Point of Law: Land Acquisition - Claimant is entitled to get rental compensation in this case when the claimant is dispossessed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award passed in LAR No.138 of 2002 by the Reference Court/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, the original claimant as well as the acquiring body have preferred the present appeals by taking aid of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience).

2. The land admeasuring 4 Hectare 37 R out of Survey No.18 and land admeasuring 35 R out of Survey No.19 owned and possessed by the claimant and situated at village Ambawadi came to be acquired by the Government for Masalga Medium Project.

3. Relevant events and dates of the acquisition proceedings are as under:

a) On 5th August, 1993, notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published.

b) On 1st March, 1995, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published.

c) On 29th September, 1996, the SLAO was pleased to pass award.

d) The SLAO was pleased to award compensation at the rate of Rs.225/- per R i.e. at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Hectare; and

e) The Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre for Bagayat land and Rs.27,500/- per Acre for dry land.

4. Heard Mr. A. B. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant (in First Appeal No.1250 of 2006), Mr. S.G. Sangle, learned counsel for the appellant/acquiring body (in First Appeal No.1774 of 2008) and Mr. S.N. Morampalle, learned AGP for the respondent/State in both the appeals.

5. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the original claimant invited my attention to the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court. He also referred relevant part of the evidence of original claimant coupled with documentary evidence. He pointed out that Survey Nos.18 and 19 owned and possessed by the claimant are adjacent to each other. There was well in land Survey No.18. Entry of well is also reflected in 7/12 extract. The claimant has categorically stated that he was taking Kharip as well as Rabbi crops in the acquired lands. It was a black cotton soil and capable of taking crops like hybrid Jawar, wheat and sunflower. The crop of sugarcane was also being taken in the acquired land by using well irrigation facility. The acquired land was fertile and of good quality. Both lands ought to have been held under the category of Bagayat land. The Reference Court has committed an error in recording the finding that the land Survey No.19 is dry land since no evidence is produced on behalf of the claimant. He pointed out that the claimant was supplying his sugarcane crop to nearby sugar factory and also produced documentary evidence to that effect. Even then the Reference Court has held the land bearing Survey No.18 as semi Bagayat land. He submitted that the claimant has produced sale instance vide Exhibit-21 and also examined concerned witness. The land under acquisition and the land under sale instance is within the radius of 1 to 1 and ½ kilometer. There was no difficulty for the Reference Court to accept that sale instance and determine the market value of the acquired land. He pointed out the impugned judgment paragraph 16 and submitted that though the Reference Court has held that claimant has proved on the basis of available material that the land under acquisition was black cotton soil and yielding Kharip and Rabbi crops and land vide Survey No.18 was irrigated land, not awarded the compensation by treating it as Bagayat/perennially irrigated.

6. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that sale instance vide Exhibit-28 relied upon by the Reference Court does not indicate true market value at the relevant point of time. The land under sale instance at Exhibit-21 is at a distance of 1 to 1 and ½ kilometer from the acquired land, which indicates true market value and that needs to be relied upon in absence of any contra evidence by the State. He submitted that at the relevant point of time, the market value of the acquired land was more than R