Indira Banerjee JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-claimant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. Interest Under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") has also been awarded from the date of the award, i.e. 23.07.2009 and not for the period prior thereto.
2. Notification Under Section 4 was issued on 7.6.2007 for acquiring inter alia the land belonging to the Appellant, and the award was passed on 23.7.2009. It was submitted that under Malprabha Reservoir Project, a dam was constructed in the district of Belgaum across the Malprabha river by the Government of Karnataka. The original height of the dam was 2074.5 feet. This was raised to 2079.5 feet. However, while raising the height, a proper survey was not conducted as to the land which would come under submergence. As a result thereof, in the year 1991 when the full reservoir level breached, water entered into those lands which were not acquired. The issue was raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on 6.9.1991; however, the acquisition process was initiated belatedly in the year 2007.
3. Notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.6.2007. Declaration Under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15.12.2007. The award was passed on 23.7.2009, awarding a sum of Rs. 56,672/- per acre. Reference was sought on 1.9.2009, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. The Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the decision, an appeal was preferred before the District Court. The District Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre by applying the capitalization method. Aggrieved thereby, Misc. Second Appeal was preferred in the High Court. The High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. By the impugned order, the High Court ordered payment of interest from the date of award, i.e. 23.7.2009, and not from the date of notification issued Under Section 4 or w.e.f. 1991. Hence this appeal has been preferred.
4. It was submitted by Shri Gaurav Banerjee, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that, as a matter of fact, the area came under submergence in the year 1991. Thus, the damages ought to have been awarded from the year 1991 till the date of notification Under Section 4, and interest Under Section 34 should have been awarded with effect from the date of notification Under Section 4. It was submitted that rent or damages may be awarded as the amount of interest to be awarded Under Section 34 of the Act.
5. On the other hand, Shri Naveen R. Nath, learned Counsel appearing for the Respond........