The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer vs Shidalingappa Bhimappa Harugeri and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present appeal is preferred calling in question the order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gokak in LAC No. 201/2004 dated 31.10.2006 wherein the compensation has been enhanced at the rate of Rs. 1,70,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired portion of the lands of the petitioners.

I have heard the arguments of the learned HCGP for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri Ramesh N. Misale appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the records.

The learned HCGP strenuously raised two points for consideration. He argued that the Court below has erred in relying upon the statement of PW1 the claimant on behalf of the other claimants in respect of their case. In the absence of production of any documentary evidence, the Court below has committed an error in enhancing the compensation. It is also contended by the learned HCGP that the Court below has committed serious error in holding that the lands acquired were irrigated lands without there being any source of water to the said lands. It is further argued before this Court that the Court below has grossly erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in MFA 1413/2001, wherein the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,80,000/- in respect of the property situated in Bilagi Taluk or UKP then UKP, thereby the market value calculated by the Court below is not proper and the same is erroneous.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the record are that the lands of village Mannikeri in Gokak Taluk was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of construction of canal under notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28.05.1998 and the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award in LAC.J.SR No. 1307 dated 28.04.2001 fixing market value at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have filed reference application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement. The extent of the lands acquired is 1a 4 gs in Sy. No. 167/02 situated at Mannikeri Village in Gokak Taluk.

Before the reference Court, the petitioner herein and respondent No. 2 appeared and filed their objections and contended that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and correct. The reference Court in fact has afforded opportunity to both the parties. The claimant in LAC No. 202/2004 was examined as PW1 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P23. However, the petitioner herein did not adduce any evidence before the Court below, but marked the documents Exs.D.1 to D4. The Court below has considered the documentary and oral evidence on record in detail referred to the revenue records, the RTC extracts in respect of the lands acquired are coupled with the oral and documentary evidence of PW1. It is the contention of the petitioner that the lands were not irrigated lands. The Court below has observed that the RTC extracts produced by the claimants clearly establishes that apart from raising such crops, the owners of the lands were also raising sugarcane crop. That apart, the Court below has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No. 1413/2001. The Court has also observed that in the said case, the lands pertaining to Bilagi Taluk in Bagalkot District and the nature of the lands and yield of sugarcane in that case is different. But the Court below has not solely relied upon the said judgment. It has assessed the lands on the basis of the evidence of PW1, who has categorically stated in his evidence that all land owners are growing sugarcane crop and other crops in the lands and it was fully supported by the RTC produced before the Court below. Though, the claimants/land owners have also grown some other crops, but it goes without saying that for the purpose of growing sugarcane it requires permanent source of water for all the 12 months otherwise one cannot grow sugarcane. The claimants and the owners have grown several mixed crops of lesser value, but the growing of the changed crop alone would not decide the nature of the land. But where the crops which requires water all over the year, such crops were grown or not would decide whether the lands have got regular source of water or not. The Court below has observed that the agriculturists have to change the crops in order to avoid the loss of fertility of the soil. The Court below has also observed that the lands have got some source of water for the purpose of growing sugarcane and other crops. Considering the above said facts and circumstances and also the average of sugarcane grown during the period of notification and supply of the same by the landlord to the sugar factories and considering all the documentary and oral evidence, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the lands are irrigated lands and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not proper and therefore only by taking parity the Court below has relied upon the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 1413/2001 wherein this Court has enhanced compensation to the irrigated land to an extent of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Though the Court below has not relied upon the said judgment in toto, but on the ground of parity the said judgment was taken as guideline for the purpose of fixing compensation. Therefore, the fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,70,000/- per acre even much below the compensation fixed to the irrigated land in the said MFA in my opinion, does not call for interference by this Court. The grounds urged by the Government are not tenable.

Therefore, in my opinion the order passed by the reference Court deserves to be affirmed by dismissing this appeal. In view of the above said observations, MFA filed by the State is hereby dismissed.