JUDGMENT
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. This appeal though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, fined by hoard and disposed of by this order.
2. Thirteen guntas of land comprised in resurvey Nos. 262/1A, 262/1B, 262/1C, 262/2A, and 262/2B as well as 1 gunta of land comprised in R.S. No. 271/2A and 271/2D of Pattanakudi Village, Chikodi Taluk, Belgaum District ware acquired for a public purpose to wit for construction of percolation water tank by issuing 4(1) notification dated 9.6.1998. The land acquisition officer after holding award enquiry and based on sales statistics fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 37,100/- per acre which, on reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the instance of the owners, the Reference Court adopting capitalisation method, placing reliance on Ex. P2, the yield notification, and Ex. P3, the price list, enhanced the market value of the sugarcane growing lands to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and the land in which chillies were grown to Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre by the impugned judgment and award. Hence, this appeal by the Special Land acquisition Officer.
3. The learned Government Advocate submits that the Reference Court while adopting capitalisation method, erred in reckoning 40 tonnes of sugarcane, as the yield, per acre, in respect of 13 guntas of land and 5 quintale of chilli as the yield per acre of land in respect of 1 gunta of land. It is lastly contended that the Reference Court fell in error in not deducting Rs. 300/- pex tonne of sugarcane, towards charges for conversion into jaggery.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the claimant seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award as fully justified and not calling for interference.
5. Having examined the impugned judgment and award, there can be no dispute that 13 guntas of land are classified as class I (one) lands of superior quality and bagayat land over which sugarcane crop is grown. The yield notification Ex. P2 of the year 1970-71 states that in Class V (five) category of the land, the maximum yield of sugarcane per acre is 45 tonnes and minuroum 39 tonnes whereas, in class I (one) catetory lands the maximum is 96 tonnes and minimum is 73 tonnes. It is no doubt true that there is long hiatus between the notification Ex. P2 of the year 1970-71 to 9.6.1998 the date of preliminary notification to acquire the lands in question.
6. The Reference Court, though placed reliance on Ex. P2 however, reckoned the yield of sugarcane from one acre of acquired land as 40 tonnes, in other words, less than the minimum yield of sugarcane from class V (five) lands, during the year 1970-71, as set out in the yield notification Ex. P2. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Aiyappa Yamunappa reported in ILR 1966 Kar. 340 recognised the fact that the income which an agriculturist was securing was rather fantastic when compared to the income that he got 8 to 10 years prior, by adopting orthodox method of agriculture.
7. According to the Division Bench, by passage of time and scientific advancement in agricultural operations, the use of fertilisers, it must be recognised that the yield cannot reduce, but only increase. In the instant case, the reckoning of 40 tonnes of sugar cane per acre from the acquired land classified as Class I (one) lands, being bagayat lands, by the Reference Court was, in fact, on the lower side. In my opinion, that finding of the Reference Court cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal calling for interference.
8. The deduction of Rs. 300/- per tonne of sugarcane as conversion charges to convert the same to jaggery, is without substance. I say as because, there is no scientific method or evaluation to probabalise, one tonne of sugarcane will yield one quintal of jaggery, on conversion, but has come to stay as a practice followed by this Court for more than two decades. The Special Land Acquisition Officer having placed no material whatsoever before the Reference Court over the cost of conversion of sugarcane to jaggery, the contention advanced in this appeal is really to obtain a decision in the absence of material and information which a properly informed decision requires. In short to obtain a decision on imperfect knowledge the extreme propriety of such a course could not be made too plain.
9. The next contention, as regard the yield of five quintal of chilli from 1 acre of acquired land, is not seriously contested. The reference court having regard to the entries found in the record of rights disclosing that the crop grown on the acquired land was tobacco and as there was no yield certificate nor price list for tobacco crop, coupled with the absence of oral evidence over the price, reckoned chilli as a corresponding equivalent yield of crop and accordingly, applied the yield as well as the price of chilli for the year 1990-99 to determine the market value. No exception can be taken to the said finding.
10. In the result, this appeal is unmeritorious and is accordingly, dismissed.
11. At this stager Sri. S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the claimants, submits that it has been the practice of the State not to satisfy the awards within short periods of time and therefore, a direction be issued to the appellant to deposit the condensation amounts as expeditiously as possible having regard to the fact that the acquisition was of the year 1998.
12. There is considerable force in the said submission of Sri. S.N. Hatti. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.