- (1.)THESE Appeals arise out of an order made by the III Additional civil Judge, Bijapur, in a reference under Section 18 of Land acquisition , enhancing compensation payable to the land-owners from Rs. 7,500/-per acre to Rs. 7/- per sq. foot. The controversy arise in the following circumstances:-
(2.)LAND measuring 6 acres and 36 guntas situate in Sy. no. 269/ 1a of Talikote in Muddebihal taluk of Bijapur District was notified for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act, in terms of a notification dated 15th of December, 1983. Yet, another Notification meant to correct certain errors in the description of the land was issued a few months later on 9th of August, 1984. The acquisition was for the benefit of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee talikote. An award was in due course made by the Land Acquisition officer concerned on 11th of October, 1985, determining a sum of rs. 7,500/- per acre towards compensation payable to the owners. Not satisfied with the said Award, the owners sought a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act, to the Civil Court, who has in terms of the impugned judgment and order enhanced the compensation to rs. 7/-per sq. foot. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the beneficiary of the acquisition namely the A. P. M. C. Talikote and the assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer have filed m. F. A. Nos. 1207/1996 and 847/1996 respectively. The Claimants have also at the same time assailed the Order made by the Reference court, to the extent the same granted enhancement only upto Rs. 7 per sq. foot. In M. F. A. No. 1216/1996, they have claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 9. 35 Ps per sq. foot, as against Rs. 7/-awarded by the Reference Court.
(3.)APPEARING for the Appellant Owners, mr. B. S. Patil, strenuously argued that the Reference Court was not justified in limiting the enhancement to Rs. 7/-per sq. foot only. He submitted that the material produced by the owners in support of their claim for higher compensation sufficiently established that the market value of the land in question as on the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was not less than rs. 9. 35 per sq. foot. He urged that the owners had apart from the material produced evidence to show that the A. P. M. C. had itself sold in favour of Talikote Merchants' Ahrat Association, a piece of land measuring 24' x 54' for a consideration of Rs. 29,920/ -. This sale was effected on 18th of October, 1984 which was proximate in point of time to the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. He contended that the said transaction was not only genuine but clearly indicative of the prevailing market price of the lands in the vicinity of the A. P. M. C. yard at Talikote and could therefore have been taken as a safe basis for determining the compensation payable to the owners. He urged that while the reference Court had rightly proceeded to determine the compensation awardable to the owners, on the basis of the said transaction it fell in error in deducting 65% of the value of the land on account of development charges. Deductions to the extent of 65% were not according to the learned counsel, warranted having regard to the fact that the entire area in the neighbourhood of the land under acquisition had been fully developed and the land had become on that account ripe for being used for non-agricultural purposes. He urged that the deduction of 12% over and above 53% authorised by some of the decisions of the Supreme Court an account of the waiting period, was wholly untenable and hence liable to set aside. He argued that having regard to the nature of the evidence produced by the appellant which remained unrebutted, the least which the owners were entitled to was to a sum of Rs. 9. 35 per sq. foot and that order passed by the reference Court could to that extent be modified suitably. He further argued that neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the A. P. M. C. could find fault with the enhancement allowed by the reference Court having regard to the fact that the said Court had while disposing of l. A. C. No. 85/1991 by its order dated 16th of April, 1997 granted enhanced compensation by placing reliance upon the judgment impugned in this Appeal. He argued that M. F. A. No. 2843/1997 preferred against the said enhancement by the A. P. M. C. was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 6th of June, 2001. This according to Mr. Patil, implied that the beneficiary of the acquisition had accepted the basis of the enhancement awarded by the reference Court to be sound. Since the said basis was provided by the judgment impugned in the present Appeal, it was not open to either the Assistant Commissioner or the A. P. M. C. to question the correctness thereof in the Cross Appeals filed by them. The withdrawal of the Appeals against the judgment in L. A. C. No. 85/1991 contended Mr. Patil, was sufficient to estop the acquiring authority as also beneficiary from challenging the enhancement awarded in favour of the owners.