LexTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE versus BELEKAL KRISHNA BHAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE v. BELEKAL KRISHNA BHAT • B AUGUST 7, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) La11d Acquisitio11 Act, 1894: C Ss.11, 18, 23(i) and 54--Acquisition of land-Compensation-Deter- mi11ation of-Land acquisitioll Officer detemzining compe11satioll at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000 per acre--Referel!ce Coun el!hancing the compensation to Rs. 4,50,000 per acre-High Cowt fwther enhancing the compe11satiol! to Rs. 6,00,000 per acre relying on a sale deed for 71/ 12 cents of land regarding which D reference cowt had recorded a finding that the sale was not a bona fide transaction and was intended to inflate the ma1ket value-Held, High Coun was not at all justified in reversing the finding of refere11ce cowt-Judgment a11d decree of High Coun set aside and that of refere11ce coun restored. E F Evidence Act, 1872 : Statement of wiflles:r-Appreciatio11 of-Before the reference coun under Land acquisition Act the witness admitted in respect of a sale deed t/wt he was aware of the proposed acquisition before the sale deed was executed-High Court while inte1preting the statement, a11d adding 'not' there- in held that the witness denied the knowledge of acquisiti01r-Held, it was not open to High Coun to read something which would defuse the effect of the admission made by the wit11ess-fi.eference court had the advantage to ob- serve the demeanour of the witness in the witness box which the appellate coun did not have. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4415-16 of 1986. From the Judgment and order dated 265.1982 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 541 and 542 of 1977. H M. Veerappa for the Appellant. 372 ' • ' LAND ACQN. OFFICER v. B.K. BHAT 373 S.N. Bhat for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published in the State Gazette on September A 17, 1970 acquiring 11 cents of land in question for establishing a post office. B The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 2,50,000 per acre. On reference, the Civil Judge by his award and decree dated May 28, 1977 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,50,000 per acre. On further appeal under Section 54 of the Act, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated May 26, 1982 further enhanced the amount to Rs. 6,00,000 C per acre. Thus this appeal by special leave. It is not in dispute that the respondent relied upon the sale deed (Exhibit P-9) dated August 12, 1970 executed by P.W. 2 under which 71/12 cents were sold at the rate of Rs. 48,000 which worked out to the rate of Rs. 6 lakhs per acre. Another document relied on was Exhibit P-7, lease D deed dated July 10, 1961 with provision renewal for a further period of ten years. The renewal from time to time first of which would be in July 19, 1971 with the enhanced lease amount which would work out on applying suitable multiplier to the rate of Rs. 5,280 per year. With the said multi- plier, the compensation would work out to Rs. 4,50,000 per acre. The question is : whether the High Court was right in placing reliance on Exhibit P-9, sale deed? It was suggested to the witness in the cross-ex- amination that he was aware of the acquisition and having had knowledge he got the sale deed executed to intlate the market value. He admitted that E he was aware of the proposed acquisition and that thereafter the sale deed F came to be executed. The High Court has interpreted this admission as the 'not' was not omitted in recording the evidence and that, therefore, 'not' was to be added. Adding the word 'not', the High Court held that he denied the knowledge of acquisition. The Civil Judge has rightly considered this aspect of the matter and recorded the finding that sale under Exhibit G p- 9 is not a bona fide transaction and was pressed into serve to intlate the market value. The reasoning of the Civil Judge is correct. The High Court read something which was not recorded. The witness had admitted that he was aware of impending acquisition and got the sale deed executed; yet the High Court held that the Civil Judge would not have omitted the word 'not'. If really the witness had denied and yet the Judges wanted to, then H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A the witness would have objected at the time of recording or signing the evidence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.