Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Fakirappa Rahut vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, on 25 February, 2014
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
MFA No. 23796 of 2011 (LAC)
C/w
MFA Nos. 23479, 23555, 23558, 23561, 23572, 23621,
23623, 23775, 23778, 23797, 23926 of 2011 (LAC);
MFA Nos. 22149, 22150, 22151, 22152, 22586, 23625,
23382 of 2012 (LAC); and MFA CROB No.932 of 2012
MFA No. 23796 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Basappa,
S/o Fakirappa Rahut,
Age: 66 years, Agriculturist,
R/o M.K. Hubli Village,
Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District. ...Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti & P.V. Sambargi, Advocates)
AND:
:2:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
* Sri M.B.Kanavi, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24-06-2011,
passed in LAC No.477 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 23479 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Husainsab,
S/o Rajesab Nadaf,
* Corrected v.o. dtd. 25.02.2014
Sd/-
Hon'ble NKJ & CRKSJ
:3:
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o M.K. Hubli, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S. N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 07-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.473 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,85,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 23555 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Sangangouda,
S/o Chintamanigouda Patil,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turamari, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S.N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
:4:
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.752 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- per acre and further the claimant is entitled to
receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bore
well with statutory benefits.
MFA No. 23558 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Padeppa,
S/o Gangappa Poti,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turamari, TalL: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S.N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.756 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
:5:
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 23561 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Shivanagouda,
S/o Ninganagouda Patil,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turamari, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S.N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.760 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 23572 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
:6:
Rudragouda,
S/o Balachandragouda Patil,
Age: 55 years, Agriculturist,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilatheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2;
Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.761 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 23621 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Virupaxappa
S/o Basappa Ghattad
Deceased by his L.Rs.,
1(a) Smt. Tippawwa,
W/o Virupaxappa Ghattad,
:7:
Age: 65 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
1(b) Smt. Irawwa,
D/o Virupaxappa Ghattad,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
1(c) Rudrappa,
S/o Virupaxappa Ghattad,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
1(d) Manjunath,
S/o Virupaxappa Ghattad,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellants
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilatheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
:8:
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.774 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 23623 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Sanganagouda,
S/o Chintamanigouda Patil,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Turmari Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilatheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.752 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
:9:
MFA No. 23775 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Mahantesh,
S/o Rudrappa Bogur,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turamari, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S. N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.767 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 23778 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
: 10 :
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Veerupaxappa,
S/o Basappa Gattad,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turamari, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S. N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 15-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.774 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 23797 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Parappa S/o Gangappa Killedar
Age: 68 years, Agriculturist,
R/o M.K. Hubli Village,
Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
: 11 :
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilatheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24-06-2011,
passed in LAC No.510 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 23926 of 2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
- Appellant
(By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-II, Saundatti,
Now at Opp: Hindi Prachar Sabha,
U.B. Hills, Dharwad.
2. Sri Babu S/o Ramappa Goni
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
: 12 :
R/o Kadrolli, Tal: Bailhongal.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri S. N. Hatti, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated * 08-04-2011,
passed in LAC No.314 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, awarding the compensation of
Rs.2,85,000/- per acre.
MFA No. 22149 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Shri Madiwalappa,
S/o Basappa Sheelavantar,
Dead by his LRs.,
1. Chandragouda,
Madiwalappa Sheelavantar,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Vakund Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
2. Sanganagouda,
Madiwalappa Sheelavantar,
Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Vakund Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
3. Smt. Neelawwa,
W/o Fakiragouda Hanamanal,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculturist-
Household work,
R/o Siddasamudra Village,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.
* Corrected v.o. dtd. 25.02.2014
Sd/-
Hon'ble NKJ & CRKSJ
: 13 :
4. Smt. Gangawwa,
W/o Somangouda Giddbasappanavar,
Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculturist-
Household work, R/o Vakund Village,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.
By their PA Holder
Shri Shankargouda,
S/o Chandrgouda Sheelavantar,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculturist-
Household work, R/o Vakund Village,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.
- Appellants
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 06-03-2012,
passed in LAC No.04 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
: 14 :
MFA No. 22150 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Channayya,
S/o Dundayya Hiremath,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Mugabasav Village,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24-03-2012,
passed in LAC No.272 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 22151 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Ashok S/o Virupaxappa Kulkarni
Dead by his LRs
: 15 :
Mahantesh,
S/o Rachangouda,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Mugabasav Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24-03-2012,
passed in LAC No.278 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 22152 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Nagappa S/o Balappa Mabanur,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Mugabasav Village,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
: 16 :
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 26-03-2012,
passed in LAC No.289 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 22586 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Shankareppa,
S/o Yallappa Kudari,
Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Mugabasav Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellant
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
: 17 :
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 05-04-2012,
passed in LAC No.299 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 23625 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Shri Basavanneppa,
S/o Shettappa Muttennanavar,
Deceased by his L.Rs.,
1(a) Smt. Nilagangawwa,
W/o Basavanneppa Muttennanavar,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Neginahal Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
1(b) Smt. Mallawwa,
W/o Mallappa Dodawad,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Bailhongal, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
1(c) Smt. Sarojini,
W/o Mallikarjun Savadi,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Dharwad ,Dharwad Taluk,
: 18 :
Dharwad District.
1(d) Shri Mallikarjun,
S/o Basavanneppa Muttennanavar,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Neginahal Village. Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District
1(e) Shri Subhash,
S/o Basavanneppa Muttennanavar,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Neginahal Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellants
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 05-08-2011,
passed in LAC No.261 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
: 19 :
MFA No. 23382 of 2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Appasaheb,
S/o Shivarayappa Bolashetti,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Jalikoppa Village, Bailhongal Taluk.
Belgaum District.
2. Sri Baburao,
S/o Chandrappa Bolashetti,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Jalikop Village, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District.
- Appellants
(By S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project-III, Dharwad-3.
2. The Executive Engineer,
M.L.B.C.C. Dn.No.2,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Navilutheerth, Taluk Saundatti,
District Belgaum.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate for R2)
This MFA filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition
Act, against the judgment and award dated 18-06-2012,
passed in LAC No.355 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the Reference Petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
: 20 :
MFA CROB No.932 of 2012
BETWEEN:
Shivangouda,
S/o Ningangouda Patil,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Turmari Village, Taluka: Bailhongal,
District: Belgaum.
- Cross Objector
(By Sri S.N. Hatti, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.,
Represented by its Executive Engineer,
MLBCC Div.No.2, Naviluteerth,
Tal: Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.
2. The Special Land Acquisition officer,
Malaprabha Project, Dharwad-3.
- Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, AGA for R1;
Sri G. K. Hiregoudar, Advocate for R2)
This MFA CROB in MFA No.23561 of 2011 filed under
Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the Judgment and award
dated 15-04-2011 passed in LAC No.760 of 2010 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the
Reference Petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
These MFAs and MFA Cr. Ob. are coming on for
admission this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following:
: 21 :
JUDGMENT
All these appeals arise out of judgment and award passed by the Reference Court fixing the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. The beneficiary has challenged this award on the ground that the market value determined is erroneous whereas the claimants have challenged the award seeking enhancement.
2. The lands which are the subject matter of these proceedings are all situated in M.K. Hubli, Turumuri, Kadroli, Mugabasava and Jalikoppa villages, all situated in Bailhongal Taluk of Belgaum district. The purpose of acquisition was to store back waters of Malaprabha when the water reaches the maximum water level. The preliminary notification came to be issued u/S 4(1) of the Act on 21.06.2007. 6(1) notification came to be issued on 13.11.2008. The L.A.O. passed an awrd on : 22 : 24.12.2009 awarding a sum of Rs.63,000/- per acre treating the land as black cotton soil and sugar cane growing land. The owners of the land objected to the award and sought for a reference. On reference, the Civil Court awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre on the basis of the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No.1269/2003 which was in respect of the lands situated in Kardoli village. Aggrieved by the said award of the Reference Court the land owners have preferred appeals seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre whereas the beneficiary has preferred appeal seeking for reduction of the compensation awarded.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants contended, that the Reference Court took the market value as determined by this Court in M.F.A. No.1269/2003 where for the land situated in Kardoli village which is : 23 : also acquired for the very same purpose under a Notification dated 30.07.1997 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre was awarded. Thereafter it added 9% escalation for a period of 10 years and arrived at a figure of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre which is incorrect. It ought to have taken 10% and therefore he submits, per acre Rs.3,00,000/- is to be awarded as compensation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the beneficiary submitted, in M.F.A. No.1269/2003 the amount is arrived at on the basis of the value of the joggery and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L.A.O. Vs. Kari Gowda (2010 (5) SCC 708), the value of the direct agricultural crop produced by agriculturists is to be taken into consideration and not the commercial use for which the said agricultural product is utilized. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made the basis : 24 : for awarding compensation in this case. Further, he submitted, even if that is taken as the basis, the claimants have not produced any evidence on record to show that in the acquired lands sugar cane was grown. Lastly he submitted adopting the escalation at 9% is erroneous as these lands are situated in a remote village where escalation if at all is at the rate of 2 to 3% per year and not more than that. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Ramesh bhai Jivan Bhai Patil (AIR (SCW) 2008-0-5947) and contended, the escalation should be only at the rate of 2 to 3%.
5. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the points that arise for our consideration in these batch of appeals is:
: 25 :
(a) Whether the market value arrived at by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre is correct?
(b) If not, whether it requires to be reduced or enhanced for Rs.3,00,000/-?
6. The lands which are the subject matter of these acquisition proceedings were notified for acquisition and a preliminary notification came to be issued on 21.06.2007. Therefore, we have to find out what is the prevailing market value of these lands on the date of preliminary notification. In the award which is passed by the LAO the full description of the survey number, extent of the land are clearly set out. The L.A.O. visited the spot and he has made a note of the particulars of the land which are acquired, nature of crop which is grown, whether there was any bore well dug in those lands and whether there are any trees and construction : 26 : in the land in question. He has meticulously set out all those particulars as a part of the award. A perusal of the said particulars shows in all these lands sugar cane crop is grown. In some of the lands there was a bore well. In none of the lands there existed any trees or construction. After setting out those particulars he has observed, prior to 4(1) Notification there is no material to show that these lands had irrigation facility. Therefore he has treated the said lands as dry lands. Then he has taken into consideration the value of the lands which are sold and registered in the concerned Sub Registrar's Office in and around the period of preliminary notification. It is on that basis he has arrived at the figure of Rs.63,000/- as compensation per acre payable for these lands. According to him, the lands in all these five villages are similarly situated. : 27 :
7. On reference before the Reference Court the claimants have adduced evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. 15 claimants were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15. They also produced 27 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced. But by consent of parties 3 documents came to be marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. Out of the 27 documents produced by the claimants Ex.P.13 to 27 are the applications filed by them u/S 18(1) of the Act which is of no assistance in determining the market value of the property. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the yield certificate, Ex.P.3 is the copy of the price list, Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No.1269/2003, Ex.P.5 is the copy of the compensation report, Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are the certified copies of the sale deeds, and Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.12 are the four Government letters.
: 28 :
8. The Reference Court noticed, none of the claimants have produced the R.O.R. pertaining to the acquired lands for the period of three years immediately prior to the date of issuance of preliminary notification, yield certificate pertaining to the acquired lands for the years 2003-04 to 2007. P.W.1 to 15 have clearly admitted non-production of the documents to substantiate their claim that they are growing 60 to 70 tonnes sugar cane per acre per annum in the acquired lands. However, respondent no.1 has admitted that in the acquired lands the claimants have grown sugar cane from irrigation. The respondents also have not placed evidence to rebut the oral evidence of P.W.1 to 15 and contents of the award regarding sugar cane crop grown in the acquired lands by irrigation. Therefore, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants have grown sugar cane crop in the acquired lands. The claimants did not produce any evidence to : 29 : show that they have produced joggery or they sold joggery either in the market or the APMC Bailhongal, though in the oral evidence they speak about it. Therefore, the Reference Court rightly declined to assess the market value on the basis of the joggery. The claimants also did not produced village map of Kardoli and M.K. Hubli to confirm the location of the acquired lands. In the absence of any relevant evidence on record, as is clear from the award of the Reference Court, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants requested the reference Court to assess the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court in M.F.A. No.1269/2003. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Reference Court held that it is neither fit nor proper to estimate the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the sale deeds pertaining to sy. No.150/1C, 150/1B and 151 of Kardoli village which was purchased by the KPTCL at : 30 : the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. In view of the non- production of the yield certificate for the period 2003 to 2007 with reference to the acquired lands the Reference Court has held that it is fit and proper to estimate the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No.1269/2003. Therefore, it took the value of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded in M.F.A. No.1269/2003 in respect of the preliminary notification dated 31.07.1997 in respect of the lands situated in Kardoli village as the basis. Then, relying on the judgments cited by the claimants, it took 9% of the market value for the purpose of escalation and arrived at a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre. Accordingly, awarded the compensation at that rate.
Now, the question that arises for consideration is:
Whether the award of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre based on the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 1269/2003 is proper?: 31 :
9. The judgment in MFA No. 1269/2003 is produced and marked as Ex.P4. The lands which are the subject matter of that appeal are all situated in Kadrolli Village. The preliminary notification in the said case is dated 31.7.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted a sum of Rs.18,000/- per acre as compensation. In appeal, the reference Court increased it to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. It is in this background this Court took note of the following facts in the said case before enhancing compensation. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-
"8. The yield of sugarcane shows for the agricultural years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 is 28 quintals, 29 quintals and 30 quintals per acre, respectively. In the instant case, the claimants have stated in their evidence that they were growing sugarcane and preparing jaggary. The certified copy of the price list issued by the Secretary, APMC, Bailhongal, Exhibit P.3, in which for the agricultural years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 the price has been shown between Rs.900/- and Rs.1,320/- and the price has been shown for jaggary as follows: For the agricultural years 1995-96 market price is at Min.Rs.900/- Max. Rs.950/-; for the years 1996- 97 it is at Min. Rs.800/- Max.1160/-; for the years 1996-97 it is Min.Rs.1100/- Max.Rs.1320/-. The : 32 : reference court has considered the first capitalisation method of calculation and then the average yield for agricultural years 1996-97 as 29 tonnes to 30 tonnes per acre sugarcane grown by the respondents-claimants by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in MSA.286/99 dated 2-3-2000, wherein this Court has held that 1 quintal of jaggary may be extracted from 1 tonne of sugarcane and has taken the minimum price of jaggary during the relevant year at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per quintal as per Exhibit P.3. At the said rate the reference Court has arrived at the gross income for 29 quintals as Rs.31,900/- (29 x Rs.1100) per acre. Out of the said gross income 50% is deducted towards the cost of cultivation, as held by the Apex Court and this court, and arrived at a net income of Rs.15,950/- which is multiplied by 10 multiplier, as held by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments to arrive at the market value, and the market value is determined as Rs.1,59,500/- per acre. Thus, the reference court by adopting 3 capitalisation methods having evaluated the market value at the rates between Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,20,000/- has fixed the lower rate of market value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for all the lands in question by assigning various reasons which are not based on the evidence of the claimants. The reference court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, it has not properly assessed the fertility and potentiality of the lands in question and therefore the compensation awarded requires to be enhanced.".
---
10. The learned counsel for the beneficiary contended that, as is clear from the aforesaid judgment, the market value is assessed on the basis of the value of the : 33 : jaggery which is illegal and runs counter to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS [(2010) 5 SCC 708] where it is held as under:-
"45. The next question which is of some importance arises out as a corollary to the above discussion. Should there be direct nexus between the potentiality of the acquired land as on the date of the Notification or can any matter which may be consequential or remotely connected with the agricultural activity be the basis for determining the market value of the land? Does the scheme of the Act, particularly with reference to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act permit such an approach? This question has to be answered in the negative. What is required to be assessed, is the land and its existing potentiality alone as on the date of acquisition. Moreover, the potentiality has to be directly relatable to the capacity of the acquired land to produce agricultural products or, its market value relatable to the known methods of computation of compensation which we shall shortly proceed to discuss.
46. The second circumstance specified in Section 23(1) to be considered by the Court in determining compensation is the damage sustained by the person on account of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof. Even from a reasonable practicable view it has to be understood that the compensation which is payable to the claimants is in relation to : 34 : the acquired land, the standing crops or trees and what they earn from the agricultural crops or fruits or trees on the agricultural land. To extend the benefit for the purposes of compensation, considering that the fruits grown on the agricultural land would be converted into Jam or any other eatable products will not be a relevant consideration within the scheme of the Act. The purpose is not to connect the acquisition to remote factors which may have some bearing or some connection with the agricultural activity being carried on, on the land in question. Such an approach by the Court is neither permissible nor prudent, as it would be opposed to the legislative intent contained under the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.
50. On proper analysis of the above stated principles and the relevant provisions of law, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that consequential or remote benefits occurring from an agricultural activity is not a relevant consideration for determination of the fair market value on the date of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is only the direct agricultural crop produced by the agriculturist from the acquired land or its price in market at best, which is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind by the court while applying any of the known and accepted method of computation of compensation or the fair market value of the acquired land."
11. From the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that, the market value of a land where : 35 : sugarcane is grown cannot be determined by taking into consideration the value of jaggery which is produced out of the sugarcane grown in the said land. In other words, it is only the direct agricultural crop produced by an agriculturist from an acquired land or its price in the market at best, is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind by the Court while applying any of the known methods of computation of compensation or the fair market value of the acquired land. The potentiality has to be directly relatable to the capacity of the acquired land to produce agricultural products or, its market value relatable to the known methods of computation of compensation. The value of the products by conversion of the said agricultural produce is not a relevant consideration within the scheme of the Act. The purpose is not to connect the acquisition to remote factors which may have some bearing or some connection with the agricultural activity being carried : 36 : on, on the land in question. Such an approach would be opposed to the legislative intent contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. However, in the aforesaid judgment the evidence was on record both of the value of the sugarcane as well as the jaggery. The value of the sugarcane for 3 years was Rs.900 to Rs.1,320/-. The value of the jaggery was between Rs.800/- to Rs.1,320/- The value that is taken is Rs.1,100/-. Therefore, even though there is a reference to the value of the jaggery, even if that is excluded Rs.1,100/- would be the value of the sugarcane grown in the said land also. Therefore, merely because there was a reference to the value of the jaggery, it cannot be said that the said judgment is not a relevant piece of evidence to assess the market value on that basis in this case. Therefore, we do not see any substance in the said contention.
: 37 :
12. Next it was contended that, the lands which are the subject matter of acquisition are situated in 5 different villages which are not contiguous to each other, on the contrary they are spread over. The claimants have not produced any evidence to show that they were growing sugarcane in all these lands. Therefore, the reference Court committed a serious error in holding that in all these lands sugarcane is grown and then uniformly fixing the market value in respect of the lands acquired.
13. It is true that the claimants have not produced record of rights, documents showing supply of sugarcane to sugar factories or such other documents to show that they have gown sugarcane. This is obviously because in the enquiry held by the Land Acquisition Officer the said fact was not in dispute. In the award of the Land Acquisition Officer at para No.10 : 38 : under the heading spot inspection and enquiry regarding award, in column No.2 the survey number is given, in column No.3 the extent of land acquired is given, in column No.4 the name of the landlord is given and in column No.5 the particulars of the land acquired is given. In the said column meant for particulars it is categorically stated with reference to each land that sugarcane is grown. In some lands it is stated there is a bore well. It is also stated the said land in the near future cannot be converted for non-agricultural purposes. In the statement of objections filed before the reference Court, the beneficiary did not contend that in these lands sugarcane is not grown. That was not a point at issue at all. Even otherwise, they could not have challenged the contents of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer because it is an offer made by the Government to the landlord which they have no right to challenge once approval is granted. Therefore, it is too : 39 : late in the day for the beneficiary to contend before this Court because the claimants have not produced any documents to show that sugarcane is grown, the said land cannot be assessed as a sugarcane growing land and therefore we do not find any substance in the said contention.
14. In so far as the contention that the said lands are situated in 5 different villages which are scattered and not contiguous is concerned, the said fact is not disputed. The sketch is before us. Therefore, it is clear all these 5 villages are not contiguous and they are situated at different places. Merely because the lands are situated in different villages at considerable distance, if the compensation payable to the land is on the basis of capitalisation method it makes no difference. The soil in all these lands is a black soil, good for sugarcane cultivation. These lands are : 40 : situated on either side of the river. Whether the sugarcane is grown with the help of the river water or with the help of bore well water it is immaterial. The fact that the purpose of the acquisition of lands is because of the construction of the dam and when it is at its full level, the water would be stored in these lands. Under these circumstances, the reference Court committed no illegality in awarding the same amount of compensation in respect of these lands though they are situated in different villages and they are not contiguous to each other. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the said contention also.
15. As the other evidence produced by the claimants was not accepted by the reference Court as it was not helpful in adjudicating the market value of the land which are acquired and because the learned counsel for the parties requested the Court to assess the market : 41 : value on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Ex.P4, if the reference Court proceeded on that assumption it cannot be found fault with. Though the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the property on the basis of the value contained in the sale deed and once it was held to be not relevant, the reference cannot be rejected on that score. The reference Court ought to adjudicate the market value on the basis of the material on record. In that context in the absence of other material, the reference Court has acted on a judgment of this Court where the lands situated in one of the villages involved in this appeal, it cannot be found fault with. Of course, in the said judgment the preliminary notification was dated 31.7.1997. However, in the instant case the preliminary notification is dated 21.6.2007. There is a difference of 10 long years. That is the reason why it has adopted the escalation principle and has awarded the : 42 : compensation. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether the percentage of escalation which is adopted by the Court is proper. It is in this context the land owners contend 10% should be the escalation. The beneficiary contends escalation should not be beyond 5% and the proper escalation would be 3 to 4%. It is in this background, we have to see what is the law when escalation is adopted to assess the market value. The Apex Court in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION vs RAMESH BHAI JIVAN BHAI PATEL [AIR SCW 2008-0-5947] has laid down the principles which governs escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years. It reads as under : -
"6. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, : 43 : and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.
Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing : 44 : appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.
Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per : 45 : annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market : 46 : value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.
7. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no evidence of any out-of- ordinary developments or increases in prices in the area. We are of the view that providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15, would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of acquired lands. Whether the increase should be at a cumulative rate or a flat rate?"
---
16. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, now, it is well settled that the percentage of increase or decrease in the market value for urban and semi-urban areas cannot be the same as that of the rural areas. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in price would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. The price gets stagnated for years or rise marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. At any rate, the percentage which would be taken into : 47 : consideration would be half of what is taken in respect of urban and semi-urban lands. It is in this background, if we look at the percentage to be adopted to arrive at the market value of an acquisition in 2007, what the Reference Court has done is not correct. The Reference Court has taken Rs.1,50,000/- as the base value as determined by this Court under Ex.P.4. Then, it has taken 9% of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e., Rs.13,500/- and then it has multiplied it by 10 years. This adoption of 9% for the purpose of escalation is without any basis. The evidence on record discloses that all these lands are situated in villages adjoining the river and the dam. The purpose of acquisition is, because of the construction of the dam, when the water is stored to the full extent, the acquired lands would get submerged/inundated in the water thus depriving the owners of the lands from cultivating. It is not the case of the claimants that these lands have a potential of being used for non-agricultural : 48 : purpose. In and around these lands, there is no developmental activity that is going on. The said lands have to be used only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, as the lands are situated away from development activity and are situated adjoining the river and the dam site, it is only persons who want to cultivate the land would have purchased this property. Today, the number of persons who want to cultivate the land is diminishing rapidly. The land value is increasing only if the said land could be used for the purpose other than the agriculture. If it had a potential of being used for non-agricultural purposes, probably 10% escalation would be a proper guide to arrive and fix the correct market value.
17. It is settled law from the aforesaid judgments, the proper escalation to be adopted is between 5% to 10% if there is no prospects of development. In respect of the : 49 : agricultural lands which are situated in far interior in the villages, the escalation would be only 1% to 2%. The map, which is placed on record, shows that the lands situated in the villages Mugabasava, Jalikoppa and Bevinakoppa are near the dam site and the lands situated in the villages Turamari, M.K. Hubli and Kadrolli are far away from the dam site, they are at the fag end. Those villages are far away from Bailhongal Taluk. Though a National Highway passes through M.K.Hubli and Kardolli villages, as there are no developmental activities on either side of the National Highway, the passing by Highway by itself cannot considerably increase the value of lands which are situated in M.K.Hubli and Kadrolli. On the contrary, it is only when tank is full those acquired lands would be submerged in the river water. Otherwise, there is no submergence. In fact, the statistics given by the beneficiary shows only in the year 1997-98, 2005-06, : 50 : 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2011-12, the water had reached the maximum limits. Therefore, though the lands are similarly situated, though they are in different villages spread over on both sides of the river and dam water, as the basis for assessing the compensation is the value of the sugarcane grown in that area, there is no difficulty in awarding compensation to all these lands similarly.
18. In the light of what we have set out above and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we deem proper to take 5% escalation to arrive at the market value. If 5% escalation is taken, the market value of the land would be Rs.75,000/-.
19. We make it very clear, under Ex.P.4, this Court had arrived at a sum of Rs.1,59,500/- per acre as the market value. As the claimant had paid only the court fee claiming Rs.1,50,000/-, it was reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. In the instant case, we are not : 51 : determining the market value at the rate of Rs.1,59,500/- because, as laid down by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, this escalation would be safe only for a period of five years; if it is for a period of ten years, there is a likelihood of it being unsafe. Therefore, keeping in view the said principles, we have adopted Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as the base amount. Then we have added 5% escalation and thus we have arrived at Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. In our view that is the just compensation payable. Therefore, the award of 9% in some cases and 8% in some cases cannot be sustained. To the said extent, the awards passed by the Reference Court is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, it is hereby set aside.
20. The learned counsel for the beneficiary contended that the interest on the amount of compensation is payable either from the date of preliminary notification : 52 : or from the date of taking possession whichever is later. In the instant case, even to this date, possession is not taken by the Government and not handedover to the beneficiary. Therefore, the question of payment of interest would not arise.
21. We do not see any substance in the said contention. In this case, the lands were acquired by the Government for being handed over to the beneficiary. The purpose of acquisition is when they have constructed a dam, if the dam is full then the acquired lands would be inundated in the water, thus depriving the land owners of cultivation. It is on the complaints made by these land owners, the Government took a policy decision to acquire these lands so that the land owners who are put to loss because of the construction of the dam are duly compensated. Therefore, the question of government taking possession from the land : 53 : owners and handing over the land to the beneficiaries in the facts of this case is totally immaterial. Therefore, rightly, the reference Court has taken the date of preliminary notification as the period from which the interest should calculated. However, we make it very clear that when once the landlords are paid compensation under the Act, once the water submerges these lands, it amounts to government taking possession of the lands. The consequence is acquired lands vested with the government. Land owners would not have any right, title or interest over the land. After the said acquisition, the land owners cannot enter upon the land when there is no water to cultivate the land and defeat the purpose of the acquisition. Therefore, the beneficiary is at liberty to fence the land which is subject matter of this acquisition and is at liberty to plant trees to prevent soil erosion and make use of the land in the manner they deem fit, keeping in mind the : 54 : purpose of acquisition. Landlords shall not interfere with the possession of the beneficiary nor in any way cause damage to the land which has acquired the land over which the landlords will not have any right after such acquisition.
Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeals and cross-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed.
(ii) Appeals filed by the beneficiary is partly allowed.
(iii) The market value is determined at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per acre in respect of all the lands which are subject matter of acquisition and which is subject matter of this proceedings. The claimants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits on the basis of the said amount.: 55 :
(iv) The beneficiary shall deposit the amount within three months from today.
(v) Parties to bear their own costs.
All other pending interim applications stand dismissed as the appeal itself is disposed of on merits.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE bvv/ckl/kms