Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Vithal Beerappa Naik (Deceased) By L.Rs ... on 29 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)KARLJ162
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. The State acquiring body has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment and award dated 17-2-2001 passed in LAC No. 29 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar (for short, the "Civil Court").
2. By the impugned award of the Civil Court compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 79,000/- for horticultural tree is awarded.
3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The State acting through the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the "LAO") and in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired 4 acres 32 guntas of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 9/1 and 9/4 of Balamane Village of Karwar District, for a public purpose to wit, for construction of Kadra dam by issuing Section 4(1) notification dated 8-8-1995 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act"). The LAO, after conducting award enquiry passed an award on 20-5-1988 determining the market value at Rs. 8,500/- per acre by placing reliance upon the sales statistics. The owners of the acquired land not being satisfied with the award of compensation by the LAO, sought reference of their claims under Section 18(1) of the Act for more compensation and on such reference, the Civil Court placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in M.F.A. No. 1170 of 1993 determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. With regard to horticultural trees, the Civil Court determined the market value at Rs. 79,000/-. The State being aggrieved of such determination of the market value for the acquired land as well as horticultural trees, has preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard Sri Asokumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant and Sri Raghavan for M/s. Dua Associates appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and award.
5. Sri Asokumar, learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the method adopted by this Court while determining the market value of the lands acquired and as ordered in M.F.A. No. 1170 of 1993 is based on capitalization method in respect of paddy growing lands. Therefore, he contends that the market value of Rs. 20,000/- as determined in M.F.A. No. 1170 of 1993 could not have been applied by the Civil Court and as a result there is a gross error in law committed by the Civil Court. The other contention of learned Additional Government Advocate is that the Civil Court ought not to have awarded any money towards value of the horticultural trees and determination of the same at Rs. 79,000/- is illegal. He placed reliance upon the ruling of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. . In the said judgment, it is held as follows:
"It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately".
6. The learned Counsel for the beneficiary, however, adopted the contention raised by Sri Asokumar, learned Additional Government Advocate.
7. The Civil Court has proceeded on the premise that the lands acquired, subject-matter in the reference were situate very near to the village Davkar and are similar to the lands acquired and subject-matter of M.F.A. No. 1170 of 1993 where this Court had fixed the market value of wetland at Rs. 20,000/- per acre.
8. Following the said judgment and being of the opinion that a different yardstick could not be applied, the Civil Judge, accordingly determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs. 20,000/-. It must be noticed at this stage that this Court while fixing the market value in M.F.A. No. 1170 of 1993 had done so by adopting capitalization method in respect of paddy growing lands. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the land in M.F.A. 1170 of 1993 and the lands in question are dissimilar both in nature, soil, locus and time and as a result, determination by the Civil Court is improper. I find sufficient force in the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Civil Court ought not to have simply followed the judgment of this Court and applied the same to the lands in question. The Civil Court, on the other hand, ought to have made an appropriate assessment before determining the market value. The said contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate deserves to be upheld. The determination of market value of Rs. 20,000/- of the acquired land per acre cannot be sustained.
9. The market value in respect of the horticultural tress determined at Rs. 79,000/- should also necessarily fail in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh, supra.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17-2-2001 passed in LAC No. 29 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Civil Judge, Karwar, for de novo enquiry in accordance with law. No order as to costs.