, situated at G. Mallenahalli Vi