Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharadabai And Others vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)KARLJ456
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is filed by the owners of the agricultural lands whose lands came to be acquired by the State Government, for the public purpose viz., Karanja Irrigation Project.
2. The appellants owned different extents of lands, totally 2 acres 25 guntas in Sy. No. 80/3 and 4 of Kasartugaon Village, Bhalki Taluk, Bidar District.
3. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-2-1999 and award dated 17-2-1999, passed in L.A.C. No. 209 of 1998, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhalki, in fixing the compensation in respect of the acquired lands at Rs. 30,140-00 per acre, have preferred this appeal claiming that compensation should have been fixed at a rate not lesser than Rs. 38,410-00 per acre.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in Bidar had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000-00 per acre taking into consideration the average sales statistics fixed on the lands of the said village for the period of 1990-93. However, in the reference before the Civil Court, at the instance of the owners, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had adopted the method of capitalising the yield for arriving at the value of the lands that had been acquired and taking into consideration the claim put forth by the appellants before the Civil Court that many crops including commercial crops such as Red Gram, Green Gram, Bengal Gram and Sesame were being grown in the lands and as such, the yield should be based on the growing of all these crops being taken by way of rotation or in turns.
5. While arriving at the average yield per acre, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has taken the average yield per acre in the entire area in respect of each crop separately and has calculated the value of the yield based on such average yield, in respect of each of these crops and the average yield value per year is taken as average of the total value of all the crops together. By this method, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has found that the value of the average yield per acre works out to sum of Rs. 5,022-08. After allowing deductions at 40% towards expenses, balance (i.e., Rs. 3,014) is taken to be the net income and applying multiplier of 10 which is the standard multiplier applicable in respect of agricultural products as has been noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v Yamanappa Basalingappa Chalwadi , the value of the lands per acre has been arrived at a sum of Rs. 30,140-00 and the compensation has had been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 6,000-00 per acre has been enhanced to Rs. 30,140-00 per acre by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).
6. Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has committed an error by ignoring the claim of the appellants that they were raising two crops in a year and the raising of the crops being based on the climatic conditions in the year viz., "Hingaru" and "Mungaru" and in the instant case, the lands being situated on the bank of river and it is very fertile area and that there was every possibility of raising two crops per year and as such, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is totally in error in ignoring the claim of raising two crops for arriving at the value of the average annual yield from the lands. The other contentions put forth by Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the appellants are that even if the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), should have adopted the value of yield of only one crop per year, instead of taking the maximum advantageous value of the yield in respect of any one of the crops, the learned Civil Judge has arrived at the value by averaging with other crops and this is wrong. The argument is that where in respect of a particular crop namely, Red Gram when the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has found that the average annual yield works out to Rs. 6,402-00 per year, this value alone should have been taken into average annual yield per acre and not by averaging with other crops. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that not taking into account this aspect, vitiated the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and at any rate it has worked out to the detriment of the appellants and has sought for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 38,410-00 per acre restraining his claim to this amount.
7. The question that falls for consideration is as to:
"Whether it can be said that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has committed an error in not accepting the case of the appellants that they are producing two crops per year and further as to whether the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) was required to adopt the valuation of the annual yield based on any one of the crop that was being grown by the appellants which was most advantageous"?
8. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is indicated that the 2nd appellant has deposed that they are regularly raising two crops in a year under rotating crops system, by raising commercial crops with jowar and other regular crops and further that their land is located on the banks of river Karanja, is very fertile and that enables them to raise two crops in a year. It is also come in the evidence that the said Shivasharanaiah, one of the appellants before the Court that the average annual yield from the lands works out to Rs. 15,000-00 to Rs. 20,000-00 per year and further that the market value of the lands in question during the relevant time viz., February 1992 was around Rs. 65,000-00 per acre and in this view of the matter, the compensation awarded at Rs. 30,140-00 per acre is totally inadequate and on the lower side. However on a perusal of the cross-examination it transpires that suggestion was made to the effect that the claim is highly inflated and the average annual yield could not exceed sum of Rs. 400-00 per acre and further that the market value of the land is also not more than Rs. 15.000-00 per acre. Unfortunately, the appellants have not placed any other material to indicate that either they were raising on the average two crops every year and the average net income from the lands was in the order of Rs. 15,000-00 to Rs. 20,000-00 per year. The learned Civil Judge has looked into this part of the evidence and has recorded a finding to the effect that it is difficult to believe the version of the appellants that they were raising two crops in a year having regard to the fact that when commercial crops i.e., Bengal Gram, Green Gram and Red Gram are grown, the period of cultivation would extend to the other season also and as such the possibility of raising two crops are removed when one was raising such a crop and also observed that from the materials on record that these pulses were not being grown in the entire extent of land, but were being grown to supplement the main crop that was jowar etc. In this view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has not accepted the claim of the appellants that they were raising 2 crops or that they were entitled to higher compensation than what he has worked out.
9. I have perused the materials placed before the Court and also heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.
10. When one looks into the method adopted by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), for arriving at the average annual yield per acre, it cannot be said that the method adopted is not in any manner erroneous or detrimental to the appellants. If at all there is an error in the method adopted, it is to the advantage of the appellants inasmuch as while working out the average annual yield even commercial crops are taken to have been grown in the entire extent of lands and on such basis the value is arrived, whereas, the evidence on record indicates that the claim for compensation on the premise of growing of two crops per year, is also rejected based on evidence on record and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has looked into these aspects and has recorded his findings. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and at any rate, it cannot be said that the fixation of the compensation at a sum of Rs. 30,132-50 is in any way disadvantageous or detrimental to the interest of the appellants and it is more than fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. As I do not find any material to support the case of the appellants for enhancing the compensation by another sum of Rs. 8,000-00 per acre, the same cannot be accepted and accordingly, this appeal is to be dismissed.
11. Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are all poor agriculturists and they used to eke out their livelihood by cultivating the lands and are not really conversant with the procedures for producing cogent materials and evidence before the Court to substantiate their claim and as such their cases suffered and because of this they are not able to get a fair and proper compensation in respect of the lands acquired from them and further the appellants with considerable difficulty and with great effort have managed to pay the Court fee on these appeals for claiming enhanced compensation. The learned Counsel submits that if at all they are failing in their attempts to get enhanced compensation, it is not because their claim is not genuine, but because they were not conversant with the procedures and requirements of law to place such material which could have enabled them to claim to just compensation. However, attractive and merited this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, this Court cannot take this aspect as a ground for enhancement of compensation. The Court will have to go by material on record. These are all matters which will have to be taken note of by the framers of law and to provide for such situations to ensure that poor and illiterate agriculturists whose lands are acquired for public purposes, are not deprived of a just compensation and due to their ignorance are unable to substantiate their claim.
12. Though these appeals have been dismissed as a very special and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct to the State Government to compensate the costs of the appellants in preferring this appeal. Such costs are quantified at the amount the Court fee paid and the amount shall be reimbursed by the State Government.
13. Appeal is dismissed, except to the extent stated above.