AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') was published on 4.9.2003. By publication of a final declaration under section 6(1) of the Act, lands of the appellants situated at Tigadi village, Bailhongal talulk, Belagavi district were acquired for ''submergence under the MP projects''. The SLAO awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellants/land owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and the reference was made to the Civil Court. After enquiry, the Civil Court determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The beneficiary of the acquisition filed appeals under Section 54(1) of the Act before the District Court, Belgaum. The land owners filed cross objections and sought awarding of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre. The appeals and the cross objections were consolidated and upon hearing, the appeals filed by the KNNL/beneficiary were allowed in part and the cross objections were dismissed. The market value was fixed at Rs. 1,37,950/- per acre, as against Rs. 1.60,000/- per acre determined by the reference Court. Assailing the common judgment and awards passed by the learned Prl. District Judge, Belgaum, these appeals were filed.
Sri. K. Anandkumar, learned Advocate by placing reliance on the judgment dated 23.8.2013 passed in MSA No. 363/2011 and connected appeals submitted that the reference Court having passed the award based on an award passed in respect of the same village of similar land which having offered a comparable base for determination of the compensation, learned District Judge is unjustified in reducing the compensation amount to Rs. 1,37,950/-. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants are entitled to be paid the compensation on par with the compensation awarded in MSA No. 363/2011 and connected cases.
Sri. Ramesh N. Misale, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 and Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the compensation determined by the learned District Judge being just and proper, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. The point for consideration is, whether the lower appellate Court is justified in determining the compensation payable at Rs. 1,37,950/- per acre and whether any interference with the impugned judgment and award is called for?
Indisputedly, the lands of the appellants was acquired by the Government for the benefit of respondent No. 2 and the lands are situated at Tigadi village, Bailhongal taluk, Belgaum district. Preliminary notification was issued on 4.9.2003 and in pursuance thereof the lands of the appellants were acquired. The reference Court having found existence of bore well and DCH cotton having been grown by the land owners, by deducting 40% of the gross income towards cultivation expenses, determined the compensation payable at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge on the other hand has held that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the lands concerned in LAC No. 32/2004 and the present lands are of the same soil fertility and potential value and hence did not apply the award passed in LAC No. 32/2004 and by holding that the lands are not of comparable nature, the said award was not followed and the compensation was determined at R.s. 1,37,950/- per acre.
The lands which were subject matter of consideration in MSA No. 363/2011 were notified on 15.6.2004 for Harinala Irrigation Project and the final declaration was published on 11.3.2005. The reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,41,000/- per acre and the same having been questioned in appeal by the KNNL, the beneficiary of the acquisition, the District Court reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,04,000/- per acre. The land owners filed appeals before this Court. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and the finding that the reference Court had assessed the market value of the land based on the lands situated in Tigadi village which were notified for acquisition on 7.12.2000 at Rs. 1.41,000/- per acre and the award passed in LAC No. 73/2003 having attained finality and the acquired land also being situated in Tigadi village it was held that the claimants/land owners are entitled to the market value at Rs. 1,41,000/- per acre and to all the statutory benefits thereon along with the proportionate costs. Though it was found that the enhancement could be to Rs. 1,69,200/-, the claimants having sought only Rs. 1,41,000/- it was held that the entitlement cannot be less than Rs.1,41,000/- per acre.
It is now settled legal position that the award of the reference Court relating to the same village of the similar land possessed of same quality of land and potential offers comparable price for determination of the compensation. The lands of the appellants and the lands which became the subject matter of consideration in MSA No. 363/2011 decided on 23.8.2013 being of the same village of the similar land possessed of same quality and potential can be the base for determination of the compensation. The lower appellate Court has erred in not taking into consideration the judgment and award dated 23.8.2013 passed in MSA No. 363/2011.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the payment of compensation at Rs. 1,41,000/-per acre based on judgment and award dated 23.8.2013 passed in MSA No. 363/2011.
In the result, the appeals are allowed in part and the common judgment and separate awards passed by the learned District Judge, Belagavi, impugned herein, is modified. The appellants are held entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,41,000/- per acre and all the statutory benefits thereon and proportionate costs. Interest payable shall be at 9% p.a. from the date of award by SLAO and at 15% after the expiry of one year period. Drawl awards accordingly.