flit --.
II!" 'T'''- HEGH ('J('J"l.'I".l'tT IT)?' ENTAISA. RE
DATED THIS THE 1 1"' DAY OF APRIL, 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAM MOI-IAN REDDY
H K KTnF.1Q.AIQfV\Q H A{'\\
xuu .11. .uu.u4.Jfi[ auvu 'unu'
_o-~up..~._
ABDU LRAZAK
s/0 MOHAMMEDSABGIRIGAVI
so
AGRIC-ULTURIST
:=e,'A'r P-IGLHA N
TQ. BASAVANABAGEWADI,
DIST: BIAJPUR.
APPELLANT
Ly 4; D s H(_)SM.A__H, ADV)
AND .
THE Lr"u'-5D ACQ-UiSi'i'i0N 0FFiCER
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIJAPUR.
RESPONDENT
{By S1-i: M NARAYANA_P_ A, AGA 1
THIS FILED we 54 0}? LA ACT Aealfifl THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER D1'. 3
N0.a3i94 ON FiLE GF ii :'u".)1')L. Ci"v'iL a"u'E')GE {SR
DN.), BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
PETITION FILED U/S 18(2) OF LA ACT FOR ENHANCED
compsusxrnou AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPESNATION.
.2-
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
.!III'Il:Ill!I'I"
L
The land owner aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 3. 10.200] in LAC No.83/94 of the II Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn), Bijapur, (for short 'Ref... _.n..; C..::. .3}. has pzeferze-3.
t..._his apg.'-ea! for enhancement of wnrpensation.
2. Facts
in brief are 3 acxes 15 guntas of land in RS.
No.262/ A of Kolhar village of Bijapur District, belonging to
the appellant, was by tb… St.-am Lnmufi Land
A…,ui-sitic-P. (.’.”£”‘..!’-.;.”=c:1m=.”.ssi”*-aiit %n’in’a’ifi”11e”‘ {nnu . in
exercise of domain power. by issuing
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1984. published in the Karnataka Gazette on 6.8. 1992, flora
public purpose, to wit. for construction of Water Taeatment
Plant- ll Stage, to supply pure water’ to Bijapur city by
drawing water from Krishna river. The LAO conducted
award enquiry and based on sales statistics,
compensai_io_ -11.- :11… _..t.. ..f RsJ?,(.\(.F.),l- pr % fa’
:1. Th’ *–“-ilani dissatisfied
ML
‘(J \
the quantnru of compensafio” so gut r-*feae.na~ of his
claim under Section 18(1) of the Act for enhancexnent of
compensation. and an reference, the Reference Court
Iecoxded the evidence of the appellant as PW-1, marked 26
documents as Exs.P1 to P26. while for the respondent-LAO,
the copy of the award was marked as Ex.D1. The Reference
Court placing reliance upon Ex.P23. the judgment and
..9…. dt. 1-14,1999 in LAC 258197 fixing the market value
I
HF
Rs.72.%i- per acre of RS. !*.’e.265,’ 1. belonging m ..ne
Bahasaheb Tahsildar. adjacent to the land in
question. and acquired under the plehmmary’ ‘ notification
dated 15.12.94 for the very same public purpose. accepted
the same as dependable basis, deducted 25% of the said
compensation amount. at 10% depreciation for every year. in
View of the diiference of 2 years 4 months and 09 days
the dates of plelinljnmy notifications i.e. 6.8.1992
rl ‘IR
u. Lu-
h-I
2. 1994. m fix, t..e mar.-_.t val: – f he land
E3
,, l”‘A I\l\l’\
at ‘Rs.:H,uuui – ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 5……
award.
. ‘ t:….::…… .4’ 1… ‘1::..r-……….,…..
vvauav uuwuauug Luv \.iI.I).l.V|.r'”I..l’ierE-is flile .I.l..I.MaI.l-ll.’ U]. .I:.I.IU IVCIUJGLIIX5
in the market vaiue of the acquired land,
contends that the land in question is at a distance of 40 ions
by road from Bijapur city and is located in the well developed
vicinity of Kolhar village where the appellant was growing
sugarcane and securing an yield of 70 tons per acre. the
price of which was Rs.700/- per ton. the essential
ingredients to determine the market value by capitalisation
m-t___… w.__..h’ h t..- .hJ!.-L”.1′, dfl no- new …~…x;-…n=.g m t..e
‘mm–“fled ca’:-nnfil aitzheugh th-i” “v’v”S -0 proof in “‘e f’nn of
records to estabiish that on the date of acquisition
sugarcane was grown on the land, its yield or price.
nevertheless the evidence of PW -1. the appellant land owner
not seriously cross-examined over the said facts. coupled
with the fact that indisputably the acquired land was
irrigated land having source of water from Krishna river
carried throufl pipes, there was no reason for the Refermce
…..- n..t. t. deternzine the marl-.’.et sales by adopting
‘ “‘ . “u’ei\
-5…
‘i. it is next contended that FW-1 testified to the
conveyance of a plot of land measuring 15 x 30 it under
Ex.P3, sale deed dt. 30.11.92 for a sale consideration of
Rs.3,500[- located adjacent to the land in question. a well
developed locality with potential for further development,
and so reckoning the value of one acre of land being
Rs.3,80,000,I-, deducting towfis t_’l_-v.
Acconiing to the learned counsel, the Reference Court fell in
error in not accepting Ex.F’3 as a contemporaneous sale
deed, a dependable basis to determine Market Value on sales
statistics. It is lastly contended that the Reference Court
was not justified in accepting Rs.72.000/- per acre as the
market value fixed for Rs. No.265[1 in its judgment and
award in LAC 253/97 Ex.P23, though the appellant placed
on record distinctive of £i@I1_t:3.t_i¢..3″..!.”;. m_n:.
fimpriawlyr that the land in qtaestifin ‘was much mwe
valnabie the lands in “o.2’6ESi 1, entitling the
appellant to compensation. According-“to the learned
counsel, the depreciation at the rate of 25% of Rs.72_.O00/- .
.I J
5. Per contra, learned Addl. Govennnent Advocate
contends that the appeflt having ffled to I;_r..|a.r.=e relevant
muchles location of the acquired land in a
developed area in Kolhar-village or the record ofrights of the
acquired lands for the year 1992 disclosing surgareane
having been gmwn, its yield and price, the Reference Court
cannot be found fault with for not having determined the
Market value by capitalisation method. Learned counsel
hastens to add that the sale deed Ex.P3 does not disclose the
‘S?-=-N-C’? in which the site is .f.’r..rr.!;.n;-.:d except menmmg-pthe
F” “‘ “st nu’-nber. the honndaries of the iii’I’.J”i’1c”i”i._’y’
conveyed also do not disclose the site is
adjacent to the land acquired so as to constitute a
contemporaneous sale deed. a dependable basis to
determine market value of the acquired land. It is next
submitted that the appellant placed reliance on Ex.P23
Judgment and award dt. 13.4.1999 in LAC 258I97.- as a
M
.7-
dependable basis to determine the market value of the
acquired land and therefine. the appellant cannot be allowed
to approbate and iepmbate.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties.
examined the impugned Judgment and humid. perused the
material on record. the evidence both oral and documentaly.
the only question that mines for decision making is- whether
in the L oi_it.:I_In:_stanc:s 3.1’… e-.’…….w on 21-=-….:o:=.i, the
ad-:fl….eI
“‘”‘ e wen” j”eiuuuu in fixing l.l.l. manstet
R-…”e.’*e’.1-*-me. \.-‘|J’
5:.
the acquired’ ‘ land at F:s.54,00l”i]’- peracie for nnga’ ‘ ted land ?
7. Having given my anxious consideration to the
‘I ‘l’l’I’iQ ‘ 51 ff P: n’I”I’i Iiiinal. the $11,-“‘.fl’I”l”Ili’l’I fl-tint
-.-.-_–.—-.–_..*.-u-v–u.-nu -en. -tn-av-tr inn!’-III-laavhrim. u.n._ruu-can-I-Inn l Inlalliliu
$3′
tie…-~’-‘tit.-4-at-;”u land is in chm ‘””s’;rti'”tiii’@ to trial} deveio-pod area of
– nonar is unacceptable. i say so because except for
the self interested testimony of PW -1, the appellant asserting
that the land abuts certain building belonging to a local
School and the photographs both positive and negative.
which in my opinion. do not constitute satisfactory proof of
the assertion. The mere fact that the appellant was not
tit.
-8-
cross-examined on the said assertion does not necessarily
mean that the appellant established the said fact. It was for
the appellant to place before Con/rt ielevsnt magi.-:1
oonstimting sI.I.bsts.a..ufi_e1 lean’ …L..ene-.; of the %t that the
it was open in the appellant to adduce the owl and
documentary evidence of the village authorities or for that
matter, the map of the village which would have disclosed.
by way of direct evidence. as to the exact location of the
acquired land. It is no doubt true that the purpose of
acquisition is to ooznstruct a Water Treatment Plant to supply
-pure water to Bijapur city -I3… :3. distanw of 4.9 he by
__. ‘._’l 4”
103.64 that by amt! and nothing mme it ea-‘uirt he sain that
lands in Kolliar viilage have the for
development PW-i states that the ‘ ” g- extent of land
in his possession. is under cultivation. and not used for any
other development activity. In these circumstances. the 1st
contention of the learned counsel tor the appellant over the
location of the land in a potentially developed area of Kolhar
villfllifi. must necessarily stand rejected ; 1 ..%\
‘”‘*”’='” ‘”='”‘” the land 1′. Presto-d n-cm-=”._’,’ !”.r*-1……..’='”~’*’=
river nom’ where water is carried tmo” ugh pipes to ring’ ‘ ate I
the lands in question. Record of rights Ex.P17 to P19 relate
to the year 1996-97 onwards and not the relevant year 1991-
92 and onwards. Yet again it is the assertion of PW–1 that
70 tons of sugarcane was grown on the land. the price of
which was Rs.700/- per ton. This assertion remained
uncorroborated, neither the yield certificate nor the price list
was prsduuad. Ar-.. s..varn..i1=..-ati-.rn d the at.-and. F.-.=.r.D1 flmnisnfis
that “i th’ trim’ ‘f mspee”uo” in tn” 1994, “o c-r””ps”‘ were
found on the land except for pipes to draw water from the
river. Therefore, in the absence of relevant material
regarding the crop grown on the land: its yield and income,
the reference court, could not possibly determine the market
value of the acquired land by capitalisation method.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant to accept the sale deed Ex.P3 as a dependable
basis to determine the market value of the land is also
unacceptable. P3 disclose to the contrary. Ex.P3 is a sale
deed executed on 30.11.92 convevilylile a 1esidentia1_si_te
M
….-……..:….. :5 H
consideration of Rs.1-3506]-. and so reckoned, the value of
one acre of land would approximately be Rs.3,08,00D[ – and
having Iegaid to the acquisition of a large extent of land ie.
3 acres 15 guntas, eifecting a deduction of 60% towards
development charges the market value is Rs.1.25.000[- per
acre. Ex.P3 cannot be considered as a contemporaneous
document or a dependable basis since neither in the body of
‘H115 rinh-Irrnnnl’ :11′ H1» rInsu’vr’i’ni’inn nf fhn 11’rn11prI1.r in 1115-
.:…..%1……….. 4.’!……a. .. :– –… a……….
suueuune to Lu document. :1′: auuses uuu th” “ite 111 q
is located adjacent to or for that in the of the
acquired land. The evidence of PW-1 is not in the direction
of establishing that said site subject matter of Ex.P3 sale
deed was anywhere close to the location of the land.
The reference court did not consider Ex.P3 as a
contemporaneous document to determine the market value. =
in t_he evidence on hence
the iruinwnn-n’l’ nnfl aura i-I-n1’n’ur_r|nrI nuzrrrnnnf kn unit] in nIIfi”nr
Jun one an” uncuu uurusuvu vuuuvu uv nun: uv uusnva
.l’_._._.__ _…._.._ 1……’ ___.. .l’_…_.L._-_.’I _’……E…._._._A_ _ ._…_.___,_._..__ _. _.._J._._I.’__._..___
III) Ilabuulluln I-y(J\.Xa§1 8-Ill. 1C.I.C CC:
3 H
U \
.31..
it}. There is ccnsiierahle f(_)–‘(–!t_’£ in the submission of
the learned Govelninent Advocate for the
respondent-LAO that it was the appellant who produced
Ex.P23 Judgment and award dt. 13.4.1999 in LAC 258/97
and sought its acceptance as a dependable basis to
determine the market value of the acquired land. The
Judgement and Award Ex.P23 of the Reference Court
discloses that lands in R.S..No..2a§.5,l1 I.I.r..s
nc*=..’…..*’-“4 fm 5-.c”..,uisi’don uy under pre1″.niinar3′ no’.ifica’c’.o-11 zit.
15.12.1%4 under %tion 4{i§ of the Land Acquisition Ac,
1894, exactly 2 years 4 months 9 days after the issuance of
the prelinzinaxy notification dt. 6.8.1992 acquiring the lands
in question. The Reference Court in Ex.P23. fixed the
market value of the acquired land at Rs.72,000/- per acre
for irrigated land. This land indisputably is said to be
adjacent to the lands in question. In the absence of any
on 1ega_n.i;ng the f__-_In:.s of
difi’-.*..’=en*.iafic:’-. between the two lands, no excepfion can ue
;_,’l_nn
neuron’ to the ” *ns. findings and conclusions arrived at by
the Reference Count by placing reliance on Ex.P23 ahs is
.12.
fiepefijabie basis to cieiennine the market vaiue of the
acquired land at Rs.72.000I- per acre.
Sd/4*
Tudge
Ln.