Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Special Land ... vs Mallappa And Ors. on 23 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR2336, 2003(6)KARLJ334, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 445, 2003 AIHC 943, (2003) 3 ICC 428, (2003) 6 KANT LJ 334, (2010) 3 KCCR 1851, (2003) 2 LACC 433
Author: B. Padmaraj
Bench: B. Padmaraj
JUDGMENT Padmaraj, J.
1. Since alt these miscellaneous second appeals involve common questions of law and facts, and also as they arise out of the common Judgments and Awards dated 29.1.2002, they are conveniently dealt with together.
2. Learned Advocate Sri A.G. Shivanna takes notice for the respondents-claimants and he is permitted to file power within three weeks from today.
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-LAO as well as the learned Advocate for the respondents in all these appeals and carefully perused the entire case papers including the impugned common Judgments and Awards made by the First Appellate Court, with their assistance.
4. These Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed by the Special LAO under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act are directed against the common Judgments and awards made by the First Appellate Court, whereby, it has enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants of Rs. 11,500/- per acre, on the basis of the Judgments and awards made by the Courts in similar other cases, wherein, the similar nature of lands of adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose were awarded compensation at Rs. 11,500/- per acre. Thus, it was found by the First Appellate Court that the acquired lands of the respondents - claimants and the lands involved in the other cases of adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose, being similarly situated are entitled to the same compensation and hence, awarded the uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands under the same notification. It is this finding of the First Appellate Court, which is now sought to be challenged by the appellant - LAO by preferring these Miscellaneous Second Appeals.
5. The enhancement of compensation made by the First Appellate Court is sought to be challenged by the Appellant -LAO on the grounds that the Court below has erred in law in holding that in view of certain amount of compensation having been awarded in respect of certain other lands of nearby villages and covered under the same notification covering the respondents village and lands and that the same having been confirmed by this Court, the respondents also being entitled to the same amount of compensation, without any further consideration. According to the appellant-LAO, this reasoning of the First Appellate Court is highly presumptuous and results in conferring largesse on the respondents while completely throwing overboard the established principles and the basis on which compensation is awarded and reconsidered for enhancement in given cases. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to see that there can be no presumption that all lands covered under the same notification and of the same village are entitled to the same amount of compensation, in the absence of material evidence and a rational basis with due regard to topography, availability of arable land in a given survey number, source of water, yield and other factors. It is also contended that the reference to case nos. in which a sum of Rs, 11,500/- per acre was awarded was hardly a reason for enhancing compensation without reference to the other essential ingredients. Mainly, on these grounds, the appellant - LAO seeks to challenge the enhancement made by the First Appellate Court.
6. It has to be stated at the outset that in a second appeal under Section 35(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal under Section 100 of CPC, cannot be raised. The Second Appeal can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of CPC and it is not open to the parties to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court has erred in its view of the evidence. It is not correct to say that Section 35(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which recognises second appeal not having put any restrictions on the scope of the powers of the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court will not be bound by the restrictions contained in CPC for second appeals. I am, therefore, of the considered view that a second appeal under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act may be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of CPC and it is not open to the appellant - LAO to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court has erred in its view of the evidence in the matter of enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands of the respondents. The finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants and the lands involved in other cases acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose being similarly situated are entitled to the same compensation is a pure question of fact and in the arena of appreciation of evidence on factual matrix. The said factual finding arrived at by the First Appellate Court on the basis of the materials available on record cannot be interfered in the second appeal. It is not in dispute that the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants are situated in Yelmamadi Village. The acquired lands of the respondents-claimants are adjoining to Chimmanchod and Nagaral Villages. That is to say, Yelamamadi, Chimmanchod and Nagaral are all adjoining villages and the lands situated in all these adjoining villages are similarly situated and they were acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose by the LAO. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value of a Nagara! Village had adopted the sales statistics of Yelamamadi Village and likewise, for determining the compensation for the acquired lands of Yelamamadi Village, had adopted the sales statistics of Nagaral and Chimmanchod Villages. It would thus appear that the lands situated in all these adjoining villages were similarly situated and they were acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose. The Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 11,500/- per acre for the acquired lands of Nagaral and Chimmanchod Villages, vide the Judgments and Awards passed in LAC Nos. 630 to 633/ 1996 dated 17.11.1997 and also in LAC Nos. 304 to 308/1996 dated 23.10.1997 and that the same has been confirmed in appeals by this Court in MFA Nos. 2216 and 2232/1998 vide the Judgment dated 7.1.2000 and 13.1.2000. The same has become final and conclusive and it appears that the State Government has also paid compensation at such rates. In the above context, it was found on facts by the First Appellate Court from the materials placed on record that the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants are similar in nature to the lands of the adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose. There has been no serious challenge to this finding. Even otherwise, the said finding of the First Appellate Court is supported by the materials on record. Grant of uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands, which are similarly situated and acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose cannot be held to be bad. It is now well settled that the Judgment of Courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances being that for a Judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence, either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced must have been a previous Judgment of the Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such Judgment by adducing evidence aliunde, that due regard being given to all attending facts and circumstances, it would furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. In the instance case, it was found on facts by the First Appellate Court that the Judgments and awards relied upon by the respondents-claimants can be made basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired lands in as much as they were found to be similar in nature and they were acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose. In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BALBIR SINGH, 2000 AIR SCW Page 4935(2) and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. DHYAN SINGH, 2000 AIR SCW Page 4936(1). The Hon'bie Supreme Court in both these cases adopted the same value for the lands covered by the same notification. Grant of uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands, which are similarly situated and acquired under the same notifications and for the very same purpose cannot be faulted with. There is no reason not to adopt the same value for all the acquired lands, which are similarly situated and acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose. It has to be pointed out that the other lands acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose being similar to the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants, they were certainly entitled for the same compensation and accordingly, the enhancement made by the First Appellate Court for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants in order to maintain uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands which are similarly situated to the adjoining villages cannot be faulted and on the other hand, it is liable to be confirmed. I have perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court and I find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the Judgment the Court has assessed the compensation of Rs. 11,500/- per acre for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is highly exorbitant and warrants interference by this Court in the second appeal. It is not possible to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guesswork. Having carefully perused the entire case records including the impugned Judgment made by the First Appellate Court, I do not find that the same suffers from any serious illegality, the approach of the First Appellate Court in awarding the uniform rate of compensation in respect of the acquired lands, which are similarly situated, is fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference with the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court is called for. Therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I find that no substantial question of law will arise for consideration in all these Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed by the Appellant LAO. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, therefore, all these Miscellaneous Second appeals filed by the Appellant -LAO are hereby dismissed.