AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—This is an appeal filed u/s 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Belgaum in LAC No. 60 of 2011, dated 19-3-2012. The appellant herein was the respondent before the District Court. The respondent herein was the appellant before the Principal District Court, Belgaum. The respondent herein was the claimant before the Reference Court, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hukkeri, Belgaum District. The appellant was the respondent in the said reference in LAC No. 51 of 2008. The parties will be referred to as claimant and respondents as per their ranking given in the Reference Court bearing LAC No. 51 of 2008.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal before this Court are as follows:
The claimant is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 41/2 measuring 6 acres at Sankeshwar of Belgaum District. The land in question was acquired vide preliminary notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and final notification u/s 6(1) vide notifications dated 31-5-1984 and 29-8-1985 respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer chose to take possession of the land in question along with similarly placed lands on 20-11-1985. An award was passed by the LAO on 3-12-2005. The LAO choose to fix the market value at Rs. 10,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired lands and other connected lands acquired under the same notifications. Being aggrieved by the said fixation of the market value at Rs. 10,000/- per acre, the claimant choose to make an application u/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference to the Reference Court. Since the application was stated to be within the time, the LAO chose to make a reference to the Reference Court submitting all the relevant particulars and the case was registered as LAC No. 51 of 2008 before the Reference Court, i.e., the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Hukkeri, Belgaum District.
The claimant did not appear before the Reference Court inspite of giving several opportunities. Being left with no other avenue, the Reference Court chose to confirm the award holding that the award so passed by the LAO is proper and the market value fixed is reasonable one. The said order came to be passed on 25-3-2010. The operative portion of the order passed in LAC No. 51 of 2008, dated 25-3-2010 as follows:
The application moved by the claimants u/s 18(1) of L.A. Act is hereby dismissed".
In Paragraph 13 of the judgment passed in LAC No. 51 of 2008, dated 25-3-2010, the learned Judge of the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that, in the absence of any material in regard to the claim made for higher compensation, the award of the LAO must be treated as a reasonable one and has ultimately held that the compensation so granted by the LAO is just and proper. The said order so passed on 25-3-2010 was appealed by the claimant before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belgaum u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the same on various grounds. The appeal was taken up for consideration in LAC Appeal No. 60 of 2011 by notifying the District Government Pleader, who had represented the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum, who was the LAO. There was a delay of 285 days in filing the appeal and the delay came to be condoned as per the observations made at paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment dated 19-3-2012.
During the course of the appeal in LAC No. 60 of 2011, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant therein, i.e., the claimant chose to file certified copies of the judgments passed by the Reference Court in respect of similarly placed abutting lands acquired under the same notifications. Taking into consideration the market value determined at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in respect of similarly placed lands acquired under the same notifications, more especially the abutting lands in question, the learned Appellate Judge has chosen to fix the market value at Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of this 6 acres of lands in Sy. No. 41/2 of Sankeshwar in Hukkeri Taluk.
Several points had been urged on behalf of the LAO before the Appellate Court. One of the important points urged before the Appellate Court was that the Appellate Court cannot take the certified copies of the awards passed in respect of the similarly placed lands as an evidence without there being any opportunity in the Reference Court. It was also contended before the Appellate Court that, in an appeal filed u/s 54 by the landowner, necessary Court fee should have been paid. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that, no Court fee is payable in view of the principles enunciated by a Division Bench of Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Executive Engineer, KHB Division Vs. Babu Krishna Waskar, .
In the present appeal several grounds have been urged challenging the said judgment passed by the Principal District Judge. It is contended that the First Appellate Court was not justified in allowing the appeal and fixing the market value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre without there being a regular full-fledged trial. It is also contended that the procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court is unknown to law. It is vehemently argued that the First Appellate Court should have collected necessary Court fee from the appellant/claimant as it was a regular appeal on a full-fledged judgment passed in the Reference Court u/s 18 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant has vehemently argued that the procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and that no Court fee is payable in view of the decision relied upon in the First Appellate Court.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the records, the points that arise for consideration in the present appeal are as follows:
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- by looking to the certified copies of the awards in respect of acquisition of similarly placed lands under the same notification?
(ii) Whether Court fee should have been collected by the First Appellate Court?
(iii) Whether any interference is call for by this Court, if so, to what extent?
Point No. 1.--As could be seen from the records, the Reference Court chose to register the reference made u/s 18(1) of the Act in LAC No. 51 of 2008. The claimant did not appear before the Reference Court inspite of giving several opportunities. Being left with no other avenue, the learned District Judge, instead of dismissing the reference for default, chose to confirm the award. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been awarded as market value by the SLAO and that is considered as reasonable compensation, by the Reference Court. Therefore, the order passed on 25-3-2010 is a judgment on merits for all practical purposes.
The claimant, aggrieved by the said order, chose to file an appeal u/s 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the jurisdictional District Court at Belgaum.
Therefore, the Court of the Principal District Judge, Belgaum was the Competent Court to entertain an appeal against the judgment passed by the Reference Court. The burden is always upon the claimant to seek enhancement of the compensation. A claimant stands in the status of a plaintiff in the matter of seeking enhancement of compensation and to this effect, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines in the leading decision in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, . The award is only an offer made to the claimant and that award is considered to be a just award, by the Reference Court. What is vehemently argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that, First Appellate Court could not have taken certified copies of the awards passed by the same Reference Court in respect of similar abutting lands under the same notification. It is true that normally the evidence will have to be recorded by the Court of first instance. Anyhow the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are also applicable to an Appellate Court which deals with appeals u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The First Appellate Court has all the powers of the Court of first instance. Section 53 of the Act makes it very clear that the provisions of the CPC will be applicable to all the proceedings before a Reference Court as well as the Appellate Court dealing with such matters.
The certified copies of the awards produced before the Appellate Court are nothing but the awards in respect of the similarly placed lands abutting to Sy. No. 41/2 of Sankeshwar. On considering the various aspects, the Reference Court has enhanced the market value to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre and certified copies of such judicial proceedings will have to be taken into consideration while fixing the market value and the Hon''ble Apex Court has made it very clear in unequivocal term that the certified copies of the awards in respect of similarly placed lands acquired under the same notification would be relevant piece of evidence. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court in considering the certified copies of the awards in respect of similarly placed lands acquired under the same notification. They are certified copies of judicial proceedings of a Competent Civil Court designated as Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In a case of land acquisition, the Government which acquires the property through the LAO, will not be an ordinary litigant. What is expected of the Government and the statutory bodies is that, they have to be more magnanimous in respect of agricultural lands acquired from the persons and the procedural littigritties should not come in the way of Courts advancing substantial justice.
Here is a case in which the claimant was already aged 87 years in the year 2011. Probably she is in the evening days of her life and she wants compensation of her lands back at the earliest, so that she could use the same before she breathes her last. In this view of the matter, the learned First Appellate District Judge has adopted a more human approach to give a finality to the case on hand. In fact the learned Judge has made a specific observations that the Reference Court should have clubbed all the matters in respect of identical lands acquired under the same notifications, so that a common award could have been passed. It is expected of the Reference Court to club all such matters and pass a common judgment, so that precious time of the Court will also be saved and the claim of the parties could also be resolved at the earliest. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
The only claim that merits for consideration is in regard to the payment of Court fee. The learned Counsel for the claimant had relied upon the decision in Babu Krishna Waskar''s case. The learned Counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that this decision is applicable to the facts of the case and this is virtually binding precedent. I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that the said decision has been rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka, insofar as it relates to payment of Court fee by a beneficiary of a land acquired. As per the facts of the said case, the beneficiary was the Housing Board, Belgaum Division.
As could be seen from the facts of the said case and the decision arrived at in Babu Krishna Waskar''s case, the beneficiary will not be seeking any enhancement of compensation and therefore, it is specifically held that the Court fee will have to be paid as was paid in the Reference Court.
But here is a case in which the claimant sought enhancement of compensation in par with those persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said decision in Babu Krishna Waskar''s case is not applicable to the facts of the case and necessary Court fee should have been collected. The said decision is distinguishable on facts. In appeal, the Court fee to be paid is on the difference between Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. Any how, nothing comes in the way of the District Court collecting necessary Court fee from the claimant and the same could be deducted while making payment of compensation to the claimants herein. At this stage, it is submitted that a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- is already deposited in respect of acquisition of the lands of this respondent/claimant, before the Reference Court.
Suffice it to say that the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and has also made it clear that the appellant therein, i.e., the claimant to be entitled for cost of the appeal. Therefore, whatever Court fee that would be deducted from out of the compensation amount already deposited will automatically go to the claimant and the there need not be any apprehension in this regard. Therefore, technically the requisite Court fee will have to be recovered from out of the compensation amount awarded/deposited and subsequently after drawing the decree, the claimant will be entitled to the cost which would be inclusive of the Court fee that would be paid or collected. Hence, Point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative. With these observations, appeal stands allowed in part holding the judgment of the First Appellate Court in regard to fixing the market value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre with additional statutory benefits.
Insofar as Court fee is concerned, the learned Principal District Judge, Belgaum shall direct the Judge of the Reference Court to appropriate amount out of the Court fee payable, after properly calculating the same.
No order as to costs in this appeal.