ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
1. Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puttur in OP No.5 of 1990, the Land Acquisition Officer-Revenue Divisional Officer has preferred this appeal.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The lands of the respondents herein were acquired by the Government after issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,06,154/- per acre. The claimants-respondents aggrieved by the same sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Civil Court while recording oral evidence of RWs.l to 8 adduced on bchalfof the claimants, marked Exs.Bl to B9; on behalf of the appellant Exs.Al to A6 were marked. After elaborate consideration of the matter at length, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,700/- per cent which conies to Rs.4,70,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits to which they are entitled to. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal. The claimants also filed Cross-objections seeking further enhancement of compensation.
3. Heard the learned Counsel of both sides.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the Court below is bad for non-joinder of parties as affected party i.e., APS&TC was not included as party; that the Court below erred in relying upon Ex.B7 document which was brought into existence after inspection of the lands by the RTC and Revenue authorities and, therefore the order under appeal is bad in law, perverse to the facts on record and probabilities of the case.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Cross-objectors-respondents contended that the Court below had not properly appreciated Exs.Bl to B9 and Ihc oral evidence and that it failed to note that the acquired property situated in a potential area, useful for the purpose of construction of houses and that the Court below ought tc have passed the award fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.lOOO/- per Ankanam, which is just and reasonable.
6. We have gone through the evidence and the order under appeal. We found that the Court below has discussed at length about the document Ex.B7 on which it mainly relied in fixing the compensation. But the Court below committed grave mistake in not taking into consideration the escalation of prices as mentioned in Ex.B7 from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for a period of two years. Therefore, the minimum escalation charges 10% per year for two years is added to the market value of Rs.4,70,000/-and it comes to Rs.5,64,000/-. After 1/3 rd ofthc Market value is deducted towards developemental and other charges, it comes to Rs. 3,76,000/-. We, therefore, feel it just and proper and reasonable to fix compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.3,80,000/-.
7. Accordingly the compensation for the acquired land is fixed at the rate ofRs.3,80,000/- per acre. The claimants arc entitled to receive all other statutory benefits, which the law permits.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the cross-objections are dismissed. Each party is directed to bear its own costs in both the appeals.