Karigowda vs The Special land Acquisition Officer, The Executive Engineer and The Managing Director Irrigation Board

Anil Nagaraj, J.—In this appeal the claimant has challenged the correctness of the Judgment and award dated 10.3.2007 passed in LAC 219/02 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as ''Reference Court'') determining the market value of 37 guntas of land under Acquisition.

The Government has not filed any cross-objection in this appeal nor has it filed its own appeal. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 2,92,500/- per acre with all consequential statutory benefits and awarded the same to the claimants.

We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant and also the learned AGA. The learned Counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the Reference Court committed serious error in taking only 4 crops of mulberry plants in a year though maximum of 6 crops could be grown and the weight of 100 cocoons as 45 kilograms instead of 50 kilograms and also in taking the price of cocoons at Rs. 100/- per kilogram of cocoons though the maximum price was Rs. 150/- and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award requires to be modified.

As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the very fact that the sericulture was being carried on in the land under acquisition has not been proved by the claimant by placing adequate evidence on record and therefore, the Reference Court committed an error in determining the market value holding that sericulture was being carried on in the said land. He further submitted the Reference Court ought to have determined the market value by taking the price of per acre yield of mulberry crop only instead of taking the price of cocoons. In the alternative, the learned AGA submitted that the number of crops of mulberry plants, the weight of 100 cocoons and per kg. rate of cocoons which are taken by the Reference Court are quite reasonable and as such the market value determined on the basis of the same does not call for any interference in this appeal.

P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that he used to grow maximum of 6 crops of mulberry plants in the land under acquisition for the purpose of feeding the silk worms. Further in Ex.P9 (which is referred to as Ex.P8 in the evidence of PW. 1) it is clearly mentioned at Sl. Nos. 81 and 82 that the claimant Karigowda was growing mulberry crop in the land under acquisition to the entire extent of 37 guntas for the purpose of sericulture. This document is not disputed by the respondent-SLAO. Therefore, the contention of the learned AGA that the very fact that the claimant was doing sericulture in the land under acquisition by growing mulberry crop has not been established by adducing adequate evidence cannot be accepted.

As to the number of mulberry crops grown in the said land, the Reference Court has observed at paragraph-14 of the impugned Judgment that as could be seen from Exs.P9 and P10, the claimant was growing maximum of 6 mulberry crop in a year. Despite making this observation, the Reference Court has taken only four crops a year, which is the minimum. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Reference Court ought to have taken at least 5 crops in a year which is average of minimum and maximum of the number of crops. Further, it is not in dispute that the claimant was getting 325 silk cocoons from each of the crops. Further, though the evidence is to the effect that, 100 cocoons weigh 50 kilograms, the Reference Court took 45 kilograms as the weight of 100 cocoons. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Reference Court ought to have taken 50 kilogram as weight of 100 cocoons deserves our acceptance,

Further, though Ex.P.10 price list reveals that the price of 1 kilogram of cocoons was from Rs. 100 to 150/- the Reference Court committed error in taking the minimum price Rs. 100/-. In our view, it ought to have taken the average of minimum and maximum prices i.e. Rs. 125/- per kilogram. If 5 mulberry crops per year and 325 cocoons per crop are taken and if weight of 100 cocoon is taken at Rs. 50 kilograms then per acre yield of cocoons in a year in terms of weight comes to 812.5 kilogram which may be rounded to 800 kilograms. Further, if the price per kilogram of cocoons is taken at Rs. 125/- the annual gross income per acre of land under acquisition comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lakh). If 50% of this income is deducted towards the cost of sericulture, the net annual income from sericulture comes to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. By multiplying this amount with the multiplier ''10'' we get the market value at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per acre, to which, in our opinion, the appellant-claimant is entitled and therefore, we hereby award the same in his favour.

As to the date from which the interest is payable to the claimant on the enhanced market value, the Reference Court, placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Others, has awarded interest on the enhanced market value from the date of preliminary notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act holding that the claimant is not entitled to the interest from the date on which he lost his possession of the lands under acquisition.

It is not in dispute that the appellant-claimant lost his possession of the land under acquisition during the year 1993 only when the lands came to be submerged in the backwaters and the preliminary notification came to be issued subsequent thereto on 4/4/2002. In this regard the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted with the permission of this Court as additional ground of appeal that the Reference Court committed an error in not awarding interest on the enhanced market value from the date on which the land of the claimant came to be submerged in the backwater which date was more than 8 years earlier to the date of issuance of preliminary notification.

He further submitted that the learned Reference court should not have applied the said judgment of the Apex Court to the present case as the facts in that case differ from those in the present case inasmuch as if the possession of the land in question in the said case was taken subsequent to preliminary notification, admittedly the claimant in this case lost his possession of the land on the date on which the land under acquisition came to be sub-merged in the back water end, if there was no provision in the East Punjab Act No. 48 of 1948 for awarding interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land under acquisition, in this case, as provided u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act interest has to be awarded from the date of taking over the possession of the land under acquisition.

The above submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant claimant deserve acceptance. In support of his contention that interest on the market value in this case should be awarded from the date on which the claimant lost his possession over the land, the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Singh and Others Vs. Amrao Singh and Others, . On careful reading of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Others, on which the reliance has been placed by the Reference Court it could be seen that at para 18 of the judgment in the sold case the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in Satinder Singh''s case supra which has been the decision of three Judges'' Bench and which came to be approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj and Ors. reported in 2001(2) SCC 721. It is observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Satindmr Singh''s case supra as under:

Where the lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and the claimants are awarded compensation, the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of the compensation for the period between the taking of the possession of the land by the State and the payment of compensation by it to the claimants. The right to receive the interest takes the place of the right to retain possession and the application of this rule is not intended to be excluded by the Punjab Act 48 of 1948, and the mere fact that Section 5(3) of the Punjab Act makes Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 applicable it cannot reasonably be inferred that the Act intends to exclude the application of this general rule in the matter of the payment, of interest.(1925) AC 520 (532) and (1852) 3 HL C 565 and Surjan Singh Vs. The East Punjab Government, , Relied on; and (S) Seth Thawardas Pherumal Vs. The Union of India (UOI), , Dist.(para 18)

Following the Judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Satinder Singh''s case referred to supra regarding awarding of interest, we are of the considered view that, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the award of interest on the enhanced market value from the date on which the land under acquisition came to be submerged in the backwater and not from the preliminary notification as held by the Reference Court in its impugned Judgment.

In view of our forgoing discussion, we hold that the appeal of the claimant deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed with costs awarding in favour of claimant, the enhanced market value at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits including the interest on the enhanced market value from the date on which the land under acquisition came to be sub-merged in the backwater. The amount of compensation which the claimant has already received shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation payable to him in terms of this judgment. Accordingly, the award shall be modified.

Since the interest is awarded in favour of claimant from the date on which he lost possession of land under acquisition, we hereby direct the claimant to deposit the deficit court fee calculated on the amount of interest as quantified by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from the said date. If the claimant commits default in making the payment of court fee, the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall deduct the same from out of the compensation payable to the claimant and deposit the same with the Court.