Hirabai & Ors vs L.A.O. Cum Asst. Commnr

3. The Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"] proposing to acquire lands for the Bhima River Lift Irrigation Project which was published in the Government Gazette on 08.06.1995 by which the Government proposed to acquire lands belonging to the appellants herein. The lands proposed to be acquired consist of both irrigated and dry lands pertaining to Devangaon Village, Bijapur District. Subsequently, the State Government also issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 2 25.01.1996. Subsequent to the aforesaid issuance of notification under Section 4(1) followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 14.12.1996 whereby he fixed the compensation and the market value of the acquired irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre and for the dry lands at Rs. 13,000/- per acre.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, reference applications were filed by the claimant - appellants on the basis of which a reference was made to the reference court. Before the reference court parties adduced evidences both oral and documentary. At the conclusion of the trial, the reference court enhanced the compensation of dry lands from Rs. 13,000/- per acre to Rs. 31,500/- per acre by way of judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 and so far as the irrigated lands are concerned, the reference court by way of its judgments and orders dated 08.04.1999 and 13.12.1999 enhanced the compensation of irrigated lands from Rs. 15,000/- per acre to Rs. 45,900/- per acre.

5. The claimants preferred appeals before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court by the impugned judgments and orders enhanced the market value for the irrigated lands and determined the same at the rate of Rs. 75,600/- per acre and in respect of dry lands the High Court determined the market value at Rs. 38,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders passed by the High Court, the present appeals were filed in this Court, in which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

12.The aforesaid documents, filed on behalf of the appellants to justify their claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, were not accepted by the High Court as the aforesaid lands covered by the said sale deeds were lands which were situated at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from the acquired lands. There 7 is no definite evidence to indicate the nature and quality of the said land, and hence there is nothing on record to show their comparability with the acquired lands. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court rightly kept the said sale deeds out of its consideration for lands situated about 2 to 3 kilometers away, which could not be said to be comparable lands with that of the acquired lands. There was no other direct documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act as a guide in determining the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the High Court fell back upon the capitalisation method of valuation for the acquired lands and in that process it relied upon the extract of the Fully Revised Estimate of Area, Production & Average yield of Commercial Crops in Karnataka for 1995-96 published by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. According to the Division Bench of the High Court the said document was the safe guide to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of capitalisation method.

16.When we consider the aforesaid submission in the light of the records we find that at least in two respects there is agreement between the parties, i.e., to the extent of sale price of jaggery being Rs. 700/- per quintal and that for capitalizing the market value the multiplying factor should be

21.In that view of the matter we do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the decisions of the High Court for fixing the market value of sugarcane growing irrigated lands at Rs. 75,600/- and at Rs. 38,000/- for the dry lands. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.