(BY SRIIRAO VAS'SC3fi',iA'II'_ES, ADV.)
AN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED TI-IIS THE 24TH DAY or JULY, 2¢e9
PRESENT I I
THE I-ION'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJIILA
THE I-ION'BLE MRS. JUSTICE"B.V.NA(3%ARA'fI-fI€A"~ _
MFA NO.11I43I8/ZOOS-{IIIACI
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAK_t>,..15owIEiIé,I CICRIDIQFQATION
No.82,T.sH_AKT1:;9HAvATN;*«A'_;E._I '
RACE co1;JR_sE "ROAD,_.._ ;V
BAN 550901 A
REF BY {Ts C}_~I1'E_F' "E1'~IGINEER.
< I ~ * ~ ...APPELLANT
...........m--»......... ..g....-
sEH'1v'A?R;AM RAMACHANDRA DI-IUNDI
SATQDDI, KATTIGE TALUK,
. "VYELI;;g'\PIUR, UTTAR KANNADA
KARNTAKA 581 359
SVIQAEJCIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KALI NADI PROJECT, DANDELI
.fU'I'TAR KANNADA
KARNATAKA 581 325 V
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.\/EDHACHALA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.K.B.ADHYAPAK, AGA FOR R2)
THIS MFA Is FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA.f=–AcT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND “AW}_’tRD
DATED:23/02/2006 PASSED IN LAC No.5A23)”I99A§~–
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.1DjN)’-fsIRSI:,”
PARTLY ALLOWING THE
ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMI1\EG”Q’N.r..FORv- A:>MI’ssIj0AN,rrTHIs
DAY, MANJULA cHELLU1é’g;JVV DELIVEREIQ THE
FOLLOWING: ‘ E
NNNN I30} T
4’_appe’ai.V” of judgment and award
passed b)VIN4’t1″1€” Court in LAC No.62 / 1994 on
– Igtherne Civil rJudge”(Sr. Dn.), Sirsi dated 23.02.2006.
‘A 2., undisputed facts in this appeal are that
‘4.___”-».1ands”b_e1aring Survey No.21/2 measuring 1 acre and
No.22 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas of Kattige
__Vi11age, Yeilapur Taiuk belonging to respondent No.1
herein carne to be acquired for the Kali Hydro Electric
Project, by notification dated 24.01.1993, under Section
4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the
Land Acquisition Officer determined the
at Rs.46,709–0O and as.1o,io,o74–o0ceifiaagebtiyeiy A
including other statutory benefits atfithe time
award under Section 11 of
3. Aggrieved by of
compensation, the * if I — A if if 1′ ‘ici3″V:_Q.iJi”‘.:I”<7.1V1€1ent– claimant
approached the presenting an
application ' 18 of the Act. Before the
References..Court,_ the riiatter was contested. Additional
evidence came"to_'p_e brought on record in support of his
' coiiteiition with regard to inadequate and
disproporti'on'ate compensation when compared to the
actual tfacts i.e., the nature of trees, age of the trees,
A nurnber of trees and so also the yield from different
A kinds of trees depending upon their age.
4. The iearned Judge after giving opportunity to
both the parties and upon Considering the evidence,
both the oral and documentary evidence
quantum of compensation is less as theV__rn’arket’ _p
assessed by the LAO was
properties in question.
5. On perusa} of the iit’isiV:neticied at the
time of passing award, the fci11QW_ing_ amounts were
awarded by the Speci-ai of Survey
acriewef land of the first
respondent: g
* _a. iaéiiue of ian’d'”+V Saniba
_ 13,500–00
ifi-1_,:’5,0’0 + 2,000)
Value .Efstructure 0,021–oo
bf jungle trees —
0 .nii,o;~ifi
~v\r/alue of fruit bearing trees 16,810–O0
Total 30,331-00
In respect of Survey No.22 measuring 2 acres 21
guntas of land of the first respondent:
Rs… it ”
compound Wall, etc
(28,145 + 785) ‘
c. Value of jungle trees <2'
Value of land _ —
Value of structure + – .. _ V’ ~..
d. Value of fruit bearing trees 2 V
Total W.l:*i’6,S5,892–00
6. Before the’..iRefere–n’c-e; lVC0.urt, Vth’e”iclaimant
relied upon the judgment Court dated
11.01.2002 to arrive at the
decision of be granted to the claimants.
In the referred ca.s’eAipa}–so;;.iithe lands were acquired for the
lp”u.rpos”e’A Kali Hydro Electric Project and this
»lC’o.u_rt the price of arecanut trees during the
Rs.3,400/- per quintal. The yield of 4
kgsl ‘tree was fixed. After deducting 50% of
» cultivation cost multiplier 10 was applied. Based on the
‘ said judgment of the I-Ion’ble High Court, the Reference
Court was of the opinion the value towards the
acquisition of arecanut trees has to be re–determined
depending upon the age of the trees.
7. The Reference Court based K
respect of Survey No.22 and reuspeict-..of–
No.21 /2, documents referred t’o_i’as
Evaluation of Horticuituraiiiffreesgg of “t}ie’i’:Suhmerging
Areas signed by iiorticuiture
Officer concerned, arrivevd statement
of a.recar11_1t.§ trees. As
per of arecanut and
coconut E3urvey No.22 were 1,943 and
in respei/{Of 2, there were only 67
arvecanut trees”.-e.VV___’_If1f1-£3 rest were of other fruit bearing
‘trees–v1ike:’«Vrriacngo, guava, jack fruit, etc. Ex.P2 and
EXP3 refer the nature of trees, number of tress, age
of theme and also the kind of yield derived from the
A trees. Based on this report, the iearned Judge
réeiying upon judgment of High Court in MFA
No.1084/2001, valued the arecanut trees in respect of
Survey No.22 which included 18 and 2 years.V’ro_lid._Vat
Rs.2,S6,224/–. After deducting 50% towards:’_:th’e§:;~ds§i::_of« _
maintenance and cultivation, theyield per”tree at:4– ”= ‘V
was arrived at Rs.1,28,112/–. He
10 depending upon the ofidthie trees.”
Based on this capitalizationVi:’n1et.hod.4i vfilue was
arrived at Rs.12,81,l4i2i5.;’-hinfixsvou.il”a,rA:i,Aas_1884 arecanut
trees concer_ne:d.v.._ No.21/ 2, the
learned Jiqdge._ which included
18 /–. After deducting
500/0 Vmaientenance, cultivation, the
yield per acre at .4 tree arrived at Rs.4,556–0O/ .
i He” of 10 depending upon the age of
the trees. Based on this capitalization
rn”e.tho._fd,’ value was arrived at Rs.45_,560–O0/– in so
V far as\57 arecanut trees concerned.
8. Then coming to coconut trees in respect of
Survey No.22, they being 59 in number, the yielqitper
tree was taken at 100 at the rate of Rs.4/
which comes to Rs.23,600/–.__….pSimil–ar’Iy;.:’_’:E3C)’i/q”_was”
deducted towards cost of cult:ivpati_oin’;V “After
multiplier 10, by capitalisation method,l’the._j’va1.uationVC
arrived at was Rs.1,1;.8,000 coconut trees were
found in respect of /2, hence the
compensation
9. nrelgarcfito Evaluation of other fruit
bearing “the arguments of both the
Counsel’ reliance on Supreme Court
jutfigrneiat, theV.Vle_arned Judge held that there was
‘ Vimaterivali tohishow from the exhibit relied upon by the
Srespondeyntabefore the Reference Court that there were
other Vufruit bearing trees. Therefore, he was of the
A .o:p’i’r_1ion that the Special LAO was justified in awarding.
‘compensation of Rs.16,810–OO in respect of Survey
No.21/2 and Rs.6,16,564–00 in respect of Survey No.22.
So far as the jungle trees, in respect of Survey
and 22, he awarded Rs.2,000/– and
respectively. The total compensstion t1’ie«.
Reference Court was Rs.20,64,6:1_4~QOA..éirid..R’s.’6?i;’39.iA=’QQA
in the following manner’i_a.s agairistp awgrd off»
Rs.6,55,892–00 and Rs.3O,33TI=».t)’0V._»in fespeet Survey
Nos.22 and 21/ 2 resptectixrelffg Special LAO in
addition to statutory””be1iefit’s..j:’iri iéicoioriciance with the
Land Acq;;i’sitioii_ Act’. _dete{ii’s Vaswtiollowsz
In
Rs.
Value” ~.of”aLre’canut’ trees
12,81,120–O0
P 3-‘
of c’oc.o_1_1__ut trees
01,18,000~00
.. Vsaiuieéviof fruit yielding trees
2’ LJ
06,16,564~00
structure + pagara +
comJg§11nd wall
00,28,930~00
V-alueofjungie trees
0O,20,000~0O
Total
20,64,614–()()
13″‘
‘: / ~V -.
‘ . “In”1’espect of Survey No.21/2:
>
10
Rs.
Value of arecanut trees 45,560–OO
Value of fruit yielding trees 16v,V.é3E_'(}5.()O
Value of structure
.4*”.°°E°*””‘
Value ofjungle trees ‘
Total ” A * 1370? ‘ a
Award ofSy. No.22 _ A:’Rsl’2V_(A.),64»,.>6v_T.:;4400tv»T”–~.n “«,
Award of Sy. No.21/ 2 Rs..OO..V_64,i§.9 ‘
Grand rota;-.__ ~lt;;;fgsf._’2;1,29,’OOs’é00
10. Aggrieved has come
up in this :_”ap};rea} “<:o1'3'1t'e"'nc:.1'ir1_Vg"f'that there was no
justificatiorl Court to award
compensaitigjnv. in respect of both
/2 as stated above and the
stressed upon the fact that when all
trees were valued at Rs.6,16,564–OO
in respect of Survey Nos.22 and 21/2
«rV"t-eesgaectively, there were no necessity for separately
.-5"'
ll
assessing the loss by capitalization method towards
arecanut and coconut trees.
11. As against this, the learned. it
appearing for the c1aimants–fiirst
that the Reference Court was justified in tclassifyin}g.the”~ao
fruit bearing trees dependingiiovupon n’ature of the
crops i.e., commercial’f’and1 The
yield from a co.cvonut.~Vt~re.e’. in terms of
money such as mango,
to interfere with
the opinion of” it ‘ l?_efe.re’nc’e Court.
. .. 12. other contention of the learned Counsel
for the’beneficiary§appellant is the very number of trees
and EXP3 is disproportionate to the
actua1fn1.easurement of land because 1960 and 76 trees
..co_.uld*n.ot be grown, in 2 acres 21 guntas of land and in
acre of land in respect of Survey Nos.22 and 21/2
“respectively. According to him, depending upon the
12
strength and number of the trees, the yield will be more.
If more trees are planted in a small area, there _vr.i_lle.not
be healthy growth of the tree, thereby it _
yield as well.
13. Having these argurne’nts–_in
proceeded to consider the””s:eeond “‘c.on’tenti.enHof the
appellant first. At has there been any
challenge with regard_’i’toV of either
arecanut treesflovr—.other fruit bearing
trees. What *i.s;”‘contend’eid .:is”asV”‘there are more than the
standard trees 2 acres 21 guntas of land
in respeuctéof ‘Nyo}22 and 1 acre of land in respect
of No.”12–Vl[_2H_,ythe yield cannot be as assessed by
‘ ,:the.yReferevnce_ Court. But the basis for the Reference
.’Co’urt to-Warrive at the value of arecanut and coconut
trees the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of
Court as stated above. It is not in dispute that
‘Evaluation arrived at by said judgment of this Court was
either modified or reduced by the Supreme Court or in a
later judgment of this High Court. In that vie’w.,:bf_t’the
matter, we are not persuaded to take a
In fact, if We consider the cost:tof-yieldhtrorri,’ar’e.cant1tuu
and coconut trees, the Court
consideration, the total terms-._o’f_,
selling leaves and Other parishcfujCoconut’*tor”Viarecanut
trees. The valuation statistics of
the year in the absence
of any that in this part of
the coconut tree or arecanut
tree vtasvfiless determined by the Reference
Court, 3 at ut11its’st’ag.e, rkthen no material is placed, this
of the beneficiary cannot be accepted, since
:as__ the other benefits from other parts of
coconut arecanut trees was not at ail taken into
‘ A. c,o_nsid”eration.
14
14. Then coming to the valuation of
Rs.6,16,564—O0 and Rs.16,810–OO in respect of Survey
Nos.22 and 21/ 2 respectively fixed by the
being confirmed by the Reference Court,
force in the arguments of the appellants. .;IniV:re_spe’c<'t cf
Survey No.22, the total nugmber:4'~a_f1'trees
guntas are 1960. If 1943 aateeanut an_ci'- trees'
are deducted, the ba1ance_."c5i_tiégggwpuidiHbe""17. The
Value of Rs.6,16,564-O01:_Visv"_'1'r§Vr prs11_ii9;5t;}1y':rees and the
average value 1 RS314/-. Once
separate iva1u»ati0f1–is41'1n'ade .fc5r arecanut and coconut
trees, the valueci"..bther_if1<1;[it bearing trees has to be for
17 trees and r:11'ot~the."en.tire 1960. At the rate of Rs.314~~
. 'per5"~ti'ee,A~.the cost of 17 other fruit bearing trees
A In"respect of Survey No.21/ 2, the total number of
:_"tree_s acre of land are 76. If 67 arecanut trees are
e.__1dedt,:cted, the balance of trees is 9. The value of
'"Rs.16,810-00 is for 76 trees and the average value of
; 17 ot11er.fruit bearing trees 5,347-00
15
one tree would be at Rs.221/–. Once separate valtration
is made for arecanut trees, the vaiue of ot–he–r”«fr’L1§t
bearing trees has to be for 9 trees and not
At the rate of Rs.221–O0 per tre’e,’-«the-tuttfof 2
other fruit bearing trees would
as other amounts awarded toxfifards structure dandjungle V’
trees, we do not find good’ to triterfere at this
stage. So also regardthg.”st’a’ttit:oIfrf:_:Vhegécfits awarded by
the Reference reason to modify
or interfere; is
entitled in respect of Survey
No.22]. . A
VFor 188-{PAr.e’ca11uVt”‘trees 12,81,120–OO
59 c0conL1t.. trees 01,18,000–0O
hp p.Str1i_c,t’u~rVes’ 28,93o–oo
X Ju.ng1Z-$7 trees 2o,ooo-oo
‘ Total 14,53,397–oo
3 15. In respect of Survey No.21/2:
16
For 67 Arecanut trees 45,56O~VO-O_
9 other fruit bearing trees
Structures
Jungle trees
Total t
Accordingly, the ap9peia1~.._isA.al1_oWeci*_;invwjjarit by”
reducing the quar1tun;_..__ _A’~¢f”V-»_§;omAi5er1sation to
Rs.14,53,397-O0 froth in respect of
Survey 1\Iflo.224-and No.21/2 , the
compensatiorf to Rs.49,57 1 -00 from
Rs.64339″1t-oQv:.”.:v benefits allowed by
the Reference the same.
_._§’Having V’r’egard’:to the fact that the acquisition
:pi*o.c¥eegi1ngs:r11ade in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993, the
and the 2nd respondent State are
-V directedttovtieposit the compensation amount as stated
‘2..f”aboveA together with other statutory benefits which are
‘ by the Special LAO confirmed by the Reference
I7
Court to be deposited within three months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
Parties to bear their own cost.
r§esgti
S f. E
ff’
pS