m 1 w
ZN ram HIGH CQURT 09 KARRAEAKA 3im§§flQ#L§3Ea_”
DAmEn Tnxs THE 2?”‘nézVé§*du§z 2§c§7},fj
pafiséwx
THE HGR’BLE Mg.JU$m1¢a K L gaflauflfimn
THE HOfifELE gfié}sés¢r¢mxB¥vf$AGARAmHnA
,*;iA”u¢,3sa!2éa4cLAc)
xND1Am_counc:L.¢E*,”~”
AGRXCULTQRAL Rxsgkgga
RE§’B¥ Ira DIRECTOR
HAEIGNEL Rzsaaggfl
fi”‘c2mTR£ fog CASHEW
;’,KEMMIRaE,VILLAGE
v P¥TTURaTAL3K
§[K}DISTRlCT
. . . APPELLANT
‘”n(BY”afiI Asaox HARANAHALLI, AflV.,)
‘W gy§
-._.ma~n,u…
3. K KRISHHB. BERKS’
S/0 ISHWARA Bi-IAT NAITHADY
KEEMINJE VILLAGE
_..3..
No.84/90 dated 6.10.2063 pas$ed__I:;y__ ‘
Judge (Sr.I3n) . Puttur, enzmnamg
value. deterrninefi by the LAO”f§1é$..21–‘1’/-1
to Rs.3,200/— per cent._ V A V H H
3. In a similar’ 1; out of
the same notigf.-;;¢é$f;: ig;n.v;:~. we
have J reference
Court sizx.g:Vfi'<'a'–V' ..'WE3vuz*t arid not
consider ‘Seation 51A of the
Land Acqq.is,i_ti$nV.,’A¢t”.
‘.’ VA ‘cgounsel for both the paxtias
‘t” ,j!§}1at_ facts and circumstances cf
case” %,%am the evidence lei: in by tha
fij.$a;ri:f5§_e.*.s_ ‘.5a;3:°e similar to the matter invtalvead in
V” 571 /2004.
6″
..4..
5. Therefore, following’ the rea§bnifi§§M “M
assigned by us in MEA fi§C5?1/3OQ#; _fihé;H
judgmmnt and award of the “xeféEenée *Cuur§x ‘
dated 5.10.2003 in LAC 33%;’.-.:§{2i.,(9o “am’
and the mattar is :egam¢a§&§§’;héaiefeéence
Court to dispase of ghé §eféfi§fi%e in terms of
the directiofi$~%fi_M£$W§§;5fii;§Q54; All other
aonditions;i@§m%€& kg #3 §fi:§he’aferesaid MEA
are also madéffififiiicabié té~tfiis appeal.
Sri UfiaEanthan;s1§arnefi ASA is permitted
.*tp filéimemp af”ap§aarance within é weeks frcm
Sd/-5
Iudgé
Sell-
Judge
“3a1c¥»r