Karnataka High Court
Mallareddy vs State Through Land Acquisition Officer on 15 July, 2019
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MFA NO.12603/2007 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Mallareddy S/o Bhimreddy
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Allolli, Tq. Sedam
Dist. Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., Advocate)
AND:
1. State through Land Acquisition Officer
M & MIP, Gulbarga-585102
2. The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division
Gulbarga-585102
... Respondents
(By Smt. Arati Patil, HCGP)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to
modify the judgment and award dated 05.11.2003
passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam in LAC No.
2
609/2002 and enhance the compensation of Rs.
64,000/- to Rs. 84,000/-PA.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for final disposal.
02. The appeal is by the claimant whose land in Sy.No.374, measuring 8 acres 10 guntas, in Allolli village, Tq. Chittapur, District, Kalaburagi (for short, 'the subject land') was notified for acquisition on 02.01.1994 for Kardal Minor Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for the subject land at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per acre. On a reference under Section 18 (1) in LAC No.609/2002, the reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2003 enhanced the compensation to Rs.64,000/- 3 per acre, and an additional sum of Rs.26,211/ towards bari trees and Rs.18,505/- towards bund.
03. The appellant filed this appeal belatedly by 1344 days. The appellant did not comply with office objections despite repeated opportunities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.07.2009. The appellant filed applications for condonation in making the request for recall and for recall of the order dated 10.07.2009. These applications were allowed, condoning the delay of 719 days. The appellant did not comply with office objections despite the appeal being restored. Therefore, the appeal was again dismissed on 27.01.2016. However, on 01.03.2018, the order dated 27.01.2016 was recalled condoning the delay of 128 days, subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay costs and also comply with the outstanding office objections within a period of two weeks. However, the appellant did not 4 comply with the office objections. Therefore, on 01.03.2018, the appeal was once again dismissed. The appellant again filed another set of applications for condonation of delay and recall. On 23.08.2018, the order dated 01.03.2018 was recalled condoning the delay of 143 days in filing the recalling application. Thereafter, the office objections were complied. On 11.04.2019, this Court condoned the delay of 1344 days in filing the appeal and directed the office to list this appeal for admission. Thus, the adjudication has been long-drawn-out.
04. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the reference Court, based on the evidence that the appellant was cultivating the subject land to grow Sunflower, Groundnut, Bengal Gram, Sugarcane and Onion in the subject land, has arrived at the market value of Rs.64,000/- per acre under the capitalization method after the necessary deduction 5 towards cost of cultivation and applying the multiplier of '10'. Further, the reference Court arrived at the total income from the cultivation of the aforesaid multi crops taking the average price and the yield of each of the multiple crop. In fact, the learned counsel does not contest the method adopted by the reference Court for the determination of the market value.
05. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is undisputed that the subject land is an irrigated land. During the pendency of the appeal, the market value of the dry lands acquired for the same project has been determined at Rs.69,860/- per acre; therefore, the learned counsel submits that the irrigated land, which always fetch a much higher price, could not have been valued at Rs.64,000/- per acre. Therefore, the appropriate method for determination of the correct market value of the subject lands would be 6 to capitalize the market value determined by the Courts for dry lands and by adding 50% of such value.
06. The learned counsel relies upon the following decisions in support of the submission that the market value for dry lands situated in the surrounding village is determined at Rs.69,860/- per acre:
(a) The decision dated 21.10.2006 in MFA No. 9789/2006,
(b) The decision dated 18.03.2010 in MFA Nos. 11503/2007, 11505/2007 and 11506/2007.
Further, the learned counsel relies upon the following decision for the proposition that when the market value for dry lands is determined under capitalization method, the market value for irrigated lands should be determined at 1 and ½ times the value of the dry land:
(c) The decision dated 31.07.2007 in MFA No.7498/2006.7
07. The learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment arguing that the reference Court had determined the market value based on the computation method in the light of the evidence placed on record by the claimants as regards the crops cultivated, the yield and the price certificates relied upon by the claimant. The claimant cannot seek enhancement merely because the market value of certain lands in the meanwhile are reassessed by the courts. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute that the Courts have determined the market value of the dry lands in the appellant's village at the rate of Rs.69,860/- per acre, that these dry lands were also acquired during the year 1993-94 for the purpose of minor irrigation.
08. In the light of the rival submissions, the questions that arise for consideration in this Court are; 8
(a) Whether the claimant - appellant is entitled to determination of the market value of the land in Sy.No.374, measuring 8 acres 10 guntas of Allolli village, Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Kalaburagi (subject property) at the rate of 1 ½ times of Rs.69,860/-, the market value determined in MFA Nos.9789/2005, 11503/2007 and other connected cases for dry lands from the surrounding villages.
(b) If the appellant - claimant is entitled to determination of the market value for the land at 1 and ½ times of Rs.69,860/-, whether the claimant - appellant would be entitled to interest on the compensation from the date of the judgment by the reference Court.
09. The undisputed facts are that the lands that were subject matter of the decision in MFA No.9789/2005 and MFA No.11503/2007 and connected matters were acquired for minor irrigation projects in the year 1993-94. These lands and the subject land were situated in adjacent villages. The value of the dry 9 lands in these adjacent village have been determined by the Court in the aforesaid appeals based on the price and the yield per acre of Toordall and Jawar. These crops are grown in rain fed lands. The subject land is irrigated land with water facilities that enable the claimant to grow crops like, Sugarcane, Groundnut, Bengal Grams, Sunflower and Onion around the year.
10. If the dry lands situated in the same or surrounding village are valued at Rs.69,860/- per acre, there would be no justification for valuing the irrigated land at Rs.64,000/- as awarded by the reference Court. The prices of irrigated lands would always be much higher. A willing seller of an irrigated land would not sell the irrigated land at price lower than the price of a dry land situated in the immediate proximity of his land. Therefore, the claimant - appellant would be entitled to a price higher than the market price determined by the reference Court. This Court in MFA 10 No.7498/2006 has held that price of a dry land is determined under capitalization method. The normal procedure is to capitalize the market value of the irrigated land at 1 ½ times the price of the market value of the dry land. This Court has held as follows:
"4. In addition to the above, one other aspect which arises for consideration is that as noticed above, the appellant / landowner had possessed 1 acre 30 guntas of dry lands. Therefore, the compensation in respect of the same also requires to be considered as to whether the same requires enhancement. In this regard, as already noticed, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.32,000/- per acre in respect of the dry lands. The normal procedure adapted while calculating the compensation on capitalization method would be to derive the compensation payable for dry lands and thereafter calculate the same at 1 ½ times of the same for determination of the irrigated lands. In the present case, the compensation for the irrigated lands has been worked out. Therefore, working in the reverse would have to be made to determine the compensation payable in respect of dry lands."
11. Therefore, appellant - claimant would be entitled for 1 ½ times of Rs.69,860/- per acre, which would work out to Rs.1,04,790/- per acre. The 11 appellant filed the appeal belatedly by 1344 days. Thereafter, was not diligent in prosecuting the appeal and consequentially, the appeal was dismissed for default on three occasions. The appellant filed application for recall of the first order of dismissal after a delay of 719 days, and the second and third set of applications for recall of the subsequent orders of dismissal for default belatedly by 128 days and 143 days respectively. The subsequent dismissal orders were because the appellant did not comply with the office objections. A party to the proceedings cannot take advantage of his own conduct that results in delayed adjudication. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to deny the interest from the date of the reference Court's judgment till the date of this judgment.
12. For the forgoing, the questions framed are answered holding that the appellant will be entitled to 12 market value at the rate of Rs.1,04,790/- per acre, being 1 and ½ times the value of the dry lands acquired during the same period and situated in neighbouring villages. However, the claimant would not be entitled to interest from 05.11.2003 to this date. Therefore, the following;
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The appellant - claimant will be entitled for market value at the rate of Rs.1,04,790/- per acre being 1 and ½ times the value of the dry land determined by this Court for the land acquired during the same period and situated in neighbouring villages.
(c) The appellant - claimant would not be entitled to interest from 05.11.2003 to this date in the light of the observations made herein above.
13
(d) The appellant - claimant shall be entitled to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL