Karnataka High Court
Hanamanth S/O. Ramappa Mallapur vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26 February, 2019
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
1
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
M.F.A. No.24135 OF 2013 (LAC)
C/W
M.F.A. No.24136 OF 2013 (LAC)
M.F.A. No.24137 OF 2013 (LAC)
M.F.A. No.103898 OF 2017 (LAC)
M.F.A. No.103899 OF 2017 (LAC)
M.F.A. No.102694 OF 2017 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.24135/2013:
BETWEEN:
HANAMANTH
S/O. RAMAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUTTALADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
U.K.P., BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
2
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.13/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. No.24136/2013:
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAPPA
S/O. RANGAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT MUTTALDINNI,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE,
REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI HANAMANTH RAMAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT MUTTALDINNI,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.11/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
3
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
IN M.F.A. No.24137/2013:
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAPPA S/O. RANGAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT MUTTALDINNI,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE,
REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI HANAMANTH RAMAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT MUTTALDINNI,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.103898/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BILAGI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
4
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
AND:
HANAMANTH
S/O. RAMAPPA MALLAPUR, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT MUTTALADINNI VILLAGE,
BILAGI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.13/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF MARKET VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED
LANDS BEARING R.S.NO.119/1 AND 103/3 OF
MUTTALADINNI VILLAGE (THE DESCRIPTION OF WHICH
ARE MENTIONED IN PARA-5 OF THIS JUDGMENT)
INVOLVED IN THESE CASES IS DETERMINED AT
RS.5,43,600/- PER ACRE EXCLUDING POT KHARAB AREA.
IN MFA No.103899/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BILAGI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
AND:
RAMAPPA S/O. RANGAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT: MUTTALADINNI VILLAGE,
BILAGI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
5
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.11/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,43,600/- PER ACRE EXCLUDING
POT KHARAB AREA.
IN MFA No.102694/2017:
BETWEEN:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BILAGI,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 101. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
AND:
RAMAPPA
S/O. RANAGAPPA MALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MULTALDINNI VILLAGE,
BILAGI TALUK,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT - 587 116. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.03.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,43,600/- PER ACRE EXCLUDING
POT KHARAB AREA.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
6
MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
JUDGMENT
These six appeals have been filed by the claimants as well as by the State through Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) assailing the common judgment and award dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court' for the sake of convenience) in LAC Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2012. Since these appeals assail the very same common judgment and award, they have been clubbed together and are heard and disposed off by this common judgment.
2. M.F.A. No.24135 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.103898 of 2017 have been filed by the claimants and the SLAO respectively assailing the judgment and award passed in LAC No.13 of 2012; M.F.A. No.24136 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.103899 of 2017 have been filed by the claimants and SLAO respectively assailing the judgment and award passed in LAC No.11 of 2012 while M.F.A. No.24137 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.102694 of 2017 have been filed by the claimants and SLAO respectively assailing the judgment and award passed in LAC No.12 of 2012. 7 MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
3. These appeals have checkered history.
4. M.F.A. No.24135 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.24136 of 2013 were disposed off by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25.02.2015. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, SLAO preferred review petitions namely, R.P.No.100073 of 2017 and R.P.No.100074 of 2017. By order dated 22.02.2019, the said review petitions were allowed and the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by this Court, was recalled and the appeals have been restored on the file of this Court.
5. In fact, the aforesaid two appeals along with M.F.A. No.24137 of 2013 have been filed by the respective claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court by seeking an enhancement. The appeals filed by the SLAO has assailed the judgment and award of the reference court.
6. The subject lands in M.F.A. No.24135 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.24136 of 2013 are bearing Sy.No.119/1 8 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases measuring 2 acres 37 guntas and Sy.No.103/3 measuring 7 acres 26 guntas of Muttaladinni village, Bilagi taluk. They were acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project. In M.F.A. No.24137 of 2013, the subject lands are Sy.No.99/2 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas of the same village and taluk, which were also acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project. The said lands shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'lands in question' for the sake of convenience. These lands inter alia, were acquired vide Notification dated 22.08.1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity). The awards were passed in respect of these lands on different dates. Initially, there were consent awards passed pursuant to an agreement entered into between the claimants and the SLAO in all these cases. There is no controversy with regard to the consent awards passed in respect of the lands in question.
7. But, pursuant to agreement between the claimants and the SLAO, there was to be a separate award made insofar as the value of the fruit bearing trees are 9 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases concerned namely, mango trees and other trees. According to the claimants, the agreements were entered into between the claimants and the SLAO on 19.05.1998 and in terms of the said agreements, the market value of the land was determined by consent. According to the claimants, there was no determination of compensation for fruit bearing trees and hence W.P. Nos.67255 and 65332 of 2009 were filed before this Court. This Court disposed off the said writ petitions by directing the SLAO to consider the representations made by the claimants with regard to passing of awards regarding the trees on the lands in question. The said direction resulted in supplementary awards being made in the cases.
8. Not being satisfied with the supplementary awards made by the SLAO, the claimants preferred a protest petition and sought reference before the Reference Court. That is how LAC No.11 of 2012, LAC No.12 of 2012 and LAC No.13 of 2012 were filed before the Reference Court. The Reference Court in LAC Nos.11 & 13 of 2012 awarded compensation at the rate of `5,43,600/- per acre 10 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases along with all statutory benefits and in respect of LAC No.12 of 2012, the compensation awarded was `3,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits by its common judgment and separate awards dated 23.03.2013. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, claimants have preferred their Miscellaneous First Appeals before this Court.
9. As already noted M.F.A. No.24135 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.24136 of 2013 were heard and disposed off by common judgment dated 25.02.2015 raising the compensation from `5,43,600/- per acre to `8,50,000/- per acre. At this stage, it must be mentioned that the claimants have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition Nos.9931 of 2016 and 9932 of 2016 (SLPs). In the SLPs, leave has been granted on 15.02.2019. But being aggrieved by the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid two miscellaneous first appeals dated 25.02.2015, the State through SLAO had preferred Review Petition Nos.100073 and 100074 of 11 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases 2017. By order dated 22.02.2019, this Court on condoning the delay of 817 days in filing the review petitions, has allowed the same. That is how M.F.A. No.24135 of 2013 and M.F.A. No.24136 of 2013 have been restored on the file of this Court. The said appeals have been clubbed with M.F.A. No.24137 of 2013 as well as to the appeals filed by the State through the SLAO, which are heard and disposed off by this common judgment. In the circumstances, the appeals filed by the claimants as well as appeals filed by the SLAO are heard together.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the judgment and award passed by the reference court is not in accordance law. The quantum of compensation awarded by the reference court at the rate of `5,43,600/- per acre in LAC Nos.13 & 11 of 2012, and `3,00,000/- per acre in LAC No.12 of 2012 is very meager. Therefore, the claimants have been constrained to file these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. That the compensation to be awarded to the claimants in the instant case is at two levels: firstly, as per the 12 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases agreement entered into between the claimants and the SLAO on 19.05.1998, a consent award was passed in respect of the subject lands, but as far as the fruit bearing trees on the said lands are concerned, separate awards had to be passed. The same having not been done by the SLAO, prompted the claimants to file Writ Petition Nos.67255 of 2009 (LA-RES) and 65332 of 2009 (LA-RES) before this Court. This Court directed the SLAO to consider the representations made by the claimants. The SLAO considered the said representations and passed supplementary awards assessing the value of each mango tree and has awarded compensation, but the claimants were not satisfied with the said supplementary awards made in each of these cases. Therefore, they filed protest petition and sought enhancement of compensation before the reference Court. The reference court after considering the evidence of the claimants, allowed the reference in part and awarded compensation of `5,43,600/- per acre with all statutory benefits in LAC Nos.13 and 11 of 2012 and `3,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits in LAC No.12 of 2012. Not being satisfied with the said quantum 13 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases of compensation, the claimants have preferred these appeals. That this Court disposed off M.F.A. Nos.24135 and 24136 of 2013 by enhancing the compensation to `8,50,000/- per acre by calculating the compensation on the basis of `17,000/- per tree, as has been done in M.F.A. No.25135 of 2012 (LAC) which was disposed off on 21.04.2014. That M.F.A. No.25135 of 2012 arose from LAC No.14 of 2008 wherein the market value was determined at `5,43,600/- per acre and this Court reckoned the value of each tree at `17,000/- as per the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat and awarded compensation of `8,50,000/- per acre. That as against the judgment passed in M.F.A. No.25135 of 2012 disposed off on 21.04.2014, Special Leave Petitions have been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the claimants therein, seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that this Court was justified in awarding compensation for the fruit bearing trees on the lands in question on the basis of the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat at `17,000/- per tree. He submitted that in fact, the Lok Adalat has 14 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases also awarded `37,600/- per tree in certain cases. That the judgment and award passed by the reference court being on the lower side may be enhanced in these appeals. That the State through SLAO cannot maintain their appeals seeking reduction in the quantum of compensation.
11. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing for the SLAO, at the outset, contended that as the judgment and award passed by the reference court is not in accordance with law, the SLAO is entitled to maintain these appeals assailing the said judgment and awards. It is not restricted to only seeking reduction in the compensation but the very grant of compensation is challenged. She submitted that in the first instance, making of supplementary awards by the SLAO is not in accordance with law. However, the compensation awarded under the supplementary awards has been paid to the claimants in these cases in the execution petitions filed by them. Despite that, the claimants preferred claim petitions by way of protest petitions before the reference court seeking enhancement 15 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases of compensation. That in the instant case, pursuant to the agreement entered into between the claimants and the SLAO dated 19.05.1998, consent awards were made in respect of these lands assessing the market value and compensation being paid at the rate of `1,14,000/- per acre + `54,000/- and the said consent awards were also executed. According to learned AGA, once the consent awards were made by assessing the compensation for the lands acquired, there could not have been claim petitions filed seeking compensation for the value of the trees and in the guise of seeking compensation for the value of the trees on the said lands, compensation has been once again sought for the land also which is impermissible. The claim petitions were filed apparently seeking compensation for the value of the trees. But the evidence was let in on the value of the lands in question. The same is an abuse of process of law. The reference court has failed to appreciate this important aspect of the matter and by ignoring the consent awards already made in all these cases has once again awarded compensation of `5,43,600/- per acre in LAC Nos.11 and 13 of 2012 and 16 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases `3,00,000/- per acre in LAC No.12 of 2012 along with all statutory benefits. Not being satisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the claimants have approached this Court. According to learned AGA, this Court has rightly reviewed the judgment passed in M.F.A. No.24135 and 24136 of 2013 and has allowed the review petitions by recalling the common judgment dated 25.02.2015 by order dated 22.02.2019 and that there is no merit in these appeals.
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the State through SLAO has been constrained to file the appeals against the judgment and award of the reference court, on account of an erroneous approach that has been adopted by the reference court. It has applied the capitalisation method or yield basis while calculating the value of the trees on the lands as if it was assessing the compensation in respect of the lands in question, whereas only with regard to the trees on the land in question, compensation had to be assessed, even according to the claimants. She next contended that the 17 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases plea urged by the learned counsel for the respondent- claimants to consider the award of compensation per tree in Lok Adalat settlement as the basis for award of compensation in these appeals is wholly erroneous for two reasons: firstly, she submitted that the settlement in a Lok Adalat is binding only between the parties and it cannot be a guidance for other cases so as to be blindly followed. She further submitted that when the reference court awarded compensation in respect of the land in question on acreage basis, this Court could not have awarded compensation on per tree basis as there was no evidence in that regard before the reference court, by basing its judgment on the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. She submitted that the common judgment dated 25.02.2015 in M.F.A. No.24135 & 24136 of 2013 has been rightly recalled by this court by allowing the review petitions filed by the SLAO and that those appeals are now being considered along with M.F.A. No.24137 of 2013 filed by another set of claimants and three appeals have been filed by the State through the SLAO. That the appeals filed by the claimants may be dismissed and the appeals filed 18 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases by the SLAO may be allowed by setting aside the common judgment and awards passed by the reference court and by dismissing the claim petitions. She also brought to our notice the fact that pursuant to judgment and awards passed by the reference court, execution petitions were filed by the claimants and the SLAO was constrained to deposit the compensation amount as assessed by the reference court and the said amounts have been withdrawn by the claimants and that appropriate orders may be made for recovering the said amounts from the claimants herein.
13. By way of reply, learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is no harm or prejudice that would be caused to the State if the rate per tree, as assessed before the Lok Adalat in a settlement arrived at between the parties therein, is the basis or a guidance to award compensation in the instant case, when the compensation sought is for the trees on the lands in question. He further submitted that the SLAO could only seek reduction in the compensation awarded by the 19 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases reference court and cannot challenge the awards themselves. He contended that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the SLAO and the same may be dismissed and compensation awarded by the reference court may be enhanced in the appeals filed by the claimants.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals:
"(i) Whether the common judgment
and awards passed by the
reference court call for any
interference in these appeals?
(ii) What order?"
15. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for a reiteration except highlighting the fact that the subject lands were acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project. That in respect of the claimants in all these cases, the SLAO entered into an agreement with them, which resulted in consent awards being passed. One such award dated 19.05.1998 reads as under: 20 MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases "M¦àUÉ LwÃ¥ÀÄð §UÉÎ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ, 19£Éà ªÉÄà wAUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀAzÀÄ gÁªÀÄ¥Àà gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀįÁè¥ÀÆgÀ JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®àqÄÀ ªÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ®«®èzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ zÁgÀgÀÄ, CªÀgÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæÀw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ, JQìPÆ À ålgïì ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV DqÀ½vÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÀqÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸À®àlÖ «±ÉõÀ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ PÀqÉ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
f¯Áè: ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl vÁ®ÆèPÀ (wªÀiÁä¥ÀÆgÀ) ªÀÄÄvÀÛ®¢¤ß UÁæªÀÄ ¸À. £ÀA.103/3 7-26gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÄÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¸Áé¢üãÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀƨsÁUÀPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ ¨sÆ À ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1894 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝUÀÄ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV PÀÈ.ªÉÄÃ.AiÉÆÃ. d¯Á±ÀAiÀÄzÀ »¤ßÃj¤AzÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¸Áé¢Ã£À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 10(©) gÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1894 gÀ PÀ®A 11(2) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀjºÁgÀÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ M¥ÀàAzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤zsÀðj¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«zÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß CAvÀºÀ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÀȵÁÚ ªÉÄîÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÁV d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÀPÁÌV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:Dgïr:1:JPÀÆåqÀ§Æèöå:6: ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ 1.1.96 gÀ°è M¥ÀàAzÀ LwÃ¥ÀÄð ¥ÀzÀÝwUÉ DzÀåvÉ ¤Ãr ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 11(2)£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ LwÃ¥ÀÄð gÀa¸À®Ä «±ÉõÀ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¯É ¤zsÀðgÀuÁ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÄÀ ìUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ zÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÄÀ £ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÆÉ AqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ zÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÀ®A 11(2) gÀ°è ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ 21 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases d«ÄäUÉ ¤zsÀðj¸À®Ä C¢üPÁgÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
«±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢ü£Á¢üPÁÀjUÀ¼ÄÀ , ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ d«Ää£À §UÉÎ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀgÆ É A¢UÉ MqÀA§rPÉ ªÀiÁrü ¤zsÀðj¹zÀ zÀgÀ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.7-20 UÀÄAmÉUÉ gÀÆ.1,14,000/-, 0.06 UÀÄAmÉUÉ gÀÆ.54,000/- J¯Áè ¸Ë®vÀÄÛUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÉÃj (gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä...........................) UÀ½UÉ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ M¦àgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ. F zÀgÀªÅÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸Ë®vÀÄÛUÀ¼ÁzÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 30% £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ.12% ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÖÉ ¨É¯É EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°èAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÆ, VqÀUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ C©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀÅUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÁAwæPÀ C¢üPÁj EªÀjAzÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß M¥ÀàAzÀ Lwæð£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÖÉ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸àÀgÀ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ EzÀÄÝ, ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ £ÀµÖÀ¨Àswð ¥ÀvæÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÉÆqÀ£É F PɼÀUÉ PÁt¹zÀAvÉ M¥ÀàAzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀgÀÄ M¦àzÁÝgÉ.
1) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄ«£À ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ M¦àUÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ gÀÆ.1,14,000/- gÀÆ.54,000/-
gÀÆ. UÀ½UÉ ±ÉÃ.30 £ÀµÀÖ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÉÃ.12 ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÀÆrPÉÆArzÁÝVzÉ. ¨sÆ À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÁªÀqsÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÖÉ ¨É¯ÉUÉ §zÀÞgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¥ÀjºÁgÀÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉaѸÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV vÁªÀÅ E£ÀÄߪÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ M¦àPÆ É ArzÁÝgÉ.
2) F M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è CxÀªÁ d«Ää£À ¥ÀÆwð ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀPÉÌ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀgÆ É §âgÉ CºÀðgÀ®èzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ E£ÉÆߧâjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ÄÀ ì PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¹gÀĪÀ gÀÆ.8,63,100/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÄÀ ì ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F 22 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases jÃw ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÌÉ DVgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÁ¤ CxÀªÁ RZÀÄðUÀ¼À £ÀµÀÖ ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §zÀÝ£ÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
3) EAvÀºÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀAUÀzÀ°è PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀ¸Æ À °UÉ EgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀæªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ DUÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¨sÆ À PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¨ÁQAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀgÄÀ EAzÀÄ ¢. 19.05.1998gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ±ÀgÀvÄÀ ÛUÀ½UÉ M¦à gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀªÀgÀÄ: ¸À»/-
¸À»/- ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀj «±ÉõÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
(gÁ.gÀ.ªÀįÁèè¥ÀÄgÀ) PÀÈ.ªÉÄÃ.AiÉÆÃ., ©Ã¼ÀV.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV
EªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ
¸À»/- (¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À PÀ®A 29gÀ
(H.H.JAGLI) ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ)"
[As the English version of the above agreement has not been supplied, the version in Kannada is extracted]
16. A reading of the same would reveal that a sum of `1,14,000/- per acre for 07 Acres 20 Guntas and a sum of `54,000/- for 0-06 Guntas was awarded in respect of 07 Acres 26 Guntas of land in Sy.No.103/3 with all statutory benefits. According to the consent award, in respect of the construction, trees and other improvements made on the 23 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases land in question, a separate award was to be passed after obtaining a report from the technical officer.
17. According to the respondents-claimants, since no separate award was passed in respect of the trees and the improvements made on the lands in question, Writ Petition Nos.65332 of 2009 and 67255 of 2009 were filed before this Court. The same were disposed of on 17.02.2010 directing the respondents therein to consider the applications dated 18.09.2009 and 22.09.2009 and such other applications and make fresh valuation for the mango trees on the said lands. The said writ petitions were disposed of by following the earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.30620 of 2008 dated 18.03.2009, wherein a direction was issued to consider the representations of the petitioners therein and to pass a supplementary award.
18. According to learned counsel for the claimants, it is based on the directions issued by this Court that the SLAO passed a supplementary award in this case. A copy of one such supplementary award dated 30.01.2012 is 24 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases produced along with the statement of objections to C.R.P. No.100014 of 2017 filed by the State, which has been subsequently converted into M.F.A. No.103898 of 2017. One such supplementary general award (Puravaňe Saamanya Aiteerpu) reads as under:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå LwÃ¥ÀÄð ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀrAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ «¢ü-«zsÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 11(1) gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå LwÃ¥ÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ.
C.£ÀA. «ªÀgÀuÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.
1. d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄ ¥sÀ®ªÀÈPÀëUÀ¼À MlÄÖ 13,04,786-00 ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯É
2. ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 30% gÀAvÉ £ÀµÀÖ¨sÀwð 3,91,436-00 ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£À
3. ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 12% gÀAvÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj 3,62,051-00 ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯É
4. MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£ÀzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 20,58,273-00 F ¥ÀÄgÀªÀuÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå Lwæð£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß "PÉ.f.J£ï.J¯ï."
¤¢üAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ ²Ã¶ðPÉUÉ RZÀÄð ºÁPÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. F ¥ÀÄgÀªÀuÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå LwÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß UÀtQÃPÀgÀtzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤Ãr, ¥ÀjõÀÌj¹, UÀtQÃPÀgÀtUÉƽ¹ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ." [As the English version of the above has not been supplied, the version in Kannada is extracted]
19. The market value in respect of 350 trees in Sy.No.119/1, measuring 2 Acres 37 Guntas at the rate of `3,727=96 per tree was assessed at `13,04,786/-. In 25 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases addition, solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded and total compensation for 350 mango trees was assessed at `20,58,273/-. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the supplementary general award, the claimants preferred protest petitions and sought reference to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act (Karnataka amendment).
20. Before the reference court, the claimants let in their evidence and produced 21 documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to 31. The respondents-SLAO got marked six documents during the enquiry. On the basis of the evidence on record, the reference court framed the following points for its consideration:
" (i) Whether the reference petitions filed by the claimants before the SLAO are within limitation?
(ii) Whether the claimants prove that the compensation determined by the opponent--LAO to their lands is inadequate & improper one?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation? If so, 26 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases at what rate?
(iv) What order or award? "
21. The reference court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and awarded compensation of `5,43,600/- per acre for the entire land bearing RS No.119/1 and 103/3 of Muttaladinni village and `3,00,000/- per acre for the entire land bearing R.S. No.99/2 of the same village.
22. On perusal of the common judgment and award of the reference court, it is noted that the claimants had filed the reference petitions claiming enhanced compensation of `25,00,000/- to `30,00,000/- per acre on the premise that the said lands were used for growing horticultural crops. While answering point No.2, as to whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation, the reference court noted that the subject lands were irrigated lands growing horticultural crops and that was the specific contention of the claimants. The reference court also noted that the nature of the lands, 27 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases source of irrigation, crops grown and report of the Upper Krishna Project authorities had been considered and the market value had been fixed and that the claimants were not entitled for enhanced compensation. The reference court considered the documents produced by the claimants and also the fact that the SLAO had deposed that there are mango, coconut and pomegranate trees standing on the acquired lands and the market value of the acquired lands was fixed on the estimation prepared by the Horticulture Department. But, no such estimation was produced. The reference court noted that since the SLAO himself had admitted that the mango, coconut and pomegranate trees in the acquired lands, the approach adopted by the SLAO in awarding compensation was not proper. The reference court also noted that the lands were admittedly irrigated lands growing horticultural crops. The reference court noted that SLAO had admitted that there were in all 350 mango trees in RS No.119/1; two coconut trees, 200 mango trees and 19 pomegranate trees in RS No.103/1 and 99/2. On considering the oral evidence of PW-1 in light of the documents produced by the said witness, the 28 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases reference court referred to Exs.P-11 to P-17 which are the judgments of this Court and the settlements in the Lok Adalat held before the District Lok Adalat, Bagalkot, where the market value had been fixed for the horticultural trees on the basis of the income from each tree. The reference court then referred to capitalization method to be applied where horticultural crops are grown instead of bifurcating the mango and coconut trees separately and on applying the capitalization method, the reference court noted that in Bilagi Taluk, the yield of Aphus mango is assessed as 06 tons (i.e., 6000 kg) and price of each kg of mango is `18.12 and by multiplying the same, the amount of `1,08,720/- has been arrived, 50% of the said amount has been deducted towards cost of cultivation and by applying multiplier of '10', compensation of `5,43,600/- per acre was arrived at. Similarly, in respect of pomegranate trees in RS No.99/2, the price of per quintal of pomegranate at `1,477/- was reckoned and the yield was taken as 08 tons and accordingly, `2,75,000/- was arrived at as the market value of the land and keeping in mind the fertility of the 29 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases said land and yield of pomegranate, a sum of `3,00,000/- per acre was assessed as the compensation.
23. From the above, it becomes clear that the reference court no where referred to the consent award passed by the SLAO in respect of the land and that what was sought for by the claimants was enhancement of compensation in respect of the trees in the land by not being satisfied with the compensation awarded under the supplementary award referred to above. But, the reference court has misguided itself by noting that a sum of `25,00,000/- to `30,00,000/- per acre was sought as the compensation in the guise of seeking enhancement of compensation on per tree basis. Therefore, the reference court has misguide itself in the manner in which the compensation has been determined by the reference court. The compensation has been determined in respect of the land by assessing the yield of the fruit bearing trees on the said land by the capitalization method on the premise that the land in question was being utilised for horticultural purpose, whereas the fact of the matter is that in respect 30 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases of the land in question, there had already been a consent award and a sum of `1,14,000/- per acre was awarded towards the land and what was to be determined was only with regard to the value of the trees on the said land. But, while doing so, the compensation has been determined per acre of land which is wholly erroneous. In fact the very bifurcation of the compensation at two stages is erroneous. When land is acquired having fruit bearing trees, it is normally the land having such trees is valued. Not being satisfied with the said awards, the claimants have preferred their appeals seeking enhancement of compensation before this Court by raising various grounds in their memorandum of appeal.
24. On going through the memorandum of appeal, it is noted that it has been categorically admitted that "Claimants / appellants did not seek compensation on the basis of the trees in the claim petition but in the evidence, Appellant examined himself as PW-1 and marked totally Exhibits P-1 to P-21 and Respondent State produced Ex.R- 1 to R-6 by consent".
31MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
25. PW-1 had deposed in his evidence that the income from each fruit bearing tree per year was `25,000/- after deducting all the expenses. That the respondent did not conduct any spot inspection and compensation was fixed "just like that". The SLAO did not let-in any oral evidence nor did he conduct any spot inspection in the matter. In the absence of any spot inspection, it is difficult to understand as to how the SLAO had admitted that there were fruit bearing trees on the land in question as contended by the claimants. According to the claimants, they are entitled to `37,000/- per Aphus Mango tree with all consequential statutory benefits.
26. Per contra, in the appeals filed by the SLAO, it has been contended that the reference court had to only consider as to whether the claimants were entitled to any additional compensation, than what was awarded under the supplementary award. It is contended that the reference court could not have awarded compensation once again for the land on per acre basis in the guise of considering as to whether the supplementary award was 32 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases correct or not. It is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the then SLAO had connived with the claimants in awarding a huge compensation under the supplementary awards and that the judgment and award of the reference court is a fraudulent one, a nullity and void ab initio.
27. We have perused in detail the documents produced on behalf of the claimants as well as on behalf of the SLAO. On perusal of the same, we note that certain documents which are now produced and were not marked in the evidence by either the claimants by the SLAO before the reference court. That apart, the reference court has proceeded on the basis that the land in question was being utilised for horticultural purpose. If that is so, then, there ought to have been a report to that effect being submitted after a spot inspection showing the extent of the land, the nature of the land (whether dry land or irrigated land), number of trees on the land, type of trees, yield per tree (on an average basis), age of trees and such other determinant factors. In the absence of there being any 33 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases such report, the reference court has determined the compensation on per acre basis, based on certain awards passed on compromise petitions filed before the District Lok Adalat at Bagalkot and copies of award passed before the Lok Adalat at Bagalkot District and other judgments passed by this Court in certain miscellaneous first appeals.
28. First of all, we fail to understand as to how the number of trees that could have been grown on the extent of land, be it 350 mango trees or 1000 mango trees or 200 mango trees in respect of the said lands has been considered. There is no concrete report submitted with regard to the nature of the trees on the lands in question on the basis of a spot inspection being conducted by the authority. In the absence of these crucial details being available, it is not known as to how the reference court could have awarded compensation at the rate of `5,43,600/- per acre in respect of RS No.119/1 and 103/1 and `3,00,000/- per acre in respect of RS No.99/2 without taking into consideration the existence of trees, type of trees, nature of trees, age and such other factors. The 34 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases reference court has simply proceeded on the basis of the awards passed before the Lok Adalat by way of a settlement or certain judgments passed by this Court in certain appeals, by totally ignoring the factual realities of the case. We find that the approach of the reference court is wholly mechanical and highly erroneous for the aforesaid reasons.
29. That apart, when the claimants sought enhanced compensation for the trees based on their value, the reference court could not have proceeded to assess the market value of the land in question on the basis of capitalization method, that too on per acre basis. The reference court has totally misdirected itself in that regard. It is needless to emphasize that as far as the compensation for the land in question is concerned, there was already a consent award passed in respect of each of the subject lands in each of these cases and the purpose of passing a subsequent supplementary award was only with regard to the assessment of compensation for the trees said to have been on the said lands.
35MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
30. Further, there is no application of mind by the reference court even to the supplementary award passed by the SLAO and as to whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation.
31. We have perused the supplementary award passed by the then SLAO. `20,58,273/- has been awarded as the total compensation in respect of 350 mango trees. It is highly doubtful as to whether the supplementary award was also preceded by any joint survey report or spot inspection in order to ascertain as to the number of mango trees or any other fruit bearing trees on the land in question and the valuation thereof. The approach of the reference court is wholly opposed to all known cannons of law and the judgment and award of the reference court is thus vitiated.
32. At this stage, we find it necessary to consider the contention of learned counsel for the claimants to the effect that the compensation paid pursuant to a settlement before the Lok Adalat while assessing the value of a tree 36 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases could be a guidance value for subsequent cases and that there is nothing wrong in assessing the value of the trees based on the assessment made in a settlement before the Lok Adalat.
33. We are afraid, we cannot accept the said contention for the reason that the Lok Adalat settlement binds the parties to the settlement, unless the said settlement is set aside by a competent court of law. That apart, a settlement is arrived before the Lok Adalat on a 'give and take' basis and as an alternative dispute resolution. The Lok Adalat settlement cannot be equated to an adjudication or as a binding precedent. A settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat, therefore, is having regard to the facts of the particular case which is settled and which are known to the parties therein, on the basis of which a settlement is arrived at. But, if the same is blindly applied in subsequent cases, then it will be by giving a go-bye to important and significant considerations while assessing compensation. For instance, as in the present case, compensation for the 37 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases value of trees is sought to be assessed. The nature of the trees, nature of land on which the trees stand (whether dry or irrigated), the type of fruit, the yield per tree, age of the tree, health of the tree, soil condition and such other factors had to be considered while adjudicating the compensation to be awarded per tree. This should be done on the basis of a spot inspection and a joint survey report, it cannot be on a thumb rule basis by adopting the value arrived at in a Lok Adalat settlement in some other case. If the same is adopted by the law courts, it would be in total contradiction to the realities and factual position of the case.
34. It is also noted that in several judgments passed by the reference court, or for that matter, even this Court, while assessing the compensation of fruit bearing trees, the figure arrived at in a Lok Adalat settlement is applied. We think that the said approach is not in accordance with law and contrary to the factual position in each cases. Therefore, the said manner of assessment of the value of the trees, based on the figure arrived at 38 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases before the Lok Adalat in a Lok Adalat settlement must be eschewed while assessing the compensation unless it is by way of a compromise or settlement arrived between the parties before this Court and not as a manner of adjudication.
35. Further, in the instant case, the reference court has considered 6000 kg as the yield per mango tree and the price per kg of mango as `18.12. It is not known as to whether 6000 kg is the yield per tree. 6000 kg multiplied by `18.12 is `1,08,170/-, 50% is deducted towards cost of cultivation. The basis for such figure is not with reference to any evidence on record and the balance of `54,360/- is multiplied by '10' and `5,43,600/- per acre is granted.
36. Similarly, in respect of pomegranate trees, having regard to the previous judgments of the reference court, the yield is taken as 8 tons (whether it is per tree, is not known) and `1,044/- per quintal is assessed. `2,75,000/- per acre is the compensation determined and having regard to the fertility of the acquired land, 39 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases compensation of `3,00,000/- per acre is awarded. The aforesaid manner of determination of compensation is not only contrary to the evidence on record or rather is, in the absence of any concrete evidence.
37. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and awards passed by the reference court in these appeals. The matters are remanded to the reference court for fresh adjudication. The reference court shall take into consideration the claim made by the respondents- claimants based on the agreement entered into between the parties and dispose off the reference in accordance with law. For that purpose, both, the claimants as well as the SLAO are at liberty to let-in further evidence, if they so desire.
38. Since the respective parties are represented by their learned counsel, they are directed to appear before the reference court on 25th April 2019, without expecting any separate notices from the said Court. 40 MFA No.24135/2013
& Connected cases
39. The reference court shall dispose off the claim petitions in accordance with law and having regard to the observations made above. The appeals filed by the claimants as well as by the SLAO are disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
40. Since, the matter is remanded to the reference court, the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to refund of court fees in terms of Section 64 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.
41. At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that while this Court has directed refund of court fees to the appellants-claimants, the contention of the SLAO is that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation even under the supplementary award passed by the then SLAO. Further, the compensation amount awarded under the supplementary award has been paid to the claimants. Further, the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court has been paid to the claimants in the execution petitions filed by them. But the judgment and awards of the reference court 41 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases has now been set aside. Therefore, this Court may direct the claimants to deposit at least the enhanced compensation determined by the reference court before the reference court.
42. We find considerable force in the aforesaid contention. Keeping in view the aforesaid contention, we reserve liberty to the State to seek deposit of the amount received by the claimants in terms of the awards made by the reference court before the reference court. The said liberty is being given having regard to the fact that the judgment and awards of the reference court have been set aside by us. If the claimants are directed to deposit the compensation received by them pursuant to the judgment of the reference court before the reference court, the said court shall deposit the said amount in any nationalised bank so that interest is earned on the said amount and the same shall be subject to the result of the claim petitions / reference petitions before the reference court.
43. We further hasten to add that in the alternative, the claimants may furnish Bank guarantee in 42 MFA No.24135/2013 & Connected cases lieu of the deposit being made to the satisfaction of the reference court. The aforesaid liberty is being issued having regard to the principles of restitution on setting aside of the judgment of the reference Court and in the interest of public exchequer.
44. In the result, the appeals filed by the State succeed and are allowed, and the appeals filed by the claimants are disposed off, in the aforesaid terms.
In view of the disposal of the appeals, all pending applications stand disposed off.
Registry to send back the lower court records to the concerned reference court expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CLK/RK/-