2015 (1) TMI 1512 - HC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of compensation - Dispute with regard to the character of the lands - claimants have not proved the source of irrigation - HELD THAT - It is for this Court to find out whether the learned Judge has awarded a just compensation or not. The claimants have relied on Ex.P15 namely LAC No.4/2006 pertaining to the notification of the year 1997 in which compensation of Rs.2, 40, 000/- per acre has been awarded. The lands in question in LAC No.4/2006 were situated in Gulbarga taluk and district and it was the black soil and was a fertile irrigation land. Another judgment referred to by the claimants i.e. MFA No.30605/2008 pertains to UKP in which the compensation awarded was Rs.3, 36, 000/- per acre for the notification of the year 2003. When these two notifications which were the subject matter in the above judgments are taken into account there has to be reconsideration. In this regard the compensation is recalculated on the basis of Ex.P15 in LAC No.4/2006 in which the compensation of Rs.2, 40, 000/- per acre was awarded for the notification of the year 1997. For the gap of 9 years between 1997 notification and 2006 notification escalation of 8% is to be considered. If it is calculated it comes to Rs.4, 12, 800/-. If escalation is taken at 10% it comes to Rs.4, 56, 000/-. If the judgment in MFA No.30605/2008 is taken into account the compensation comes to Rs.4, 16, 000/-. In view of this dichotomy it is decided to select it at 8%. Accordingly the same is calculated for the purpose of awarding compensation. Hence it is just and reasonable to award Rs.4, 15, 000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. Accordingly the same is awarded. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court stands modified. The cross objections filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is dismissed. Appeals filed by the Government and the beneficiary are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Reference Court's reliance on certain exhibits for determining market value.
2. Characterization of the acquired lands as irrigated or dry lands.
3. Adequacy and correctness of compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
4. Assessment of evidence regarding the production and sale of jaggery.
5. Determination of appropriate escalation rate for compensation calculation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reference Court's Reliance on Certain Exhibits:

The appeals questioned the Reference Court's reliance on Exs.P-17 and P-18 to determine the market value of the land. The Government argued that these exhibits, being a price list and a yield certificate, were not adequately substantiated by the claimants. The Government contended that the Reference Court erred by not considering Exs.R3 to R32, which suggested the lands were dry and not irrigated. The Court, however, upheld the Reference Court's decision, emphasizing that the statutory authority's report, which recognized the lands as irrigated, took precedence unless contradicted by substantial evidence.

2. Characterization of the Acquired Lands:

The Government and the beneficiary challenged the characterization of the lands as irrigated, arguing that the claimants failed to prove irrigation sources. They highlighted the absence of evidence for water lifting from Bori river and the lack of receipts for jaggery production. The Court noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer's report, which confirmed the lands as irrigated with sugar cane cultivation, was credible and unchallenged by concrete evidence. Thus, the Reference Court's findings on the land's nature were upheld.

3. Adequacy and Correctness of Compensation Awarded:

The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,61,250/- per acre, which was contested by the Government and the beneficiary. The claimants sought further enhancement, arguing that the Reference Court underestimated the yield and deducted excessively from net income. The Court recalculated the compensation, considering previous judgments and escalation rates, concluding that Rs.4,15,000/- per acre was just and reasonable. The Reference Court's judgment was modified accordingly.

4. Assessment of Evidence Regarding the Production and Sale of Jaggery:

The claimants argued that the Reference Court erred in assessing the jaggery production yield. They contended that the deduction should have been from gross income, not net income. The Court observed that the claimants' evidence, including the testimony of PW-1, was not effectively countered by the appellants. The Reference Court's decision to rely on the statutory authority's report, which supported the claimants' assertions, was deemed appropriate.

5. Determination of Appropriate Escalation Rate for Compensation Calculation:

The Court considered the escalation rates applied in previous cases to determine fair compensation. It examined Ex.P15 and other judgments, ultimately deciding on an 8% escalation rate over nine years. This led to a recalculated compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- per acre, aligning with the Court's assessment of just compensation.

Conclusion:

The Court partially allowed the appeals by the Government and the beneficiary, modifying the Reference Court's award. The cross objections filed by the claimants for further enhancement were dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of credible statutory reports and evidence in determining compensation for land acquisition.