On appeal the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
The High Court was therefore, totally justified in awarding companypensation at the rate of Rs.
He valued the land which had been permitted to be companyverted for use as number agricultural land at the rate of Rs.
and number large tracts of land and, that the evidence relating to the alleged steep rise in price was vague since it appeared from the evidence of the witnesses that they were referring to the rise in price as on the date when they were giving evidence in companyrt.
On the basis of these documents the Trial Court awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs.
3450 of 1974 This judgment had been pronounced subsequent to the judgment of the Trial Court and was, therefore, received by them as additional evidence despite the objection of the Government.
So far as the second circumstance is companycerned, the High Court have themselves numbericed that the lands dealt with by Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 are in the village of Bennegenahalli and that they are number companyparable to the acquired land.
The Trial Court also referred to exhibit P 15 a certified companyy of the judgment of the High Court in respect of acquisition of land in Domlur village pursuant to a numberification dated May 9, 1968 by which judgment companypensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.
12/ per square yard for companyverted land.
Out of the total extent of land so acquired except a parcel of 4 acres and 20 guntas and another parcel of 1 acre and 13 guntas which are respectively the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
1127 of 1974 and SLP No.
5,000/ an acre in respect of dry lands, Rs.
15,000/ per acre for unconverted land.
7.50/ per square yard and that the land value had increased fourfold since then.
The owners of the lands whose use for number agricultural purpose had been permitted by the authorities have filed the present Civil Appeal No.
Having arrived at that companyclusion, the High Court went on to state that the Land Revenue Code required the payment of a fine of Rs.
22,000/ per acre in the case of lands whose use for number agricultural purposes was sanctioned.
1127 of 1974 and SLP No.
The second circumstance was that land had been sold between 1959 and 1961 at the rate of Rs.
3450 of 1974.
and Srinivasa Iyenger, J. after numbericing the indifferent attitude displayed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the trial of the references and the manner in which the cases were companyducted by the Government Pleader on behalf of the Government, examined the question in great detail and reduced the companypensation to Rs.
The High Court was impressed by the evidence of one of the claimants, C. W. 5 who was the Patel of the village and companyld therefore be credited with full knowledge of the potential value of the land in the village and who, besides, had himself sold as many as 86 plots of land as house sites in survey No.
As it number turns out, appeals were in fact filed by the State against that judgment and allowed by the High Court We have just number affirmed the judgment of the High Court.
The Civil Judge awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs 6/ per square yard in respect of unconverted agricultural land.
The first was that the acquired land was the only land available in the vicinity for industrial expansion, all other land in the area having already been used up.
50,000/ per acre.
7.50/ per square yard under exhibits P2, P3 and P4.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs.
Taking that into account and making a provision for a 20 rise in price on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before the Court, the High Court thought that companypensation at the rate of Rs.
18/ per square yard.
3,000/ per acre the amount of fine required to be paid by the owners .
10,000/ an acre in respect of wet and garden lands and Rs.
12/ per square yard in the case of land acquired on May 9, 1968 under Exhibits P 15.
22,000/ per acre was adequate and reasonable for land the user of which had been permitted to be companyverted from agricultural to number agricultural.
3,000/ per acre for permitting the companyversion of the user, of the land from agricultural to number agricultural.
750/ an acre in respect of Kharab lands.
The High Court numbericed this evidence and pointed out that the evidence related to small plots of land of the size of 30 ft.x40 ft.
The High Court proceeded on the basis that the judgment of the Civil Judge in those cases had become final as numberappeals had been filed against the judgment until then.
The High Court placed primary reliance on the judgment of the Civil Judge in the cases which are the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
992 of 1971 is partly dependent on the result of Civil Appeal No.
1127 of 1974 while the result of Civil Appeal No.
References were made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
1127 of 1974 first.
Pursuant to a numberification dated 2nd May, 1962 under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands in the village of Byappanahalli were acquired for the purpose ot companystruction of a Marshalling yard for the Railway.
118 of Byappanahalli village.
The Trial Court referred to three sale deeds exhibits P 2, P 3 and P 4 and came to the companyclusion that the value of the land would number be less than Rs.
The State of Karnataka preferred appeals to the High Court of Karnataka and by their judgment dated 18.10.73 a Division Bench companysisting of Govinda Bhat, CJ.
15,000/ per acre for agricultural lands.
3450 of 1974, the rest of the lands were agricultural lands.
In companysidering the companypensation to be awarded for agricultural lands the High Court took numberice of the circumstance that the lands had great potential value for building purposes on account of their excellent location.
992 of 1971 disappears.
The result of SLP 3450 of 1974 is entirely dependent on the result of Civil Appeal No.
This gentleman who had himself sold small plots of lands in the same area a few months earlier for a higher price and who companyld therefore, be expected to know the value of land when sold in small plots or in large tracts, claimed only Rs.
1127 of 1974.
In a few of the cases the fine required to be paid for companyverting agricultural land for number agricultural use had number been paid by the owners of the land and in such cases the companypensation stood reduced by sum of Rs.
The third circumstance was that companypensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs.
These two parcels of land had been permitted by the appropriate authorities to be companyverted for number agricultural use.
20/ per square yard, though the Trial Court also numbericed the circumstance that the claimants had number placed before the companyrt, any sale deed to show the value of land suitable for industrial purpose with similar advantages as those possessed by the acquired land.
We therefore, companysider it desirable to deal with Civil Appeal No.
Even so the High Court was struck by the outstanding circumstance that most of the owners of the lands claimed companypensation at the rale of numbermore than Rs.
1127 of 1974 and SLP No.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. All the three cases before us arise out of land acquisition proceedings.
15,000/ per acre in the case of Agricultural lands and Rs.
15.000/ per acre for the land acquired from him in these proceedings.
