Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Ganapati Ramakrishna Bhat on 24 July, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.V.Nagarathna
BETWEEN:
IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24?}! DAY or JU1,Y,"[ 2:§;O:§~ .,
PRESENT
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MRS. JUSTICE'1'.!ANJUQ$'«CI-I"ELI;UR' g
. _ANfi~._II¥ I
THE I-ION'BLE MRS. JETISITICE VB.V';i§A(é§AVI§VAIHNAV
'zqo. 1'1C432i.;f%2COo%e..D1LA(:)"
THE KAR1\$ATAI{A€POWERCORPORATION
NO,;8'2';' 4S1~iA;KTI4BHAVAN-,_' H I
RACE C1C¥_URSE4_Rf)AI)',"' '
;'IBANG;3Lof#:E 560001
'REP BY'£'1"S'C}~1iEF--._EN-GINEER
I ...APPELLANT
(BY .SRI.RAQVASSOCIA'1'ES, ADV.)
V1,
, 1.".
* :§ANz4;PmiI RAMAKRISHNA BHAT
'D R/OFBARABALLI,
A YELL}-XPUR TALUK
,.U'§TAR KANNADA
KARNTAKA 581 359
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KALI NADI PROJECT, DANDELI
UTTAR KANNADA
KARNATAKA 581 325
...RESPONI3ENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.V}-EDHACHALA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.K.B.ADHYAPAK, AGA FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U:/SA""54(11--) oI%gI2I,IAAc:<
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT "'AN'D__' __
DATED:22/O3/2006 PASS;-iD--.._I1\z LAC NoIv.+I8gTI--99I55 ON.'
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL1V2'd*-JVUDGE1"~(SR§:DN} SIRSI,
PARTLY ALLOWING r'TIIE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
ENHANCED coMPENSAT'IoH§' 2
THIS MFA;tICoI\}IIN:G7oN:2jFf)RIt.1ADMISSIoN THIS
FOLLC:}.WIN'G:1"1V'7f" _ 1
"" F2JfifiGMENT
DAY, =.C'HEI1L1UR"~~'-';1J DELIVERED THE
_;T'11j..S arises out of judgment and award
Reference Court in LAC No.48 / 1995 on
'.'Juudge (Sr. Dn.), Sirsi dated 22.03.2006.
2 A The undisputed facts in this appeal are that
ltérndtddbearing Survey No.38/2A of Baraballi Viliage,
1' "Ye11apur Taluk measuring 1 acre 18 guntas belonging to
respondent No.1 herein came to be acquired for the Kali
Hydro Eiectric Project, by notification dated 13.01.1992, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act). The Land Acquisition Officer the compensation at Rs.5,68,239-O0 inciuding statutory benefits at the time ;of"'p'ass_ing ..a\j§y'at_d: under Section 11 of the Act.
3. Aggrievedf said 'quantum of compensation, the .-~«..ireis~p_o':ndent-claimant apprQ'ac'hed.:Q:ivf,';hé§:fi'§q'Reiferencei._""Court by presenting an application 18 of the Act. Before the Reference auCourt,'f-- the matter was contested. Additional 1 eqxfidence came towbiefvbrought on record in support of his
---. of . V iiwith regard to inadequate and diisproportionate compensation when compared to the actualfacts i.e., the nature of trees, age of the trees, 'i';nu1'--nber of trees and so also the yield from different " kinds of trees depending upon their age.
6. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the judgment of the High Courtv_i'~.de.ted 11.01.2002 in MFA No.l084/2001 to the, decision of compensation to be granted _to"tl'1eifC1airnants."" » In the referred case also, the lands were the same purpose of Kali this' Court had taken the, price'VAvofRareca.nutCtre~e.s during the relevant period at Rsi43;ii<%f()(l'/ The yield of 4 kgs. per treergvzas tleducting 50% of Based on the Court, the Reference Courtviiuvvafiw the value towards the acq_ui.sitioi*i ofrarecanut trees has to be re--determ§.ned 'dep<en.ding..uponVth'evage of the trees. xVHio--rticultura1 Trees of the Submerging Areas in Survey Reference Court based on Ex.P5, a docurnentx referred to as Statement of' Evaluation of 6' }No.38/2A signed by both the Special LAO and Horticulture Officer concerned, arrived at a comprehensive statement of arecanut, coCon3.i't_ia;'1d other fruit yieiding trees. As per this _ numbers of arecanut and coconiit trees.'Were'_4i'3.v'*The"
rest were of other fruit bearing trees' jack fruit, etc. Ex.P5 refiersz to the trees,=.i' number of tress, age of kind of yield derived from theku this report, the learned reliyinig of High Court in MFA No.3. itheeerieicanut trees which inc1ude'd'Vv1'8uA:,i}f3 at Rs.-M-,744/--. After deducting * the cost of maintenance, cu1ti,vationg"the'yield per tree at 4 kgs. was arrived at IV'"iRsi;'2é,3?2/«..§_ Hieimaippiied muitiplier of 10 depending i'~-upioni the._7c1ge..--v*of the arecanut trees. Based on this capi.ta3i.__zati.o'n method, the value was arrived at 4"»:_"Rs.r2,23;'72O/-- in so far as 329 arecanut trees is _' 'concerned.
8. Then coming to coconut trees, they being 84 in number, the yield per tree was taken at 100 at the rate of Rs.4/- per coconut which comes to Rs.33,g'tl300/-. Similarly, 50% was deducted towards cost of After applying multiplier 10, by capitaliS.atio.n'irneytllodl, the Valuation arrived at was 4' ' V
9. With regard to other fruit bearing trees after 'argu'In.ents of both the Counsels and also placinfg r-eliance Supreme Court judgrnienVt,"er held that there was rnaterial tolsl1owA:_:frio1*n:iA"the exhibit relied upon by the respondent" before theilieference Court that there Were i ogther :,ffuiitA.__bearing' trees. Therefore, he was of the Special LAO was justified in awarding cornperlsaition of Rs.2,08,190--O0. So far as the jungle trees; he awarded Rs.35,000-0O in the place of Rs.835-- The total compensation awarded by the Reference V' ""'(:0urt Was Rs.O8,97,004--0O in the following manner as against the award of Rs.5,22,05-4-00 by the Special LAO in addition to statutory benefits in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.
Value offruityieldingtreesg :'r»._t}~2:;08;l§'9Q=i'}§J .°"'.4'5*°¥°t"' Value of jungle trees " -V.(')O,3:5,lt)O0--OO Value of arecanut trees 2lO--=OQ "
Value of coconut trees A V ' Value of structure ; 7i"'"ot_al "oi8,947,oo4--0o
tl'ais;"'t1'ie beneficiary has come up in'. this that there was no justification for} Reference Court to award conipensatlipon at""'Rs.8,97,004--OO as stated above and stressed upon the fact that when aJl~..__th¢.-fruitijyielding trees were valued at Rs.2,08,190-- AAOO, there was no necessity for separately assessing the it by capitalization method towards arecanut and l " ----coconut trees.
11. As against this, the learned ..jCo"ui_r1se1 appearing for the claimantsmfirst respondueht that the Reference Court was justified fruit bearing trees depending Atheii'3:J_at--tire crops i.e., commercial and--.,Qither sVea,sonai.:fr;1it's; it The"
yieid from a coconut' tree po'r"aijecan.ut treeviniterrns of money is higher as com.pare.d' to _.trefes's}1ch as mango, jack--fruit, erg5'.1:1¢nce;i_th€ere to interfere with the opinion of 'iFf.efe're-nic'e. V ' Theothcr"c.on~te'11.tion of the learned Counsel for the b"enetficiaryi~i?~ap"pe11ant is the very number of trees "at EX;-Pt5_ ____ is disproportionate to the actuai ___of land because 598 trees could not be g§¢wn,ii1;i*;1are 18 guntas of land. According to him, depending iiupon the strength and number of the trees, A tvhie*~yie1d Wiil be more. If more trees are piarited in a " "persuaded to take a different view. 10 smali area, there will not be healthy growth of the tree, thereby it reduces the yield as well.
13. Having these arguments in mind, we--___have proceeded to consider the second contentio7n:'V"olf'.t.the appellant first. At no point of time has there challenge with regard to ageiianid' ofivvieithier arecanut trees or coconut,treeswor'--other:,.fruit trees. What is contended isias"»there"are"*niore_than the standard number of the yield cannot th_ellRieference Court. But the basis the 'R_efe{:<ence"'»Cwourt to arrive at the value of azrecanut covconutwitrees is the earlier judgment of
- Bench" of this Court as stated above. It is that valuation arrived at by said this Court was either modified or reduced ..by__ the~'sS*upren1e Court or in a later judgment of this Court. In that view of the matter, We are not In fact, if we 1} consider the cost of yield from arecanut and coconut trees, the Court has to take into consideration, the total yield in terms of benefits by selling leaves andlbther parts of coconut or arecanut trees. The VaE'_:iiat«ikjn._ __'W..,r~_1__s' _ based on available statistics of the year"ythat'* it View of the matter in the abisencc.-3 of=_any' material definitely indicating that hart yield either from coccnut treel:or_ ar_ecanut,treei§was less than the yield deterrnineid'-thy?Aivth'el:.':Rei'erence Court, at this stage, when no 'this argument of the belhlaccepted, since as noted abovedthe «from other parts of coconut and, ..areca111it'w.tree-s was not at all taken into 5' * co"nsid»erat"i0n. lllll it 1.54'. hen Coming to the valuation of Rs,'2,cs,"190wo0 fixed by the Special LAO being i confirmed by the Reference Court, there is some force in it arguments of the appellants. The total number of 12 trees in 1 acre 18 guntas are 598. If 413 areeanut and coconut trees are deducted the balance of be 185. The value of Rs.2,08,190--00 is and the average value of one tree'"WoL11d".4be_:/:9; Once separate valuation is made'-_for a1_*eeanut*:.4ar,1d'--.. coconut trees, the value of o't.1fI'e--r fruit --- bearingfrees has to be for 185 trees andnot tfie' 'fine rate of Rs.348--O0 per tree, other fruit bearing trees 'So far as other arnounts and jungle trees, we to interfere at this stage. also statutory benefits awarded by the Referenee..Couft, dwevdo not see any reason to modify . .""orVi'nterEfere'L ~__Acco1V'vd'i'ngIy, the 1st respondent--claimant is \\h
-following amounts:
13
2,23,72o--oo 1,68,000--OO 64,406--0O 2,62,094--0O--
35,oo09+oofi< *7,53,9iéio;'oo;s9 9 A For 329 Arecanut trees For 84 coconut trees 185 other fruit bearing trees Structure s Jungle trees Total .,.__:
Accordingly, the appeal a1l.o}N"ed.:V.'i:hV:v V reducing the quantum of compehrs_ati_ozi1 00 from Rs.8,9'7,004~00. Alflrother 9s:at1;.t;oi?§»i.hylbenefitsitA allowed by the Referefiee 9'r_ernai'IiVsi the same. fact that the acquisition proceedifiggilinaxde his t1-.§-year 1991, 1992 and 1993, the appellarit ioeheficiaryv and the 2nd respondent State are 'd.irectec;1"to' ivcleposit the compensation amount as stated above with other statutory benefits which are al1oyvecl";_by the Special LAO confirmed by the Reference "9 to be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
.7 K /_._A