LAC.NO.232/2003 ON THE FELE OF THE ;;’_fsA’Ié:éIE:I;} i-‘.SfI’afIL
JUDGE (S§€.DN.) AND A883′. sass. .JUsGc,’~A__’mANI’, P2~’J3?I’L’¥
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE VEN’EjIANCEI3″‘–..
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING o§i”AFc.1R*”iHEARiNG,«.’1′:§iIs,i’I:~s§Y, ‘A
K.SREEIT}HAR RAO, J., ns1.,z’vr_:_:_Rsc’ 1:§_H”E §*csI;fL=:fg’$£_I§1$¥V£};;
The Cane Ugsf éaugar factory
is examined as P.W.’2_ gdes to Show that
the cm? in the lands
in quesficfi sugar came to the factory.
The prscliiuced documentary evidence
iikc KA’EB ‘bil§s’ issued by the sugar factory
ts gshow ccinsumption for drawing water to the
f ?;frie«.3.ax1ds in question are on the bank of Krishna
._rii.j:_c:”.”‘v i”h¢ vc”:s*”‘1’mants have shown that they were drawing
vv%x1:crv–._’1:’14onfii the Krishna river by installing pump set. The
Asfilcferéizsce Court has observed that the State has not
“¥.;pi*0″‘duced any contra material to rebut: the claim that the
‘i 2 ” “lands are wet lands,
2. In View of the above material, Uflfi ‘the
Reference Court that the 1andsmVa1*e wet”
sugar cane crop is gown is’»._so§111(}§’ ::;_”‘1″‘he”=. =
Reference Court placing re_lia§.1(:ve 1;1p’6×1 ef
Court in MFA N0.4Q48/209:1:has_V_»aweiI*dee1 cefimpensation
at the rate of Rs; §,85;¢Q.O:;!§¥”7fpef acre. The said
assessment eound cannot be called
‘ excessive.-V H§_3I’i(_)©;; di$I;:i,isse’d.
sa/-=
Iudge