Karnataka High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Basalingappa Parappa Angadi on 7 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: ILR1986KAR365, 1987(1)KARLJ432
JUDGMENT Kulkarni, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and award dated 25-8-1983 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in L. A. C. No. 732 of 1982 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,250 - per acre.
2. Survey No. 62/1 measuring 6 acres 14 guntas of Takkalki Village in Meddebihal Taluk, was acquired for Upper Krishna Projects as per the preliminary Notification published on 11-2-1971.
3. The claimant stated that there was source of water for irrigating the land in question and that he was raising two crops in the land in question. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that there was any source of water to irrigate the land. He has not produced the record of rights to show that he was raising two crops. But for the tainted, interested and self-serving say of the claimant, there is no other evidence to show that two crops were being raised in the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer also has stated that one crop alone was being raised in Takkalki Village. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in holding that one crop, that too, rabi crop alone was being raised in the land in question.
4. There are no sale statistics available in Takkalki Village. Therefore, the only method whereby the market value of the land can be determined, is by adopting the capitalisation method.
5. The claimant has stated that he was raising groundnut as first crop and white jowar or cotton as second crop with subsidiary crops like agasi and Kusabi. It is not the case of the claimant himself that he was raising gram i.e. kadli as a subsidiary crop. Therefore it is really surprising that the Court below should hold that the claimant was raising kadli also. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trial Court, it appears, has not looked into the evidence of the claimant.
6. The claimant has stated that he was getting 30 to 35 bags of groundnut or 20 to 25 bags of jowar or 5 quintals of cotton and 5 bags of kusabi and 4 bags of agasi and 7 or 8 cartloads of fodder per acre. If this be the yield, Bijapur would cease to be a drought area. Bijapur is proverbially drought stricken area. The evidence of the claimant about the said yield is highly exaggerated and is nothing but an attempt to get as much compensation as possible under the circumstances. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly refused to accept the evidence of the claimant regarding the yield.
7. The Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his evidence that the soil of the land in question is black cotton soil and is alluvial soil and the land is abutting the bank of the river Krishna. He has stated that the yield of rabi jowar was 3 quintals per acre and that the yield of cotton was 2 1/4 quintals per acre. Even the said evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be too readily accepted, because he himself has stated in his award that the yield of the cotton was 2 1/2 quintals. The Land Acquisition Officer has not collected any materials to show even the approximate yield of the different varieties of crops in the land. Therefore the present case suffers from lack of proper material and evidence.
8. It is no use sending back the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal because the preliminary Notification is of the year 1971. The land must have been submerged or is likely to be submerged early. Therefore taking into consideration the exaggerated version of the claimant, and taking into consideration the underestimate of the Land Acquisition Officer, and taking into consideration that the soil of the land is black cotton soil and that the land is practically abutting the river Krishna, and thus taking into consideration the fertility of the soil, it would not be unreasonable if we hold that 1 acre of land would yield about 4 quintals of rabi jowar or 2 1/2 quintals of cotton. As per the price Notification issued by the A.P.M.C. produced at Exhibit P2, one quintal of jowar was fetching Rs. 79/- in 1971-71 and one quintal of cotton was fetching Rs. 490/-. The value of 4 quintals of white jowar at the rate of Rs. 79/- per quintal Would come to Rs. 316/-. The value of 2 1/2 quintals of cotton at the rate of Rs. 490/- per quintal would come to Rs. 1,225 -. Therefore, the value of jowar and cotton would together come to Rs. 1,541 -. This is the value of the gross yield for two years. Therefore the gross value of the crops for one year would come to Rs. 770-. The dry cultivation does not require much cultivation expense. Manure is given generally once in 3 years. Much amount is not required to be spent over the removal of the weeds. Therefore in the case of dry lands, 40 per cent of the yield can be taken as cultivation charges. 40 per cent of Rs. 770/- would come to Rs. 308/-. If this is deducted from Rs. 770/-. the net value of the crops would come to Rs. 462/- per year.
9. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath submitted that along with the main crop i.e. jowar or cotton, subsidiary crops like agasi, kusabi and grams were also being raised in the land. This aspect of the matter has been considered by us in M. F. A. No. 551 of 1983, ILR 1986 KAR 340. If subsidiary crops are assumed to be raised, it would affect the yield of the main crops like jowar and cotton. The subsidiary crops would also sack the fertility and moisture and they would require additional space. To that extent, the yield of the main crop would be diminished and affected. Therefore we have concluded in M. F. A. No. 551 of 1983, ILR 1986 KAR 340 that the subsidiary crops should not be taken into consideration while the yield of the main crops is taken on a little higher side as we have done in this case. This is also the view taken by this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere v. Kotriah, 1976 (2) KLJ 318.
10. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath for the claimant urged that in view of the decision reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere v. Veerabhadrappa, the multiplier of 121 should be adopted. It was a case where the Advocate appearing for the Karnataka State in the Supreme Court went out of the way and made a concession that 124 should be adopted as the multiplier. The Supreme Court had come to the conclusion in the said case that 10 would be the proper multiplier. The Supreme Court on account of the concession made by the Advocate for the Karnataka State, was rather helpless in the matter. But the finding of the Supreme Court that the multiplier should hot exceed 10, is the law of the land as per Article 141 of the Constitution and it is binding on all the Courts in this Country. A similar question had arisen before us in M.F.A. No. 551 of 1983, ILR 1986 KAR 340 and other connected matters disposed of by us on 3-12-1985. This aspect of the matter has been considered in greater detail in para 16 of our Judgment and we have ultimately come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be adopted should not exceed 10. Therefore we reject the argument of the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath that 12 1/2 should be taken as the multiplier.
11. It is already shown above by us that the value of the net yield per year would be Rs. 462/-. We have also indicated that the multiple of 10 should be adopted. Therefore the market value of the dry land like the suit land per acre would come to Rs. 4,620/-.
12. The Court below, in addition to the determination of the market value by adopting the method of capitalisation, has chosen to award another 10 per cent by way of gift. The Trial Court has stated as :--
"I hold that this land fetches higher market value than the average land and the same would be 10 per cent more and as such I propose to fix the market rate per acre at Rs. 8,250-00 for the land of the claimant."
The compensation to be awarded by the Court should be fair and just. The Court has no jurisdiction to increase the market value of the property by awarding another 10 per cent as has been done in this case. This is also the view taken by this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H.E.P. Sagar v. B. Channaveerappa, 1967(2) Mys.L.J. 296. Therefore the award of 10 per cent made by the Court below, is set aside.
13. Then the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath contended that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 23(IA) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 23(IA) reads as :--
"In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section(1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier."
Section 30 of the amendment Act (No. 68 of 1984) reads as :
"30. Transitional provisions :- (1) The provisions of Subsection (1A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,--
(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982, (the date of introduction of the Land Aequisiti n (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the people), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date ;
(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act."
Therefore the said Section 30 of the amending Act makes it clear that the benefit of Section 23(1A) would be available only in the proceedings in which no award has been passed by the Collector before 30th April, 1982. In this case the award has been passed in 1980. Further Sub-clause (b) also will not apply because this is a proceeding which has been started long before the said date. The benefit of Sub-clause (b) would be available only if the proceedings have been started after 30th April, 1982.
14. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath drew our attention to the ruling reported in Raghbir Singh (Deceased by L.Rs) and ors. v. Union of India, . The Delhi High Court held as :--
"The critical words in Section 30(1) which is a transitory provision are "also to". This shows that firstly this provision of additional amount made in Section 23(1-A) will also apply and shall be deemed to have applied to every proceeding which was pending on 30-4-1982 and in which no award had been made by the Collector before that date. Secondly this provision will also apply to every proceeding for aquisition of the land which was commenced after 30-4-1982, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before 24-9-1984. This provision applies to cases falling within the two cut-off dates 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. But if a case is decided after 24-9-1984, after the Amendment Act has become the law of the land, the Courts are bound to give effect to the provisions of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 which means that the landowner 'in addition to the market value of the land" will also be entitled to 12 per cent per annum on such market value."
This view of the Delhi High Court, as already shown above by us, runs contrary to the wordings used in Section 30. With all due respect to the Judges, we are not inclined to follow the view expressed by them. Therefore the argument of the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath that in addition to the market value, the land owner is entiled to 12 per cent us per Section 24(1A) of the Amended Act, is rejected.
15. Shri Bannurmath urged that in view of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant was entitled to higher solatium at 30 per cent and future interest at 9 per cent per annum or 15 per cent per annum whichever would be applicable to the facts of the case. Shri Hiremath, Learned Government Advocate, submitted that the recent decision reported in Bhag Singh and ors. v. Union Teeritory of Chandigarh, should not be applied as the matter had been referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench. On what points or grounds, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench, is not made clear to us at all. The said case decided by the Supreme Court is not stayed. The principle laid down would be good law under Article 141 of the Constitution for it is not shown that it is set aside or stayed. Therefore the said argument of the Learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath Is rejected. In view of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act' the claimant is entitled to get solatium at 30 per cent and future interest at 9 per cent per annum. If the amount of compensation is not desposited within one year from the date of dispossession, the claimant is entitled to get future interest at 15 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This is also the view taken by us in M.F.A. No. 551 of 1983, ILR 1986 KAR 340 and other connected appeals.
16. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Judgment and award passed by the Trial Court are modified. The appeal is allowed in part. The claimant do recover compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,620/- per acre with solatium at 30 per cent and with future interest at 9 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If the amount of compensation is not deposited within one year from the date of dispossession, then the claimant is entitled to get future interest at 15 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.