Spl.Land Acquisition Officer vs Karigowda & Ors

9. It will be appropriate to refer to the facts giving rise to the present appeals at the very outset. As the facts in all other connected appeals are more or less similar, thus, it will not be necessary for us to refer to the facts of each case in detail. For the purposes of brevity and in order to avoid repetition, we will be referring to the facts in the civil appeals arising from SLP(C) Nos. 20767/2008 and 21730/2008.

10. The respondents in these appeals are the owners of the lands varying between 2 to 48 guntas ( total acquired land measured 146 acres and 7 guntas relating to nearly 419 claimants) situated in Village Sanaba, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura. These lands got submerged under the backwaters of Tonnur tank in the year 1993 due to construction of Hemavathi Dam. The water from the dam which was canalized to the tank resulted in submerging of the land belonging to different respondents. The physical possession of the land, belonging to the 4 owners was taken on or about 24th October, 1996 and 26th December, 1999 respectively. However, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 4th April, 2002. The crops belonging to the owners were damaged. The SLAO passed an award dated 28th August, 2003, fixing the market value of the wet lands at the rate of Rs.90,640/- per acre and for dry land at the rate of Rs. 37,200/- with statutory benefits. Other awards were made by the SLAO on different dates.

11. Aggrieved by these awards passed by the SLAO, the claimants sought reference to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation. The Reference Court vide its judgment and award dated 16th March, 2007 enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.2,92,500/- per acre for the wet lands (garden land). In other cases Rs.1,46,250/- for dry land (lightly irrigated) and Rs.1,20,000/- for dry land (without mulberry crop) were awarded. This compensation was awarded with other statutory benefits. Still, the claimants felt dissatisfied and preferred appeals before the High Court. These appeals were disposed off by the High Court vide its judgment dated 23rd January, 2008, enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for wet/garden land (in other cases) Rs.2,53,750/- per acre for dry lands. The High Court also awarded 5 interest on enhanced compensation from the date of their submergence in the backwaters of Tonnur Tank. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the SLAO on behalf of the Government filed the present appeals against its judgment.

16.We have already indicated that we would be referring to the facts of the two appeals except where it is necessary to refer to particular facts of another appeal. The Reference Court as well as the High Court noticed 9 that the State should be fair and reasonable in compensating the uprooted agriculturists as well as the fact that no sale instances from Village Sanaba were available prior to 2002, though sale statistics of adjoining villages were produced before the Court. In this backdrop, they awarded the compensation on the basis of capitalization method and discussion in that regard can usefully be reproduced at this stage.

(Reference Court) "13. Keeping the evidence of P.W.1 in mind, I have gone through the documents produced by the claimant who got marked RTC as per Ex. P.2 to P.7, award Thakthe as per Ex.P.8, yield notification and price list of Mulberry crop as per Ex.P.9 and P.10 and estimation as per Ex.P.11.

Further in the award Thakthe itself that, the LAO has admitted regarding the growing of Mulberry crop in the lands acquired by him. The documents i.e., Ex.P.9 & 10 are the letters issued by Assistant Director of Sericulture in favour of Assistant Executive Engineer, No. 24 Sub-

42.Having answered the question of law, now we would proceed to apply this principle to the facts and circumstances of the cases before us. In paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of this judgment we have referred to the findings recorded by the Reference Court and the High Court for enhancing the compensation from Rs. 90,640/- to Rs.2,92,500/- (by the Reference Court) and Rs.5,00,000/- (by the High Court ) for wet (irrigated) land. The same is not in conformity with the settled principles of law.

67.We are unable to hold, that the SLAO had exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly while making the sale statistics of the adjacent villages Sanaba and Pandavapura as the basis for computing the compensation payable for the acquired land. However the extent of compensation which ought to have been awarded, we shall discuss shortly.

75.Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, it will also be just and fair to adopt some liberal approach with some element of guess work to provide the claimants with just and fair market value of the land in question. It must be remembered that, the entire land including village Sanaba and all other villages was acquired for the purpose of 6 submerging the lands because of the water coming from the Hemavathi Dam. In view of the cumulative discussion referred to above, we are of the considered view that it will be just, fair, equitable and in consonance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the market value of the land as on 04.04.2002 can safely be taken as Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre in the case of garden land and, applying the accepted principle of reducing the said compensation in the case of dry lands by one third, the rate will be Rs.1,53,400/- per acre in the case of dry land keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record.

Claim in regard to interest payable on taking of possession

80.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these appeals in part, with the following directions: -

In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for the wet/garden land and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for the dry land.

(iii) Since, the appeals filed by the State have been partially allowed by this Court, we hope that the Government shall grant compensation to all the interested persons whose lands have been acquired under the same notification and pay them compensation in terms of this judgment without any further delay.

(v) The direction of the High Court for payment of interest for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4th April, 2002 is hereby set aside and order to be deleted.

(vi) The appeals are allowed to the above extent.

(vii) Parties to bear their own costs.