GOWRAMMA v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMKUR - 572 101

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRIHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.106 OF CPC R/W SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.3.2016 PASSED IN RA (LAC) NO.110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC.54(1) OF KARNATAKA LAND ACQUISITION ACT R/W SEC.96 OF CPC.,SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.4.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.160/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri P.H.Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

#2. Facts of the case for disposal of appeal are as under: Claimant in LAC No.160/2006, by name Gowramma, being not satisfied with the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/1 to the extent of 32 guntas of Udde Hosakere Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, for the purpose of construction of Hemavathi Channel.

#3. Learned Judge in the reference Court, after taking note of the Yield Certificate given by the APMC, enhanced the compensation in a sum of ₹ 24,000/- for 32 guntas of land, for 48 Mango trees in a sum of ₹ 3,60,000/- at the rate of ₹ 7,500/- per Mango tree, sum of ₹ 18,000/- for 9 Honge trees at the rate of ₹ 2,000/- per Honge tree, sum of ₹ 8,000 for 2 Jackfruit trees at the rate of ₹ 4,000/- per Jackfruit tree and for 1 Tamarind tree in a sum of ₹ 4,000/-.

#4. Apart from the above, sum of ₹ 2,500/- was also awarded for growing Ragi crop in the land. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation amount awarded by the reference Court, claimant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was numbered as Regular Appeal (LAC) No.110/2011.

#5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court modified the award by granting compensation at the rate of ₹ 1,000/- per gunta (₹ 40,000/- per acre) for the acquired land and for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR 48 Mango trees enhanced the compensation to a sum of ₹ 17,920/- per Mango tree as against ₹ 7,500/- awarded by the reference Court per mango tree and maintained the award in respect of the remaining trees and Ragi crop.

#6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this Second Appeal on the following grounds:

#7. Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that meagre compensation has been awarded by both the Courts in respect of the Mango trees.

#8. He further argued that this Court consistently granted sum of ₹ 1,01,055/- per Mango tree and therefore, the Mango trees are to be awarded the compensation at the rate of ₹ 1,01,055/- per Mango tree and sought for allowing the appeal.

#9. Per contra, Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR learned counsel for the beneficiary-respondent No.2 in unison oppose the appeal grounds.

#10. Sri Bheemaih, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would further contend that in the land measuring 32 guntas, 48 Mango trees itself could not have been grown apart from 9 Honge trees, 2 Jackfruit trees and 1 Tamarind tree besides growing Ragi crop and therefore, the very award passed by the reference Court granting compensation to aforesaid number of trees and Ragi crop, which has been mechanically upheld by enhancing the compensation by the First Appellate Court itself is wrong and is against the opinion given by the Horticulture Department wherein there is a categorical mention by the expert of Horticulture Department stating that in 1 acre of land, only 35 Mango trees can be grown. Therefore, 48 mango trees itself being grown in 32 guntas of land besides growing other trees and Ragi crop is far from imagination and therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed.

#11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR

#12. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no proof of growing 48 Mango trees, 9 Honge trees, 2 Jackfruit trees, 1 Tamarind tree and growing Ragi crop in 32 guntas of land is highly unimaginable. More so, it is against the opinion given by the expert of the Horticulture Department.

#13. Further, no particulars are given by the claimant for establishing that the claimant has grown aforesaid trees and growing Ragi in the acquired land. What has been placed before the Court below is the Yield Certificate granted by the APMC and the same is taken note of by the learned Judge in the reference Court at the time of determination of the compensation.

#14. In other words, in the absence of proper proof of growing of aforesaid number of trees besides growing Ragi crop in the land, very order of the reference Court with regard to number of trees itself needs to be set aside.

#15. But the claimant is the only person who has filed appeal before the Appellate Court and not the beneficiary or the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37907 MSA No. 93 of 2016 HC-KAR Government. In the appeal filed by the claimant, this Court cannot record a finding against the claimant.

#16. Therefore, the order of the reference Court modified by the First Appellate Court needs to be maintained in the absence of any appeal by the Government or the beneficiary.

#17. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the reference Court and the First Appellate court needs no interference, having regard to the scope of this Miscellaneous Second Appeal, hence, the following ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36