Somashekaraiah vs The Special Land Acquisition … on 30 May, 2011

Fa.)

This MFA is filed 13/8 5231} :_ei?..LAorAc~ii,V"a;gaii?.st*ithe
judgment and award dated: 'O2;'.Q4/20$?"vpassed. in

LAC'..No.28/2006 on the file -er the Prl. em: Jlidrgfii .«:lsr.lnnj>

and JMFC, Srirangapatnac"apartly ail<)winpgh_= the reference
petition for enhanced cornpensaiion andpseekiing further
enhancement of compensatien'j *  '  

This MFA coi:1i::g it ifilearing, this day,

N .K. Patil J delivered.t.he'»foi1owin'd':i.   '
_ i  31 U  r

byljpthle_cla.iinjant ismdirected against the
judgnient--V..and',;_:awiirdffdfatedl 2:1}-cit April 2007 passed in
 Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)
and   (hereinafter referred to as

"the" Refer-e;_1'ce: Court"), on the ground that the

 ccimpieiislatiion awarded by the said Court is inadequate
' and npeedspp enhancement.

  impugned judgment and award, the

.'R_eference':--__C0urt, awarded a sum of ?2,92,500/-- per

acrecir: respect of wet lands and 31,20,000/~ per acre,

 Afspinkrespect of dry lands, with all statutory benefits, as

Vgenvisaged under the relevant provisions of Section 23 sf

H the Land Acquisition Ag; (hereinafter referred tn as "the

9 WM.

[ox Mwwww

X'
9*



3
Act" for short). Not being satisfied by the same, the

e1airnant/ appellant has presented this appea}~,,v_fs:ee}§ing

enhancement of compensation.

3. Facts

in a nutshe11__ta.re__that,M’1ands’

Survey Nos.97/5, 103/7, 207/ti, Q5;/i2,diiss”/i§t+, §aiiri’jtrnd

96/ 1, measuring O~2412éi.’V:v’grintas’, O~O”E}V

guntas, O’-O8 guntas? O-13—gtii1tas, O-13’gnntEas and O~
O5 guntas respeetixdreiyag’ all Sanaba Village,

Chinakurali Hobli, ;_’Pa.nda¢yrapn;:a ‘Ta}uk, were notified

and flcotnpetent authority for

submergenti-e 5;? wat’er’V of Tonnur Tank, Vide

Pre1irn.inary dated 4*” April 2002, issued

under ‘Seeti’onV’V~.4A(‘1_) the Act, followed by final

dveeiarfation isst1eti'”tinder Section 6(1) of the Act. The

Acquisition Offieerr Nagarnangalat after

vtrith the mandatory provisions of the Act,

Apasseddthe award on 3rd August 2005, determining the

‘i13_8tt5ket vaine at the rate of ?90,640/~ per acre? in

.. Vdrespeet of Wet lands and €37,200,/- per acre, in respect

I
%’ ti,/ewe
Xi, w)»,,.»»~”‘”‘°w

of dry lands. Not being satisfied with the award passed

by the said authority, the claimant/appellantVli7:le<1_ an

application under Section l8( 1) of the

Reference Court, seeking enhaneernentof 'eo'rn1;5ensatio:ri' C

and the same was registered 2{)l(l6–.A.""l?he

said application came upl for considerationj"hefere the.'

Reference Court on_ 2nd "*l-':I.'lhe_d§Reference
Court, after assesslirig evidence
available on4_:l'ile_e 'an Apex Court
decision SC R362, allowed
the "lvalue at ?2,92,500/~ per
acre,l°*i_n" lands and ?l,20,000/~

per acre,"'~.ir1* dry lands, with all statutory

..e_Notalbeing" further satisfied with the market

V"vlai'de" by the Reference Court, the elaimant,/

.a;)!:;l3ellanltle:l:–.has presented this appeal, seeking further

enhalrteernent of Compensation.

4. We have carefully gone through the grounds

__.’:l1I’g€(1l in the memorandum Of appeal and heard learned

Additional Government Advecate appearing for first

respondent and the learned counsel appevarling_V_ for

second respondent/the beneficiary of

question. We have also perueed the”en:tire’=.0rigina;l’.

records placed before us.

5, Learned Additional V Adfiroclai-ei L’

appearing for first learned
counsel appearing /beneficiary, at
the outsetr ‘fairly lsubject matter
involved by the judgment
of the 26th April 2010 in
Civiir.:c’:)j’.’_l2.010 arising out of SLP (C)

No.207é7,llof 2l0_O8 (Special Land Acquisition Ojficer

If1§il’i,gOll1&d’v~««–C¢Fld others), pertaining to the very

V =sa1nr€”‘preIrin3.inary notification and the Very same Village

llassrthat .c5i–.jé;11::e case on hand. In the said judgment, the

ApeX;_ Court has determined the market value at

~ per acre, in respect of wet/ garden lands

___and 31,53,400/~ per acre, in respect sf dry land.

Therefore? they submit that, following the said

judgment, the instant appeal may also be of,

modifying the impugned judgment and axvairdl

the Reference Court, fixing the Mrnarket’ ‘Val-iie,o’f» the

lands at 33,30,000/~ per acre, l’l’¥1p:er
acre, in respect of dry if if if if
6, Further, they silmilargpmtitters filed
by the elaimant/ s already been
disposed of the aforesaid
decision Court.

thellsaidvsubmission of the learned
Counsel for ” 2, learned counsel appearing
for appellant does diisplute the said fact and he also fairly

s1.;«li}mits thatl’is’ine_e____the case on hand also pertains to the Very

» pi*elirn’inary notification as that of the one dealt by the

~.lelo.ri”idlVellll_;%*lpe;§:’llbourt, the impugned judgment and award

Reference Court may be modified accordingly.

Placing the said submission of the learned Counsel

7.fo’r”the parties on record and following the judgment of the

if ” ‘”‘Apex Court dated 26″‘ April 2010 in Civil Appeal

if

,f Mic

/’ M»
/i/ :9)?”

{z

No.3838 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No.2076’7 of
2008 (Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. I{;ir,f. g'(;wda
and others) and for the reasens stated thereifi’

is also disposed of’

The impugned juéjgmefifv .’
dated 2nd April 2007. passyéci Q2 ‘
Court, in L.A.C.N’€x:Z8/2006,. A
modified, detejmining. 3:116 ‘ ” njariiét vxrAa11ie at
the rate of %’2; in respect of
wet/ garden 1and_§’ per acre,
in respé§t_’ . of idry’ $111 statutory
Sections 23(1~

Cfificétdchéuvfifi§sfimafd,accordhg§y.

3&3;

Efiégé

§%i§%:§