http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANDASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANG

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BELEKAL KRISHNA BHAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)96

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Mr. M.Veerappa, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.N.Bhat, Advocate for the respondent.                          O R D E R The following or Order of the Court was delivered: The Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore V. Belekal Krishna Bhat                          O R D E R      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  17,  1970 acquiring 11  cents of  land in  question for establishing a post office.  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/-  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 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 multiplier, the compensation would work out to Rs.4,50,000/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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-examination that he was aware of the acquisition  and having  had knowledge  he got  the sale used executed  to inflate the market value. He admitted that he was aware of the proposed acquisition and that thereafter the sale  deed 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 P-9 is not a bona fide transaction and was pressed into serve in inflate 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 the witness  would have objected at the time of recording or signing the  evidence of the witness which was not done. The counsel who  appeared before  the civil  Court has  also not contested it  to be a mistake. Therefore, it was not open to the learned Judges of the High Court to read something which would defuse  the  effect  of  the  admission  made  by  the witness. Even  otherwise, it  would be common knowledge that the acquisition  would take  long time. It would be known to the people  in the locality, when documents proximate to the time  of   acquisition  were   set  up   for  inflating  the compensation. The  Court has  to  look  into  the  attending circumstances whether  documents are  brought into existence with the  intention to  inflate the market value or are true and genuine  documents; consideration  is a  device to  know whether the  vendor and  the vendee  are genuine  parties or privy to  pass off sale process. The Civil Judge has rightly gone into all these questions and disbelieved Exhibit P-9 as genuine one.  The Division  Bench was, therefore, not at all justified in  reversing that  finding of  the civil Judge on strange reasoning  and came  to its  own conclusion.  It  is settled law  that civil  Judge had  advantage to observe the demeanour of  the witness  in the  witness box and he formed his own  opinion about the witness which the appellate Court did not have.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and decree of  the High  Court is  set aside  and  that  of  the reference Court,  civil Judge  stands restored,  but, in the circumstances, without costs.