THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,.
A
SRIRANGAPATNAM
v.
NAGEGOWOA··.
AUGUST 23, 1996
[K RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) ··
LandAcquisitionAc4 1894: Sections 4(1), 23(1-A),23(2), 28 and 54.
Land Acquisition-Compensation-l'rindple for detenninatiolt-Com- . C
pensation. awarded by Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 4800 per acre-On ·
reference Civil Judge enhancing compensation to Rs. 20,000 per
acre-Reliance placed by Reference Cowt on award in another case-Other .
case related to land with Coconut trees-Even the amount awarded in other
case was subject matter of appeaHle/d in the circumstance award relied on
was irrelevant for, detennination of compensation-Landowner held entitled D
to compensation @ Rs. 10,000 per acre-Also held entitled to solatium,
interest and additional amount
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11369 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 'i8.894 of the Karnataka High
Court in M.F.A. No. 1311 of 1994.
·
KR. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Shanta Kr. and KK Gupta for the Respondent.
The follo"1ng Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
· Notification under Section 4(1) of the .Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was published on December 26, 1985 acquiring land admeasuring 5 acres
. 21 gunthas for the purpose of formation of Hemavathi left bank canal. ;rhe
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on February 23, 1988 @
E
F
G
Rs. 4,800 per acre: On ref~rence, the civil Judge relying upon Ex. P-3 H
191
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
awarded compensation @ Rs. 20,000 per acre. He categorically rejected
the contention of the claimant that he was growing sugarcane, hybrid jowar
and mulberry getting a full yield of Rs. 25,000 per acre. On appeal, the
High Court by impugned judgment· dated August 18, 1994 in FA No.
1311/94 confirmed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.
B
Having considered the facts and circumstances in this case, we think
. that reasonable compensation would be Rs. 10,000 per acre. The judgment
referring to Ex. A-3 has been placed before us and it indicates that it
related to land with coconut trees. Even the amount awarded by the civil
·judge in that case is now subject matter in the appeal before the District
C Judge filed under Section 54 of the Act. Under these circumstances, Ex.
A-3 is absolutely irrelevant for determination of the compensation. Accord-
ingly, the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10,000
per acre with solatium at 30% under Section 23(2), interest under Section
28 at 9% for one year from the taking of possession and at 15% thereafter
on enhanced compensation till date of deposit into court and additional
D amount under Section 23(1-A) at 13% per annum from the date of issue
of Section 4(1) notification till date of the award.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Lex