LN Tm; HIGH COURT 0:: KARNAT AKA AT BAI\¥C§A}L,(')V1.2E'_: J .
DATED THIS ml}: :31" DAY OF APRIL 2oo3 ~~~---- 3
PRESENT
mm H{')N'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.(}<§Af'AL;%_vGi3Wi3§§§: - ' ,
AND
firm: HON'BLE mmsficéfi' 'A.RALiV'mGa.Rf:u%""'%T J
M.1«'.A.zx;_u. lzsxgzzaéjgcfxv _
M.F.AcfR;;<gg;_gfg;;gyg_9p;;% _
BETWEEN: -- _ i ._
L.._w__A 1\L_._.,,_i.._<'J'i2'33'3 V "
mia SPL LAND AcQU1sI'§"1o:~1 {)FFI(1'j_ElR 4- V V
UPPER KRISHNA PRO.?}3C'i''''''--.__ , _ V.
BILAGI ~
TALUK:Bfi,AGI~--- ":2: _,.APPELLANT
{By Sri .- L.UMA1<.AN';=uAy,g:._.;A;. '
1 V A szL}~>.1.u§zGApyA NIRANI
'~ _SB~::i:E~D:£ADv%.;B.Y HIS
13;»,
*'1~w;m_GUm}Ayp_:;v3*ARA<3A1"1'1
AG13DABOUTi.SG' YEARS,
* OCC':««HOE_JSE-I-FOLD
" WORK AGRICULTURE
' ~ ._ we 1NAM...;4LAN<:u:NAL
' }?ALL?K: BB..AV."F0R C/R)
8:; "rum
ZVIFAJLROB NO 191 OF 280:?
1. CHANNAPPA S/U NINGAPPA NIRANI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR
IA. SMTSUKKAWWA
wzro csuwnmava YARAGA'l"l'l
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
occ: HOUSEHOLD
WORK Arm AGRICULTURE
we mam HANCHINAL M %
TALUK: BILAGI ' = % % .
BAGALKOT DISTRICT CR0s:S'eBJE::*frc;R? é ~
(By SIi.B.M.ANGADI. ADV.)
THE SPL.LANDACQU1SE'I'ION Cjrmgki V V
UPPERKRJSHNAPROJECT % T. ..
BILAGI _ I _ %
'rALUI<.:BH.,AG1 -
(By sri:L.uMA1¢A;u'11~m{A;aw;aRn..1;.ATr.p'JA2px'z/zoos PASSED IN LAC No.525:os
ON ma FILE OFVVTHE mpamsn) BILAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING
TBCE REFERENCE PETI?IQN- _FCR ENHANCEB wM;?ENsA"rIoN.
_ 'l}i1S.£vii<'A;£3ROB MrjA123xs/2mm IS 1*'ILl:iD UIORDER 41 RULE
22;' 016 CFC .%=A<m3~zs"1i. '11~u«; .IUD(iM.bLN'i' AND AWARD DA'1'Ei):20f07!2()()6
passm' 11¢ 1.Ac.M);62ex2ou5 on 'IBB 1:11.15 or' 'u~.u«; CIVIL sumn
('SR.f;1'N-3;'BILAG-LPARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PE'ITl"'ION
FOR 'E2~3T~.¥;_é..NCiEI}vv.._ COMPENSA'FION AND SEEKING FURTHER
' ' _QF'£j{3Nfl'ENSA1TON.
TBIS V ALONG WITH Bufi*'.A.CROB. COZVBNG ON FOR
BEFORE '}f'H_'i"£ "emu" THIS DAY, AR/IL! NAGARAJ, J.
«::.".3'1_.3II4;..q"s,gf.§';;R;£'I)'TffI-IE FGLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
6′ V v _ ” correctness ofthe market value ofthe lands under acquisition
by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)_. Bilagi ( hereinafter referred
to as ‘ Reference Cour: ‘ for short ) in the impngwd judgnent and award
dated 20.7.2006 in LAC Ne.626 f {)5 is challenged by the appeliant viz., the
9v
Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘ for
short) and also the respondent — Cross objector.
2. Having heaxd the arguments .of”tl1e l
Sri.B,M.Angadi, the learned counsel for the ;’Ct’oss
claimant, the only point that arises ivlxether ‘V
the market value of the lands… undez—‘t’tct;.ui§itiota by the
Reference Court at the rate ‘ :l{_.s’. in resmct of
Sy.No.66l5 and i{s.5,(l0,tl€,!€)f- of the same
Sy.No. being the g.a1den_. or enhanced to any
extent as ‘andtlte ieamed counsel for cross
objector, respectively -~ .,
3. It is -not in tltatltotelly 7 acres and 12 games of land in the
5 catne to and of that area sugar cane was
growli1uex:.eht_Ao’f 5 gtmtas and coconut trees were gown in an
“extent of ti-.gl1cre.4 The Reference Court, while determining the
~ ljyvvetiopting capitalisation method, in respect of the 6 acres 5
V’ .4: land wherein sugar cane was grown, has taken per acre
§te’ld.l stage: cane at 45 tons as against 50 tons as could be seen from
.}}j,x;l’..:«3–Yield certificate which was not challenged. Further, the Reference
S Court has taken the price of the sugar cane at Rs.85t}!-‘per ton as against
Rs.95{)!– per ton as mentioned in the l:ix.l’.3-the price list which was also
not challenged. it is the settled principle that when the Yield Certificate
f”—¢”””-\.«—‘–“\..-v
and the price list are produced to substantiate the contentiens’j’«of”,tl1e
claimant as to the Yield and price of the agicultural produce ‘ a
the goes annual income ofthe land under acgnisitior_§t};’e the
price shown in the relevant certificates issueei-by
is to be accepted. Therefore, as riglnlyii’sul;nntte(l V
at R.s.850f- per ton instead of tons and per ton
price at Rs.95tl/L. we tliefé’ opinion that the
market value of 6 acres’:-.5 wherein sugarcane was
being gown re-Jquiresiito by taking the mr acre yield of
sugarcane at 50 tons and tonip:iee..iofit at Rs.950/- and the same comes
to Rs.2,3′?,{l(}§};’¥ per aci-es .. if i
-Sio”fe.r_ asétheftletennination ofmadcet value in respect of 1 acre 12
guatas offiandi coconut trees and lemon plants were gown, the
ilieferstace (ioart taken I33 coconut trees and 7 lemon plants as found in
i onwards copy of which is at Ex.P.2, Sri.Angadi, the learned
iiieoinnsel for Cross-objector submitted that the Reference Court ought to
have taken 380 coconut trees and 25 lemon piants grown in the said land
instead of taking oniy 133 coconut trees and 7 lemon plants based on
r—(“””””””s….—«-u
l:’x.P.l ~– the Award ofSLA{). As against this, while producing
Record of Rights pertaining to the said land for the said _
AGA submitted that the number of coconut trees as ..
as 25 came to be inserted in the original Reeordiioi
entries were made therein and therefore, the 2
as genuine.
5. There is no record by the claimant before the Refereiiee there were 300 coconut trees and the acquired land as
against 133 add. liivtlieiaward passed by the SL0.
Therefore, of the Reference Court that
there were oniy 7 lemon plants, as on the date of
pre,2iminax’y«;ij;otiiieatiori; iii the__land under acquisition do not call for any
inter_ferei1’ee. ‘il1erei5:re;Vwe do not find any valid reasons to interfere with
L» the tiiidixjigih’-of Court so far it relates to determination of
value it} of 1 acre 4 games ofthe garden.
ofour foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the SLAO
and the cross objection of the respondent claimant is allowed
it ‘ ii pail with costs holding that the claimant is entitled to the market value at
S Ks.2,37,(K}()i- per acre of 6 acres and 5 games of agricultural land wherein
sugar cane was gown with all consequential gatutory benefits thereon as
against Rs.1,90,(K}(lf- per acre awarded by the Reference Count. “me
;—–./”””‘”\_—we-v
impugned judgnent and award so far as it rekates to ciete1n1inati.§fiT.oi’
market vaiue of 1 acre 4 gurrtas of garden Iand in the said
undisturbed. The award shall be modified accordingly. ‘
A
”
1251* 3″?