< c:,VEERAsHé?TY
-1-
EN THE HIGH CQURT 0? KARNATAKA AT $A§GAL§fifi®;
DRTED THIS $32 30% DAY D? May zééa _
PRESENT . A
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K fl Q§NJUNAT$:'f7
THE HON'BLE Mrs.J駧;G$ Bf# $AQg§A$$NA« "
M.€.A.wo.2578/éééi':fifiC;, .='
BETWEEN
..-..._..--...-._.-...-..
1 GUNDAPPA V
DECEASED BY Bis ;$g., .
A} SUBBANNA"x"
s/o.GUN9APeA'_
AGE 54 YEARS _ . :
__.occ:.gGRIcULT$R5A V
3}_MALLIKARJuN'z_
'S/a,GUN§Ap9A_ "
Aag*§3'YEARs.;W
occ;'AGR:cuLTURE
uf»V§1o,GUNn39PA
-4 gAGE'4Q YEARS
*J acc:HAGR:cuL$uRE
._sANsAppA
_ sic CHANDRA?PA
'MAJOR
. = M" _
_ 3 i
sent under Section 18(1) of the Land Acqaieition_
Act for adjudication of the market; Qalfiel"int°
respect of the lands acquired in tSy.Nor1Q9/Argi
109/B measuring 16 acres 20'§nntas out etsnticnl
12 acres 10 guntas of 'wet rianét and' éllacret 10
guntaa of dry land situated at reigggggdr Village
of Chincholi ."laluk< lander Wtal nereliminary
notificationidated*§Qr5Qré9l'for tee purpose of
Lower Mur1a-fn§:rg,px§j§§£,tlzgé Sgecial Land
Acquisition Qfficer pa§s§d.afi award on 11.5.1993
at the rate" vof a"Rs{iQ;¢C0/- Rs.8,0GG/- and
Rs.400{§ "per uacre" int respect of irrigated, dry
Ziand pot kfiarab lande respectively.
'j3}7 laérng not satisfied with the award of
l_ the §pecialfi Land ficquisition Officer, the
utflaimanta requested the Special Land Acquisition
lefiricer to refer the matter under Section 18(1)
lllofi_ the Land Acquisition Act to determine the
d"muaarket value of the lands acquired by the
6/
r 4 H
respondent. Four matters were clubbed together "--a
and one Veershetty was examined as a witnesaf whefiu’
is the 4″ Claimant in L.A.c.No.13£aJ1997;Wné1§in§if;
upon the evidence of Veershetty}n the? Reference <,'*'
Court determined the market, value V of lftheea
irrigated land at the rate dfndRa{45;C3d]; fier
acre; Rs.30,000/w per iabrei fer Adrf< land "and
Rs.400/~ per acre in reagent at pat nnarab land
respectively. Beingtl net n=§afii§fieaWf with the
Judgment and inane Sf t5e;g¢g;;¢ic; Court dated
2.2.2001, dtfié'~fi:¢é$$t jagpea: lei filed seeking
enhancement of,the marge: Valne.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has
filed an applieatién under Order 41 Rule 27 cf
C?CL;.Vaee$indVnpermiaaion to lead additional
evidence “centending that Veerehetty, whe was
litexamined on benalf of the appellants herein was
~ enable to”gi%e the details of the nature of crops
{:grO%n,infldry land as well as in irrigated land
@””
-5-
and therefore the Reference Court had no proper Vlel
material to determine the Jnarket value. Hef has “i”ic
relied upon the Judgment of this_ Cefirt tin ”
:’v;.}s*.A.Nos.2272 and 2274/2001 dated
wherein in respect of the landsx acquired. uhder_ :
the same netification for the :s§ae_ purpeae, Va
Division Bench of this Ceart–haa determined the
market value of the irrigatefi.lane1ag the gfite of
Rs.l,72,630/-. RelQihg.l&ueen tfithemliaforesaid
Judgment, the ‘rea3aéa€.¢5fiaée§f Ear’ appellants
submits that iih>:reeeeet laf’ the Wirrigated land;
the Claimants are ale? entitlea at the rate of
Rs.1,72,630/- lei-nee ViVtheA’..via;ids of the appellants
were else aegnired fer the same purpose under the
same netificationfi _But in the absence of proper
Taevideneeieletifinjlhy the appellants, it is
idifficult ‘for “fie to appreciate the arguments
uae§5need,hy the learned Couneel for appellants.
“=j.fie iferthezi submits that in respect of the dry
(V
-5-
land, the market value may be reduced suitabl§»byL*A
taking into consideration, theg market, value”; a-u
determined in respect of irrigated iand. But we 3
are unable te accept the argumente cf the learned
Counsel for appellante}p éincetprnep peeitive
evidence is let in bye tnet parties; ffieneidering
the fact that a Diyisien Beach etfiters Court in
respect of the i§::§a£e§”igfia.éf the same village
acquired punaeri;'{fie- te§fiead”netification has
determined gthgi fieffiéti filfié, based on the
evidence available .ing°tte< said case, in the
interests cf 'partiea{_ifm2 """ matter requires to be
reecensidereddtyp the Reference Court granting
liberty _fof7§the;"appellants to let in further
V; evidence;
d*S;da In the absence of proper evidence, it
Addycannct he proper for us to determine the market
d’~,pvaifié. On perusal cf the Judgment and Decree of
dWthe Reference Court, we are also of the opinion
«V
*9-
-7-
that even the Reference {Ieurt has not properly
appreciated the evidence.
we have to allew this appeal and remand the,’
matter to Reference Court for fresh adjuditiatiogz
in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is,”e;1;3.§5=:Jed.””»aric§.V’_ ”
remanded. Parties to lead .en<i€ier;:ee
the trial Court .
1′. The ap§el3.ant’-3 are refund
of Court Fee.
at ,sd/-
Iudge
sal-
Judge
In the circumstances,