Karnataka High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Rachanna on 28 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR673, 1996(5)KARLJ343, 1996 A I H C 3836
JUDGMENT Hakeem, J.
1. This Appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is against the award of enhanced compensation in respect of 18 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No. 190/1 and 190/2 of Srinivas-Saradage village, in Gulbarga Taluk, acquired for a major irrigation project, under Preliminary Notification, published on 6.9.1990. Although cross-objections are filed by the claimant, since no court fee is paid thereon, it cannot be considered, and hence disposed of accordingly.
2. By his award dated 27.10.1992, the LAO. evaluated the land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. In addition he has awarded further amount of Rs. 146/- for two coconut trees which were found by him on the land. On reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) the Reference Court has awarded enhanced compensation for the land at Rs. 30,000/- in addition to separate award of Rs. 43,800/-for coconut trees, Rs. 53,000/- for 'bund' and Rs. 3,000/- for lime trees. For the purpose of valuation of the land the learned Civil Judge has placed reliance upon Ex.P-13 Sale Deed dated 13.7.1990, pertaining to a transaction in respect of a dry land in Knap Kotanur Village, which, according to him, was comparable to the acquired land. The acquired land being an irrigated land, he has increased the value by 1 1/2 times over and above the consideration under Ex.P.13. In addition, he has awarded all the statutory benefits to the claimants.
3. The learned Government Pleader has challenged the award on more than one ground. It is urged that the evaluation of the market value on the basis of the alleged value of land in another village is not sustainable. It is further urged that it is not permissible to evaluate the land and the trees separately for computation of compensation, as has been done in the instant case. The compensation awarded is therefore arbitrary and excessive. On the other hand, Sri S.P. Shankar, appearing for the claimant sought to justify the method adopted by the Reference Court in determining the compensation for the property acquired, which according to him, is actually on the lower side.
4. As stated earlier, in the instant case, the learned Civil Judge has chosen to evaluate the market value of the land on the basis of the value under a sale transaction in respect of another land situated in the adjoining village, which is separated only by a 'Nalla'. As such, the price of land under Ex.P-13, in our opinion, can be a valid basis for evaluating the acquired lands. It is also not in dispute that while the land sold under Ex.P-13 is a dry land, the acquired lands are lands with assured source of irrigation like the well and a bund. However, we do not have any evidence as to the income from the acquired lands, which according to the claimant contained a number of coconut and lime trees. However, the valuation is also sought to be justified on the basis of Ex.P-5 the Joint Measurement Committee Report given by the Horticulture Department. Although the correctness of the said Report is not admitted by the appellants, the same would at the most show the value of such trees and not the income from them. Similar claims having been made earlier in a number of cases, have not been accepted by this Court for want of necessary data and proper calculation on the basis of yield and the income from the said trees. Even otherwise, once the Court chooses to adopt one method of valuation based upon the value of comparable lands which are sold at the relevant point of time, i.e., on or before the issuance of Preliminary Notification, the question of adopting the capitalisation method also does not arise at all. So far as the tree growth is concerned, it is a trite proposition that where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes on the basis of prices fetched for small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, the tree-growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. But this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber value or the salvage value of the tree-growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing. This principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court is KOYAPPATHODI M. AYISHA UMMA v. STATE OF KERALA, , in which the Court has stated thus -
"It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit, but separate units, it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof, or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees, the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value, but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal. The High Court laid the law correctly."
In the same case on the contention of Counsel regarding the question of valuation of the trees therein, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found it reasonable to award Rs. 10,000/- as the value of the trees to be used as fire wood or for any other purpose deducting the salvage expenses.
5. In the instant case even according to J.M.C. Report (which is seriously disputed) the coconut and lime trees are said to have been planted 5 to 6 years prior to the Notification, while according to the Inspection Report of the L.A.O. he found only two coconut trees for which he has awarded compensation. In this state of evidence it is difficult to assess either the actual number of trees or their fire-wood value. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, we would consider an award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on that account to be just and reasonable.
6. Even in the case of bund and well, similar principle is applicable; namely, that they cannot be treated or evaluated separately from the land. This position is made clear in a series of Decisions of this Court.
7. In SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. SHIDRAMAPPA, 1975 (1) Sh N. 74, GOVIND BHAT CJ & SRINIVASA IYENGAR J have held that -
"When an agricultural holding is purchased what the buyer looks at is the net income of that holding and he does not value the land, the bund, well and trees, fence etc., separately. Hence, they cannot be valued separately. Where the Court determines the market value of holding by the adoption of the capitalisation of net income method, the Court must determine the steady income which the holding will yield and then on the basis of expert evidence determine the appropriate multiplier which in its turn has to be determined on the basis of the return which an investor in similar lands during the relevant period would expect."
Similar view is taken in respect of a well found in the land. In SRINIVAS MURTHY v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR, 1973 (2) Mys. L.J. Sh. N. 227, the same Bench has held that - "when the land is valued as wet land it should be valued in the condition in which it stood at the time of the preliminary notification with all the advantages and facilities it had without making separate valuation in respect of each one of the facilities that the land had. Where without the well and the water facility therefrom, the land could not have been classified as wet, separate compensation for the well is not justified."
8. In that view of the matter, the evaluation and award of separate compensation for the bund awarded by the Reference Court cannot be sustained.
In the result we make the following:
ORDER:
The Appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the award the value of the land with all the advantages and facilities is retained at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. In addition/the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards salvage value of the trees. The claimants are, however, entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.
The parties shall bear their own costs.