Karnataka High Court
Gururao @ Rajerao S/O Ramchandra Habbu vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 2 September, 2013
Author: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
M.F.A.No.21301/2011 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Gururao @ Rajerao,
S/o.Ramchandra Habbu,
Age 45 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Galagali Village,
Tq.: Bilagi. ... Appellant
(By Sri B. M. Angadi, Advocate)
AND:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
UKP, Bilagi. ... Respondent
(By Sri K. S. Patil, Advocate)
This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of L.A. Act against
the judgment and award dated 10.01.2008 passed in LAC
No.58/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Bilagi, partly
allowing the reference petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant is seeking the modification of the fixation of the market value by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi (Reference Court) by its judgment, dated 10.1.2008 passed in L.A.C.No.58/2005.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas at R.S.No.31/4 and the land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas at R.S.No.32/4 of Galagali Village, Bilagi Taluk, were notified for acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Irrigation Project on 8.8.1996. Based on the sale statistics, the respondent passed an award, dated 12.3.1999 fixing the market value at `16,000/- per acre. The appellant filed the reference application invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking the enhancement of the market value. The Reference Court employing the capitalization method arrived at `1,70,000/- per acre for 1 acre each in R.S.Nos.31/4 and 32/4. It arrived at the market value of `74,000/- in respect of the remaining extent of the land at the said survey numbers, that is 38 guntas in R.S.No.31/4 and 29 guntas in R.S.No.32/4. 3
3. Sri B.M.Angadi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has erred by fixing the duality of prices for two small parts of the land at the same survey numbers. He submits that when a prudent purchaser purchases the two parts of the same land, the prices would be fixed on an uniform basis. He submits that the Reference Court's treating the same survey number lands differently is putting the appellant to prejudice and loss.
4. He relies on this Court's Division Bench's judgment, dated 25.6.2003 passed in M.F.A.No.4048/2001 and connected appeals. He submits that the lands covered by this appeal and M.F.A.No.4048/2001 are situated in the same Village. He further submits that both the lands are acquired for the same irrigation purpose. He submits that the preliminary notification in respect of lands in question is just four months prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification in respect of the lands covered by M.F.A.No.4048/2001. Based on the Division Bench's judgment, he prays for the determination of the market value at `2,02,500/- per acre.
4
5. Sri K.S.Patil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the lands covered by this appeal and those covered by M.F.A.No.4048/2001 are situated in different villages and there is a distance of about 15 kilometers between the two villages. He submits that the fixation of the market value by the Reference Court is fair. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of this appeal.
6. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Angadi relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981 in which it is held that it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is the same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages
7. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. I have browsed through the L.C.R.s. There is no categorical assertion, muchless any supporting material evidence to show that the lands in question and the lands covered by Ex.P12 are identical and similar. Admittedly, there is a distance of about 15 kilometers between 5 two villages. The lands in question were notified for acquisition on 8.8.1996, whereas the lands covered by M.F.A.No.4048/2001 were notified for acquisition on 26.12.1996. The decision in the case of Bal Ram (supra) also does not have full application for the appellant's case, as in the said reported case, the lands in 13 villages were notified for acquisition for the Airport project on the same day (27.1.1984).
8. Thus, (a) as the lands covered by this appeal and the lands covered by M.F.A.No.4048/2001 came to be notified on different dates (b) as they are situated in two villages in between which there is a distance of about 15 kilometers (c) in the absence of any material to show that the lands covered by this appeal and M.F.A.No.4048/2001 are possessing similar features and advantages, I am not persuaded to raise the market value from `1,70,000/- to `2,02,500/- based on the judgment in M.F.A.No.4048/2001.
9. If the appellant were to produce the weigh slip in support of his claim that a particular number of tonnes of sugarcane were supplied by the appellant from the lands in 6 question to the sugarcane factory, that would have been a clinching evidence.
10. My perusal of the record of rights (Ex.P4) for the year 1995-96 shows that sugarcane was grown on an area measuring 1 acre 20 guntas at R.S.No.31/4. The Reference Court has disbelieved the record of rights at Ex.P4 in preference to the record of rights at Ex.P14. The record of rights at Ex.P14 is for the year 1996-97, whereas the record of rights at Ex.P4 is for the year 1995-96. As the preliminary notification is issued on 8.8.1996, the record of rights for the year 1995-96, is more relevant. Similarly, the record of rights (Ex.P5) in respect of the land at R.S.No.32/4 for the year 1995-96 shows that the sugarcane was being grown on 1 acre of land; it is further shown that on 29 guntas of land, the onions were grown. Neither the yield of onions per acre nor the rate of the onions is taken into account. The record of rights at Ex.P15 for the said land and for the same year shows that on 1 acre the sugarcane was grown; onions were being grown on 29 guntas.
11. What emerges from the perusal of the record of rights is that the sugarcane was being grown on 1 acre 20 guntas in 7 respect of the land at R.S.No.31/4 and 1 acre in respect of the land at R.S.No.32/4.
12. At this juncture, Sri Angadi states that the prices of onions has arisen to `80/- per kilogram today. He would therefore contend that the onion growing lands should be given higher market value than the sugarcane growing lands.
13. To ensure that the soil strength is not impoverished, it is quite possible that the appellant had resorted to the rotation method of growing the sugarcane in one part and the onions in the other part alternatively. If the prices are arrived at by employing the capitalization method for the onion growing lands as of now and then deducted at the rate of 7% annually (providing for the descalation from 2013 to 1996), the price may not be less than `1,70,000/-, which is the market value arrived at by the Reference Court for the sugarcane growing portions of the lands in question. The determination of the market value is a vexed exercise involving so many variables. It cannot be determined with any mathematical precision. What can be arrived at, at the most is a probable market value. Taking of the yield and the rate of the crop into consideration, the Reference Court has rightly 8 arrived at `1,70,000/- per acre. Therefore, that part of the Reference Court's award is absolutely upholdable.
14. However, what is not upholdable is the fixation of `74,000/- for about 40% of the lands acquired. When both the pieces of land at the two survey numbers have the same soil, same advantage, same potentiality, it is necessary that the prices have to be fixed on an uniform basis. Only if some lands are closer to the town or to the road or if they are developed in the urban areas, different prices can be fixed depending upon their location, potentiality, etc. It is profitable to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Bal Ram (supra). The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:
"1. .............The High Court also found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages, we find the judgment of the High Court to be fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeals stands dismissed."
15. In the instant case, some portions of the land standing at the same survey number acquired for the same purpose 9 under the same notification and possessing similar features cannot be awarded lesser market value.
16. I therefore modify the Reference Court's award insofar as it pertains to 38 guntas at R.S.No.31/4 and 29 guntas at R.S.No.32/4. I hold that the appellant is entitled to the market value of `1,70,000/- per acre for all the acquired lands in question, including the lands measuring 38 guntas at R.S.No.31/4 and 29 guntas at R.S.No.32/4 at Galagali Village.
17. Needless to observe that the appellant is also entitled to all the statutory benefits and the proportionate cost. However, the appellant is not entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal.
18. Thus this appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*/MD