Karnataka High Court
The Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs Sharadamma W/O P Rajanna on 26 June, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
nsrrsn THIS mm 26th may or f «f
PRESENT _ _
THE HoN*nLE nm..ms'r1cI¢ ii.(3c9A1.A _ %% J
THE HOIPBLE mR.Jusi1f1cE*ARALI A
amxa uo.sow?gi%%ga95_u;L;;_q
clw _l;I;Fa£!§_,gIrot§rN6 #.$_Z_j'§'5;}[2004~._.
W mF'Fh5'05" 0
BETWEEN:
*:.w:: 391.. LAND A{3QUlSi'I'10i\i %
OFFICER "
VISVESWARAEAH <::;«,:zs:'1'*;"é::;K.¢' i
BANGALORE_¥"560?QQ_1 APPELLANT
(1-jy Sri %
AND:
.v " ..... .. e
.k«w;o%,§>..:gAqANNA
21
Vsio K,K3i}.APPA
132"ms me 312» PETHIONER
AV RNARAYANAPPA
,3/~._<) x.2<AMA1mA
R/'AA IIANDARAIIALLI
CHENNAi<AYAPA'l'NA 30131.1
A 'i'Q DEVANAHALLI
DIST BANGALORE
'rm; CHIEF c.0Ns'r1<ucr10N
EN(3lNb)}:)R(RFD) uxuo
BANGALORE
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
OPP: OMS OFFICE
AGARAM ms? ; * * _
BANGALORE .;, 1<J:;;-;;30;:§aLsm*1':svVAV% " ' _ ;
(By Sri PKRISHNAPPA-pAl_)V FOR % '
sq: N.DEvADAs~sr.ADvAm_3 SR1 _ V '
H.C.SUNDARESH FOR 1<4')=.. 4 '
'nus M.F.A 13 ,:;}jzsr:{:;%54(1) Moi» LA AC1'
AGAINST THE JUDGM}31\_IT L my AWA1'\'D D'I'.19/4/2003
passezn m LAC No.49/..1%993 ()9; *;'*r: E<HsLa: OF 'mm pm.
CIVIL JU13_N. )1_ nmuafiam DISTRICI',
BAN GALORE,
I3'ETI'I'ION.
m m.F.acR9j3,%%x&;g33&&[ éj A
P1'§1R'_1'L,Y'~A 1ALLQw1NG *1';-11:: Kl:IFb3i~fl:-INOE
Brorrwnafiz L A
1
3&3/'()..P.RAJAiS)NA
Ts;%o"%sg;:<AyA;PPA
._ "'1')VEAD"_}_Z3Y' ms L.re 3RD PETFFIONER
2,3)
R.NA3A*£ANAPPA
8;'
¢ - ARE R/A HANDARAHALLR
- CIIENNARAYAPATNA IIOBLI
TQ D1-IVANAHALLI
DIST BANGALORE RURAL ..CRC)SS OBJECTORS
(BY SR1 P.KR1Sl~iNAPPA-ADV)
¢._;"""'\..--v"'
1 m1:: SPL. mm) ACQUISi'l'lON
OFFICER
vxsvmswamsma c.::;:m<;:; nn
3% FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCJK,-.' . é
BANGALORE - 560 001 X n
2 'H412: ADDL. Cl-ilhlk' C0NS'i'1.-_{UCl"iONV
ENGINEER (mm)
TIIE DEFENSE 1"2I3sEARcI:*&
DEVELOPMEN'l' @RAN,3 Sf~i€.IjI,vC.SUI§§1*3AI2ESII, FOR R2)
'1'1~«us'c:t§oB.k":s"'}s'1L§3g> U/0.41 R322 OF 090 A(3A1NS'l'
THE JUDGMENT &.'AW.ARD D'I'.19/4/2003 PASSED IN LAC
Vi.'\io.49,,3.%.;}99&€ on nnf;*;--1::; _m.;:; 01» '1'k~iJ THE FOLLOWING:
JUI}GfiNT
;1'§1is appeal of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
'V V '4"{'?:H5V';'3i.LA0" far short) and the corresponding crossmobjection
thareto filed by the respondent claimant herein and also
~
M.F.A.Nos.4949/04 and 5045 to 5050 of 2oo4ge:;d the
corresponding Cross Objections therein whiehlé'
disposed of by us by the common
have arisen from the common
awards dated 19.4.2003 passed
(Sr.l)n.), Bangalore Rural msstt,_mgsore,l¢hemmm
referred to as the "Refe1;_e:nee--l_fi short) totally 37
land acquisition cases 68 of 1997; 43
to 5 1 and 11:0 1 grid 24 and 25 of 200:2.
2. present appeal were the
claimaxitsfii appellant as well as the
cross--objectofs aggrieved by the said common
'V award passed by the said Reference
who was the respondent in all the said
V 37 laxfld cases before the Reference Court, has
' " appeals against the respective awards and the
;---f"";'\u-WV
VA judgnent. géaveztm of the 37 appeals namely
f 'M...F:A.Nos.4949/04 and 5045 to 5050 of 2004 along with the
VA 'eorresponding cross--object.ions are disposed of by passing the
common judgnent as stated above. Now the prewnt appeal
_ ,4
along with the corresponding cross--object:ion are up for
disposal in the fight of our said common judgxnenf; "
3. The cross-objectors have izheiaj
cross-objections enhanced market' of J
Rs.1,U(},000/- per acre in addfgeon to vague":
Ks.3,30,000/-- awarded by thee-Reference gsubsequent
to the filing of his :::§ne'_»'..ei-oss~objectors have
fixed the applica§,tion'-_-uncilef'%O%dee'o' read with Section
151 and amendment to the
prayer claiming enhanced
market; at lakhs per acre in addition to
the market game of/-- awarded by the Reference
'V amendment appiioation is seriously opposed by
by filing his written objection to it.
' appiioeatdon was aiso filed in the cross--objeetions of
~ corresponding to the said seven appeals which
be disposed of by us by passing the said common
'11' j.:1d@1ent.
a-S\"'*'1.»-\__7
4. We have heard the arguments of Sri
learned AGA for the appellant, Sri N.l.)evadas,
Counsel for the second respondent
P.Krishnappa, learned counsel
this appeal and tlw above ~- appeals.
been disposed of by us have ssigiemcommon
judgment, the questioris_._"of _ involved in all the
appeals are juclgxnent, we
hold in this petition filed by
the 17 read with Section
151 Cifiigseeldng amendment to the
prayer market value of the
X _ aCq1I'1l"€.-id" land Vat role of Ks.4 lakhs as against Rs. 1 lakh
ozloition to 1<s.3,3o,ooo/- awarded by the
Rei"e1*er;ee"{§i;§1rlfi.:;'cieserves to be allowed. We further hold that
V the detemfined by the Reference Court in the
and the award at Rs.3,30,000/~ per acre
--'--i3--"l of the land under acquisition being inadequate
' to be further enhanced to Rs'? lalchs per acre with
-
all consequential statutory benofits thereon as aworoed by
the Reference Court in the said common judgxnoni; ”
5. For the reasons aforesaid, We mss V’ ‘
ii)
The amendment ap;;ficafioi1″ “6
Rule 1’1 Rad with 151 41 Rule
3 of CPU in _c1§os;_}~objoo€ions by the objector-
()WI”1CI’S._ a£.lowe?d;. “5’1,’i’i’o cross-objectors
to the prayer
coiu1ior.i’.;_i;1 t¥io~Voi*oss’fobjtictions.
Th¢%kkopn:sc{nxj M.I-‘.A.No.5053/2004 filed by
i:§:”i§éroby dismissed and ll.F.A.C1-ob.
filed by the ciaimants is hereby
in part with costs.
‘A:*.;¢i9oss-objoctors, who are the claimants in
“”V:aI…”A}.C.No.49l1998 shall be entitled to the market
va1uc at the rate of Rs.’?,.(}{),0O()/- per acre, with
all consequential statutory benefits as awarded by
the Reference Court in the said common judgment
and award in LAC Nosbo/97 and other 36> cases,
<—….!""'–"'\.-\_,,..-
less the amount of compensation the
claimants have already received.
iv) The awani shall be modified – 3
deficit court fee shall ‘V
objector claimants .$§*itf;§13\\h«./’ight ,
date of drawing me The
entitied for costs
that are the enhanced
gment.
eeee e sd/..' e e Judge 341/ -_-3 Judge