MFA.N0s.6Q66.2002 & con.
....1....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'I'HlS THE 14TH mar OF' NovEM31:R(,.%2d'dé"Lj'-.T:.,
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE Mr2.Jus'ric.E
AND
THE HONBLE MRS.JUSfif3E B.AV.NAGA}§A;FHN~A
M.F,A.NO.69§é.I_2'€§g % ;
6967102, 6963£{32," '69__§__9.g;0i2j'§;__5971 (02
nmwmn: _ :j__
}iIN_DUS'rAN_ PETg0LEz.:M CORPORATION LTD
BOMBAY, HA1Hf€G"!TS_REGIQNAL OFFICE
AT,$AMBARG!A'RQ"AD;' "
TILAKWADI, ._ V '
;' DIS'P;B1'"fi.LGA'UM;'
~ REP, BY m.=:= .$E.1'E!OR
REGIONAL MANAGER-RETML,
l£)_U'1.Y..;::"()1'IS'PI'I'IJ'I'El) ATTORNEY,
*HfI:s!.1:)z.!:3*.:fz.~.:~I PETROLEUM comm.
- LTIJ},-..BELGAUM REGJONAL OFFICE,
APPELLANT
*{I3y_szVi':" MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADV.)
.au-um»-u-n-mm
__ 1 RAMACHANDRA
S/0 RAOJI HANGIREGEKAR,
AGrE;MAJOR,
R] O NEAR CONGRESS WELL,
WLAKWADI, DIST; BELGAUM
ME-'A.Nos. 6966.2002 & con.
.. 2 ..
2 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA XNDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
DiST;I')I~IARWAD. .
"
(By Sri R A SHIRAGUPPI FOR C'./R1)
THIS MFA FILED ugs. 54(1}""0FAL..§. 'L
THE JUDMENT AND AWARD m':.'=.2c}.[_7;~é2
N0.3/98 on THE FILE ohms; lIA"'1'aV1'C)£}_I3.T'»v.V_(:1¥§.g:'I'i.';'"JUDGE-
(SRDN), BELGAUM, 1éARrLYiLLLLow;_NG.mELL_R:§FERENcE
PETI'I'ION FOR ENHANCED cQ;%ApE'N$ATioN.
In m?;._go.69§_zL2;9o"_;g"VV----_L L L
smwrsgrg _ ' j
H1NL>L;s'rAN'PI-:'rr2r3LEUM CORPORA'I'iON LIMITED
g '' BOMBAY, HAVING ITS REGEONAL OFFICE AT
* SAMBARGE' RQAD,
*rtLaLwAr;):,
».1)'rs'rRI'crr BELGAUM REP BY ITS SENIOR
' ~RE'sGiO"i'!AL MANAGER RETAIL,
' DUE?' CEONSTITUTED ATTORNEY HPCL
3ELcj+:mM REGIONAL OFFICER
.. . APPELLANT
MALLIKARJUN c BASAREDDY, ABV.)
1 MARUTI SATERI CHATUR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/A YELLUR,
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
.. 3 ..
BELGAUM TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
12 THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
Ii§ra.$Pé.:IDEH*i-$§V I , I ?
(BySri:RASHIRAGUPPl,AlI)V.)f * ~ . "
THIS MFA FILED u; s. régx-any ore' 'LIA. AcJrjA.;3A_1;§'.éT =
JUDMENT AND AWARD D'i*;"«.,:2c:,7.0é"PtASsEi9 IN LAC
140.5198 01»: THE 'org? 'IVf!~{II€:'~-._i'I.II"AE)_DL. CIVIL JUDGE
(snow), BELGAUM, EAl§TI,Y"I.Al;LC¥V.fIN;:i?;VTHE REFERENCE
PE'TI5:I'IO_N_' 1s_1§'HAN¢E_9 .C._()NIPENSA'I'I()N.
". . I I'
nn:'rwEm§:I _ "
HINDUSFAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
JBQMBAY, mmne rrs REGIONAL OFFICE AT
. ., _ SAMBARGI ROAD,
I. VTILAKWAIEDI,
"'D'Is,rrrIfr;*r BELGAUM REP BY ITS SENIOR
REG10'NAL MANAGER RETAIL,
V-DU-L»? CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY HPCL
~. I-EELGAUM REGIONAL OFFICE}?
. . .APPELLAN"T|'
(By Sri/Smt: MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY )
'Ann:
1 C-HANGAPPA DHAKALUR CHATUR
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
MFA.N<:as . 6966 . 2002 & con .
"4-
INDUTAI CI-IANGAPPA CHATUR
52 YEARS
czacc: HOUSEHOLD worm
R/O SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
BELGAUM
PRABHA PRABHAKAR RA.JUéC1--.{E*~'
29 YEARS .
occ: HOUSEHOLD m*o'R1;
R/O SHIVABASAYA NAG "E?
BELGAUM
GEETHA @ ARcHANAA13m. BENALKAR
23 YEARS
occ: HOUSEHOLD WORK' % 'V V
R10 SH'¥VABASAVA_VNAGA§?;~. V'
BEL(§AU:fi'"' 2 _ '
pu:m».V;;;%:;; ciiihrécégzéiéfi cfgfifun
"E7 --YEARS:5:.; "
occ': 2:13»: I3€?~. S "' f
R] .0' SHIVABAS1%\(}§.__f€AGAR
LA'i'A ézngwegpfifi CHETUR
L";-'6 YEARS.V_ V
is-oczc; HOUSEHOLD worm
_ Rf.«O"'SHIVABASAVA NAGAR
_ B_E:.(;«..wM
V_uJi§»'if;A1.A CHANGAPPA CHE'I'{}R
24' YEARS
" _ 'ace: HOUSEHOLD WORK
"R; .0 SHIVABASAVA NAGAR
BELGAUM
VILAS CHAN GAP-'PA CHATUR
23 YEARS
OCC: EDUCIRTION
R] .0 SHIVABASAVA NAGAR
BELGAUM
BHARAMANNA DHAKALUR CHAT UR
3éd?§Usn~:Ess
MFA.Nos. 6966.2002 & con.
...5..
R] .0 SHIVABASAVA NAGAR
BELGAUM
3 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, "
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEvELo1%MENT«.A
BOARD ms'rR1c:'r DHARWAIEW
(By Sri: R A snmaeuppr FOi?_V: (3V,4.'V_R1A%Cg)__ V
THIS MFA FILED ms, 54(ij'_¢2§=*i% ACT, AGAINST THE
JUBMENT AND AWARD,_m*._[?'20.7;o2_»._P:gssEn IN LAC
No.5/98 on 'r1~::3 FILE"TPI.E .__Ii AQDVL. CIVIL JUDGE
(swan), BEL:;}ALf§m', PARFLY ALL()\hIi3&'G THE REFERENCE
PE'1'I'I'ION 1*r<§Ri'ENiaA.ncE:3.} §::0§.:15Et:NsAT1oN.
fl uF¢xo.:6969g9§oe{4;%--.:% *
nnrrwmazx: % '-
HINI3USTAN PETR()LEiiJh.§ CORPORATION LTD
. A' BQMIBAY, ijiAVING!.'TI'.SREGIONAL OFFICE AT
' - SAMBARGI "man,
A 13:31'. BELGAUM,
X REP. mt' SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER-
RE'l"AiL, D{§LY}=CONSl'I'I'U'I'EI) ATPORNEY,
- HIRFDU$TA_Nf..--PE'I'ROLEUM CORPORATION 1;m.,
-V BELG{\UM REGIONAL OFFICE.
. . . APPELLANT
V. ' (By~%.si~§{ MALLIKARJUN c: BASAREDEJY, ADV.)
1 PARASHARAM VASUDEV CHATUR
MAJOR, R/O YELLUR,
TALUK 57. DIST. BELGAUM
is}:ALLI1.__ I
No.6/'98 ON THE FILE QF Tris; 'i1_"ADI:$L_,' c1wL.§;i:jm3E
(smm), BELGAUM, PARrL_y<.,5LLo'w;NQ 'i'HE«:.__REFf:RENC£
PE'I'f'I'I£)N FOR ENHANCED COIVIPENSATIQN. '
HI uFA.uo.5971I2é6r=z_
nmwxnn: '
H1'NmU;~sfFAN.PE1jR'aLEUM CORPORATION LTD
- BOMBAY" . "
R2?;G:oNAL OFFIGE: SAMBARGI ROAD
. _ TILAKW.-ADI
'BELGR¥..JM m.~5*r.
" Rfllf' BY ITSSENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER
_ REFAIL mm? CONS'1'i'I'U'l'EE) A'l"l'ORNEY,
-- V"-..H.»P;fI_3.i;..
«BELGAUM REGIONAL OFFICE
APPELLANT
I V. PARASHARAM KRISHNA CHAWR
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
R] 0 YELLUR
TALUK AND DIST: BELGAUM
IA RENUKA PARASHARAM CHATUR
39 YEARS
OCQAGRICULTURE
R/0 YELLUR
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
,7...
TALUK 55 BEST: BELGAUM
2 YALLAPPA OMANNA CHATUR
OCC:AGRICUL'l'URE
R/O YELLUR
TALUK 85 DIST: BELGAUM
3 PARASHARAM OMANNA czfia -I'
R10 YELLUR ' T
TALUK as DIST: BELQAUM
4 SARASWATI @ SHANTA}3A~!._ '
W/0 MALLAPA"CHATUR
R/O YELLUR _ AA
'I'ALUK&sDIST: BE V sum
5 soaz;riiA'r§§:~:'i§piAi}1.;(;*:£$js c§};A'i*:%I<"%"'
R/DYE-Li;UR_ '- A " " '
TAIArK&~%nm=BE!«GAvM
6 "'l'ȤrI ESPE(3VI?S L Acouxsrrrox OFFICER
KARNATAKA 'I_ND.{3S'FR1AL AREA DEVELOPMENT
_B{)AI€D_ %
M W2h'J...I)I.55"PRICF
. .. RESPONDENTS
* (By A; éuxmuupfi FOR C/Rm 2-5)
“-rléis MFA FILED U/S.5-4(1) 0? LA ACT AGAINST THE
V§}i~.§DGMENT AND ‘AWARD DATED 29.7.2002 PASSES IN
LAC No.7/1993 ON THE FILE 0? THE 11 ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE {SR.DN.). BELGAUM. ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
These MFAs eoming on far HEARING can this day,
NAGARATHNA J, delivered the following-
ME?-X.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
.-8–
JUBGHISIT
These appeaka am filed by Hindusmn
Corporation MIL, which is a. beneficiary 4.
acqms’ 1tIorn’ ‘ ’31 question be’mg “,
Judgement and award passed
(Sr.D11.) Belgaum in LAC N§§.3;9a,”4j9a,_
7/93 dated 20.7.2002.
2. The relcvsmt that the fixat
rcapcnden ‘ proceedings
undegfvflie of land mmsunng’
19 acfies :- Shahapur vimge, Bee, for
the _estale¥i$l1’me;1£ S oil depot in eamrcisc of power
§p;o:m..’ _ . 30.9.1993. Themeafier, final ‘ ‘
. S’ the said’ Act was p1zh$hed on 20.4.95 and
opportumty go the owners at’ the land, the
.. Commissioner detcrmwed the compensation amount
pend’ to the owners U/S 29(3) ofthe am act and
x rdmgly’ aawmds were mm on 17.7.95 dctcmm ‘ the
va1ueofthe2andatRs.42,600/–pcracmiz1ma::hoft1mefive
appeals under consideration.
3.
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
9….
Tfimxkfiaflscfithcammdsamdland3acquhudhq2hd~
Shahapuwidflagc,Ekflgaunztahflsamezafiflkxvs: _« ”
MFA NOS.
6966/02
6967/02
5953102» — ..
‘6’§7″1l02
{AC N08.
9493
4/98
ages-
‘Q5/93.
7;_’9s=._
Sy No.
Extent of land
R.S.No.
26/ IA
07 acres
33 Gimme
1-:ha.mb’:”‘
guntam)
R.S.No.
I9A[2
21 Guxfiash
1%.:-i;’}1;{119V
Guntaa
R.§.No19
{A/1
V 2 Acres
1 7
Guntaa
‘iliouhaanci
2 rear . ‘
Rs. Five
lakhs
xiitmteen
M, M
_ V_t;h<:~1:sand.V " '
hundred
as-s=<%"si:'rty " _
« fightazfi.
. v..ar1dii:°t.v’._ –
_ fivfmnd ‘
T%%kT%eizh:;=esa
Re. One
lakh
em
nine
thousand
and
thirty
fiueeand
twopaim
at the’ rate of
‘peracrda é
» Vm<_:VIud..ing_
s§ammr,;V ~ '
é _nim=;
Ra; V ” –. .
‘I’wen–t.y’ «
}3}’,.h:t5~
thirty {our
” thousand.
afidthmw
hundred
and
A». éfywenty
‘-..ni:r.ty six
thousand
eight
hundred and
seventy five
Ra. Three
lakhs seventy
five thousand
»»’4._ he onxns ofihc.hmd twang dfimafimfied uflztc
xlffinfipcnsafion dehxuund by th Specfifl Lad Acqunfion
“Toma: had filed reference application U/S 18{1)ofthc Lem
Acqudsflmmn4AtauuithcIxmmdMAcqymaflkn1<3flxu'nflrn1fle
:nau£rtn'fln:CmniJudgp,Ekmynfim.and a§.fiM:ca&mvnme
chfibbad hmgfihcr ha as nmuflb as flkflt muse five mans,
5.
<2"
MFA.Nos. 69662002 & con.
-19..
whose lands were sought to be aequimei and
enquiry and evidence was conducted by the
5. On bchalfof the land V 9
deposed and Ex.P.1 to Ex.!-3.27
behalf of the man, the @232″ zmfi’ E A
was examined and E3.R.1 in
evidence and based the Remmoe
Court relying on new
by the oepnis % med the vahnm
at imluaivc omammxy
‘ byme said audit and award
heard the leaned counsel for the %%t
A for the respondents.
7, zi’t :is submitted by that oounse} fur the wpcknt that
Rcfirencc Court 1%’ ring the 13%’ p1mc$bs’ ‘ of
‘ the oompensa:t1o’ I: under the p1’ovvzsxm’ ‘ of the
LandAoquisifionActhasfixedthcccnnpenaafionby
aocepfing Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.I5 and Ex.P. 19 md the vaiuafion
rcportprcparcdbyPW.3m1dhasfixedancxorbitant
jy.
MFA.Nos. 6966.2002 & con.
.. 11 ..
compensation at Rs.3,7S,OOO/» per acre without there being
any evidence to that efihct. Moreover, the
has placed heavy reliance on the decision
committee which is cmoneous, in as 9
determined in mspect of the t’
the basis of package at Rs,3,’Z5,0(X.’_(;’per ..
submitted that the lande situated at a not in the corporation Emits, vifiage and hence fimn
Rs.42,0cx)j-1 mm Acquisition omccr
to Iéefexenoe Court is highly
exorbitant. A t ‘V V’
is submitted by the learned counsel fiat
the that the Reference Court was
jilsfificti eoznpensation at the rate of
t’ per acre in the form of a package, which is
“ji;ai¢1utsiee”‘o£ an the statutory benefits U/S 23(1~A) and 23(2)
ttjgmaé Land Acquisifim Act, 1394 am: that ‘meat-,st m per
of the said Act is also granted and the bass’ of
compensation is as per the decision of the advisory
committee uncier the chairmanship of the Deputy
&/
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
.. 12 ..
Commissioner, Belgaum and therefore it does not £01-
any interference in this appeal. It is also submittegi” ‘Que
Iands in question have non agicultural
situates! very ciosc to the city ” »
adjom’ m’ g the local land near
considering the location of for *
establishing the oil depot the and that
the Land Acquisifison in awzmfmg the
meager oompcneation ~ the non
‘ ‘
9. subrnissions of both sides, the
V. ariseevfor our eonsidexation is as to whether
‘ Refe1m;ee’v(;_’ou1t was justified in granting compensation
“theVVie§’Lj9f:’e:ii’e.3,75,000/- per acre in the form of paekge
inefueii?e.e’1″‘ VaB statutozy benefits under the Land ‘ ‘
Act thetefore. the same does not call £91’ any fi1
‘tliese appeals?
10. PW.Ii::1hieevide:neehasgotn3arkedEx.P1tnP5
which are the pefifimns fled in protest against the
assessment of market value of the lands acquired at the rate
%
M’£’A.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
Q13…
of Rs.42,000[- per arm: by the Land
Ex.P6 to P10 an: the Rewards of Righm
hnds, witfich have been aoqm’mod. same
had mqucsuad the appellant j
compensation at the ratpof
appellant herein run: of
Ra.3,75,000[- per produced as
Ex.Pll eo_, P]1 4«. mfiened to the
mum of Deputy
As was mm; by spacm
fichalf of maps -ea per rams.
arms viilagc up warm’ me
vmagc, whih Ex.P17 “n the copy of
._ 3.8.1989, wn:t£r:n’ by the Sm!’ Dcpmr
KIADB no the Rwbaal Mamgu ear the
acqu’u’ed3anduxdattlnc1.ateofRs.3;75,0G0]-pcracm.
CertificdOopyoftkaalcdwdc:wctmd”u:tfimom*oiarne
Smtshobha Yakkundi on 5.11.1992 fl marked @1511
PW.293Ex.PI8inmapectefaplotadjacent.tnttachnda
bclonmgmthcmspondcnm. ‘I’hcaaaooucred Imtler
|
ME’A.Nos. 6966. 2002 & con.
-14..
Ex.P18 is 60′ x 40′. Ex.P19 ‘3 me mpoefl:
value: after inspection ofthc 1&3 atxpzimd
dated 5.7.2000, Ex.P19 is accompanicd
two plans and 5 appendices. ‘
got marked through pw.3. .
mgsmmd deed dated s.1.19§3:_”faws:11 No.10.
.,.;x.?21 is the 5.11.1992
oonsileration »Yakkund1,’ Ex.P’23
is the 1’1: d1a11e§i”:.324:.?S.19′?8. Ex.P24 to P26
are the 28.12.1996,
17.1.1998 ‘2s.’s. 19§§g. Ex.P2’7 ‘s the
Certified copy Decree wed in
eourt aama 23.11.1999.
311.1321 marked through PW.6.
11111. 1′ Ex.l”\” 1 dausd 17.7.1995 whilc Ex.R2 is a.
11131;-;;;1.en1«.gith”mgaxa to same statmmios am: Ex.R3 is the
the lands of Zad Shahpnr mags’ . The said
1 I V _ were cxhibitnc! on bchafl of the appellants harem’ .
12. In Ex.P1l dated 29.12.1999, the Special Deputy
Commissiomar. KIADB inflamed the appcflant hcmin that an
é’
ME’A.No3.6966.2002 & con.
-15..
amount of R3.3,75,000]- per arm: has been to
be paid as the compensation. At Ex.Pl2
dated 13.1.2000 written by the KIADB to
stated that the Advise’ ty Com1n1tt’ 1:3 1 3
ofthc Deputy 3»
17.1.1933 under Section’ it
rcoonunended comp¢ii3;a3:io:it”iit’ of V’R3.°v3,$,(J60/-
two years from 1993-95,
the f2_s;4,so,ooo1- pct acre and aim:
the tow1md’ rawthecasc in
thc ooranpcnsatixm at the rate of
per acre, the 3% was accepted by way offufi
& Copies of the AedvBory’ Connnr&ec’
new on 23.12.1993, 17.1.1993 and 23.3.1993
tt letter to the above efit Wm issued on 22.2.2003
on 24.4.%D0. In fact Ex.Pl5 is a certificate damd
9.9.1998 issued by the Special Deputy Gonmzissiom;
KIADB smting that at the mccmg held on 28.8.1998, the
Adviso1yCommitmeun;lcrtmChainnand1y%ofthcDcputy
/%
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
..35_
nm, Bahama had fixed the T311605: at the
int: of Rs.3,75,000 per acre kn respect of .’?ad
that the same. rate had been appmvod. As
the acquired’ Imxda in the o;nmn’ _
Rs.7000/- per gunta in the: was ,
mount to Rs.2,80,000[~ to P26
which are the , the
WWW W m by W
orpmrage V In cm mg in
W.P.fio.2i3é dmcme, the
fbr compensation at the ram of
Rs.3,7″.’5,’€}(:_”)t}[ -‘ a package in respect of
addition me lmd owmerslwem
V n
“E13. On pernsalofthe pfimfi and evidmoc on record, it
isnot:wtb.atl9acrcsaned20gun$asoflandmJad~
Shahapurvillagc, Bc®u1nwasacq11i1edfm*t1whiof
the appellant by a mclimmaxy notifimtinn dated 1.9.1993
&
MFA.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
…… ……
and &al nofifi-ation dated 20.4.1995 and after @ing the
As on the date of the preliminary
value of agricultural had was amund
H A T. $0
dctexmific the market *’
of the lands sol’! in the a yeatsV
preceding’ the date ai:” a:’13r. _ ‘ Beta’ g not
‘ mm” the said odmpcfi ‘ was made
at the iznsialifee’ ..
14. KIADB second respondent
herein rxssagim: 5:” obpc11on’ ‘ 3, ‘whcn:m’ it ‘n stauxl
uthf: under 111: chairmanship of
Belgaum on %.9.98 had plfd a
at the rate of Rs.3,75,(X30/– per acre
tiusmfipon the KIADB accepted the pmposal and
the saw to the beneficiary i.c., & aqspclwt
and the Speck! Deputy Comnfssimmr, KIABB,
2 accrtificaa-L-approvingtlaemarkct
value at thc rate of Rs.3,75,000/ — per acre.
W
ME’A.Nos . 6966. 2002 & con.
-18..
15. PWJ who is the
NQ6966/02 gave common evidence on
clairnants smting that the Government
question by ta&g into
adjacent to ‘
station which is 13 KM. MW W fizrthcf
near thc vicinity of ‘éiéaiévémdusflies
sidc of the Pctmbum
had am these
acquired to csumish an
oil dgpqt j It is am noticed that one
sri. Minna was enaaaui by the
130 mm the mm vain: and he is
A and m per his mport written at Ex.P.19,
k * pergunm ‘3 Ra.7,000[-. However, the said
tithe PW.3 was not refine! upon by we Refinance:
” But. Ex.P.I1 to Ex.P.14 wm ‘ by me
Rs.3,75,00t}/- per amt: was accepted @ pad to the marl
owners. ‘£hesa’ddoct%tsa1so:r:vnaithatadviso1y
wm§itmwmwmfimmdumm’&cc d
mpuw® , Belgaum UIS 29(3)ofti1c KIADBAct
MFA. Nos . 6966 . 2602 & con .
-19..
negotiation the market value was fired at
payment. Ex.P.15 ‘m the ‘
KIADB at
wherein the rate fixed at by tbs
admoxy emcee’ L report is
not binding on the of the case would
pemuaclc memiened in the
16. AV abs makes it apparent that
sesee ‘ lme sold in the
«ywaa p the date of pIu&L%m1y
‘ be the sac bmk h mriving at a
” , ofthe lands in question. In the hzsmt mac
ee ‘ panama: vahze of the acq1med’ mas
‘ eugnfte have been mm me am: by the Lem AoqIm’ 1thn’
3andshothecityofBelganmandthscfactthatitiasit1me:i
adjacent to Bclgaum-Goa fihway & very close in Beam
railwaystation. Hcnoe,flmRc&n:nceCOI1rtin0m’vi::wwm
MFA.Ns. 6966.2002 & ¢on.
._2(;…
right in taking note of the ma- the
land in question while arxiving at a 4′ A4 _
17. It is azso natad that the 7
appmachfi the
Comm1ssao’ ‘ ncr, KiADB. Ea 33 of
the respondents at flux:
rate of Rs.3,?’5,000[~– a mi as on
the date of: of all smtutnty
benefits But, the ylmt
made by the Spedml
123;! E::;.P.1£V.3′ deed am 5.11.92, wherein a plot
. 40′ sold for a sum of Rs.17,0t’.)O/-» and the
‘ the pumficr of the said plat -‘m her
has deposed in that cam. 1=w.4 and PW.7, who
‘ xcspondcam[m1d owners have am aupponed the
‘V ofPw.1.
19. It is aiso obmved that though mapondent No.2 herein
hasau:x:cptedt2n:pmposalofd thccompcnsation
&
MrA.Nos.6g§_6L2o02 & con.
…21..
at the mt: of Rs.3,75,000/~ per acre in a
package, it is the appexmt/benefi
letters of msposndent 130.2 V
Rs. 3,75,000]- per acre of
certain com ea wen as of
this s which
21. the appemnt hm rcfbd uptm a
pf .._Ho:-{hie Supzm Court in thc me of
A ‘ Vs. Special Land
mathu mpmed in xsmsag sec 751 to
<:<;i2gii£}."tfi$V.atwhcnala:'geplotof-%disrequiat:dmhc
appmprmeéedueaonhwambcnamemswmg
_V 7 §éitielandfozrcm1ringout1uads, bavmgopmsfmxd
' " plcamIw out smalicr plum swntabic for %truct1m of
blxikiingsandhzadsitxxaflinixateriorinlmgeundcvcloped
axeaask:~vervah1ct'i).mfl1atof}@aimawneax'dcvelopcd
area. Hawcveninthismcithsabocnstatnd bytheflonixhe
MFILNOS. 5966'.2GO2 & Con.
-22..
Supxtzmccourtthatthcrccannotbcanyhanimxifmtrulc
thatastohawmuach deductionshoukihcmadeas
is csaantially the question of fiat depending on
cn=cu’ mstazmes of each case. and it does J
up or any paths ofiaw.
22. In AIR 1996 so 221 ” of f_, vs.”
Brij La] Misra e1r:., it vfluc
pg-mm; on the ma: poumsmmy
the land pass; . ‘ of:§ii’V’11eaa1}.za:” %%hgwmm ‘ aésiing as on
the data of fact far
consideration value.
thy?’ Coflecmr and axmthcr
Vs. as others reported in AIR 1997 QC
‘=:;itiox1 £5? l;:iigfe.ar%V ofland mam’ in the out mm’ of
% 2 such lands wen: mscunau-a1 lands not
m{t¢”dfRa60,000[~ peer acn: arm mquimd to make them
oonst1’|1ctu’.m’ . In the am’ cm: the ‘ ‘
notification was pubfihhed in December, 1980. But in the
£7’
MFA.Nos.6966.2092 & con.
…..23…
hnnantcascfibImmawqninflhumflgxfinafiioffhcfifidfiégamn
hpafimmtfimfinrhohctaknnikacouakkuafi{m :;¥
24. Rnfiamce fisgfiaed a a dgqiflafifoft$§iCfifi¢tjn;fihc”
case of saibama Vs. 5}
Acqfimition omoer of in
2000 (3) KLJ 643 for
nearby plot of fiat vahn’z1g-
developed pbt of
Lama, in be made towards
dccifi#§§£3g#&§§agfifi§’fi$ hfi$§c 0 a:nmu%:t\mflu£ an
that _§vfi<V§;!1:§1:cihz1cfions could be up to 53%.
:71 (DB) in the case ofAas<istaz1t
' ;ShuL$afiwa&&fi§mwwuxsaaunh£x,IHwfién.BcaKfl1hmu:hckitha1
"tEfijnfi§§fiflfiHcd:&n'aanafigfiumaofdzwfloped.kuxixnmnby
:xfifl.ét5& ahomm flmzihmm ofyncfiufimamy1nflwficsfion.can.be
k »ifiakgnflfis1tfinummu;puhn:finrvahmmfio,0laqga'umufi:oiland
}fi$hzmqnhfianturdcducfigchnmiammcnmcnstfinnasuch
price which inchuias east cram mquired for whereby
a£otaldeductionnzaygoup€o65%.
ME'A.Nos.6966.2002 & con.
-24-
25. A{R2O%SC2204isadacisioni1athccaacofSi:tteof
Karnatah and another Vs. Sanfipa
Othexs wherein it has been held that when
is accepted with’ out any damn: }3jf’w~1a;rfl (if t’ ‘ T
smtuto1yngh’ tto1’ece:v’ eaolazliuxrnpafa . J, V’
26. In the cast of Vfi. Land
omeer, _ in {LR 2006
Karnataka compcnsafion 53
paid in law, the clahnants
are to be de&rna:me(i’ as per
the gm j – M.
” The Judmenm mlied upon by the learxmd
‘ appe&:nt are ofnot oimusch asm’ 131108 to its
iéaas the compensation of Rs.3,7’5,000/ – per mm
.A t9l;e’v-Qvazdcd tothcclaunaz1′ mbywayorpaclme iajzmt
proper or not. Thcmfom, the t of
..Eoompenaatiomhascdonthcmm~kactvakzcad’theh1daswcE
a::thcsmtumrybencfitsdonotm}ieda:tiseinth’mappeaL
MFA.Nos . 6966 . 2002 & con .
-25..
28. Inthecased’PannaLa}Ghosh&othmxsVs.Lmd
Acquisifion Collcctorfis Others reported ‘m 2004 AIR 66,
ithasbeen hekl thatitis reliable
sale of porfions of the saw: lmd as has_
ati}accn’ t lands mad: shortly 4 AV
nofication for determining . «. V
29. In 2004 AIR of India
Vs. Ba] Ram and that the
aemrminatagn-iggf %;,f% on the basis ad’
oomparablé under difimnt
vanage’ % a 12:: _ V A mnab% Ia.
In Vs. Balbizr %gh and another
1.8.00 477 SC, it has been stated that
. a7.J’~»..g .a.
-se caacvalua:£:ionhadbeenaceep@a
cm be adopted in respect of lands covered
“$31. In the was of seats of Karnataka Vs. Maflapspa
mportcd%m2004(1)I.ACC36ithmbecnheldth.atfor
dctemtnining the market value of acquired land, pmvious
jmiaacntsorawardswhichhadbecnaccepmdbythe
kw
ME’A.Nos . 6966,2002 & con .
lWl26l|t4Q
situated hnds wa be refied upon. In the
Baibir Singh’s case referred to abavc,
the said judgment.
32. In AIR 1933 so
General of West ._ has been
hcki that pnoes’ _ to the aoqjuned’
lands with pea»-gmianty at or about
time ofpzfc-‘2’
‘ the best evidence.
It has also subsequent to
vrenmmv’ ‘ ml mum an be
relied upon ” value of land under
‘ploof was stab}: between dam of
in thé orlceopahgowaa Vs. The Spec1al’ Land
V . oflieer, KIADB 5. Others repmed in 2004(1)
{I38}, 51 beam afthis court enhanced the
notifimtion M against Rs.2,%,000/- per acre
by the mefiemncc court tafing ‘mm oonseidcxahian the
Eocatiovnofthe landciosctotheflationaliriighwayinurban
fl//K”.
MFA.Nos . 6966 . 2002 & con.
..27..
districtanda}aothcresoh1tionpasscdbyKIADBo&1ing
Rs. 10,00,000] ~ per acre inchxshvc of smtutory benefits.-
34. We therefore, confirm the View mkcn
Court for enhancing the compensation — 9»
acre in the form of a j’ ‘4
benefits under thz Land =.a< ::- ping um _
of the said' Act on the V
comnnlttce chamoci' and
approvalof the same r,
KLADB.
X nmigtvw