IN13H3HKH{COURT(H?KARNATAKA
CHRCUTFBENCHIVFDHARVME)
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY or SEPTEMBEI2j,:I-2oL'3;§g '
BEFORE
THE I~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.SI§ B'()I5!LE§fNIA .
M.F.A.No.1o816,*.é;oo7 (mo:
BETWEEN: M
1. SR1. UMANNA BHIMA ITALAI§iARf:'¢' Q
SINCE) DECEASED BY..HIS 1 = "
1A. SR1. ALLA_P:._{.:§'A' 'u1;ALI}\§.X[3AR;"""'
AGE: MAJOR, A.§}R'I-Q UL'FUR'E,
R /0. ZUN..JA~PJ'§WAD;--.TAL-: AATHVANI,
DIST} I3"EL<};a\HUI§;/3.
= 'I APPELLANTS
(SR1. B.M ANGIIDIV, R£§irNAMALA G.H 815
SR1. MANTESH "S_»HO.SMATH, ADVS.}
L JAMAKII.AN.CDTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER 'K'RISHCN.A' PROJECT, JAMAKHANDI,
".RESPONDENT
MVECHA C KOLEKAR, HCGP)
{
E
§
204?-
Ix)
TIIIS MFA ES FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.11.2006 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.I14/2003 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), ATIIANI, PARTLY ALOWING TI-IE REFERENCE
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OE COMPENSATION__.;”””I-Xfj r.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADM£S$:I’Q§\I”–:THAIS_:E’
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE V .
JUDGMENT E E
The appellant is see.I§i’Ia_g of
Compensation as againvsfi theT.I-“‘st.IT:-IEu”-»awaT(Ie(i~-A LAC
NO.114/ 2003. The RefereIiCe”<;fi'GI.I:IEt:' the market
value at Rs. 1,9O,O_O€3:/9.. per:;aCI¥e_.'£: 'T1:1:e'~?1'arIdV' laser is before this
Court see1<I'_:tvir1g_' amount.
2. E~Iea’I:c_1p4′ the for the parties and
perused’ Ive E E.
. not in dispute in this appeal are
that’ ‘the iT§_v-Question situated in Zunjurwad Village
Atthttvtfathani “T.a1u.__i{ acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna
II1″”I:€Sp€Ct Of the said acquisition, the land losers
IfIIe_TeV_e1isSatIsfied with the market value assessed by the Land
/.
5
§
3?’
{$359
fa
Lu
Acquisition Officer. Therefore, they had filed application
under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seek.ir1é”for
reference for the purpose of considering the enhan;ce-rtj1en_ti.jo:fi’
the market value. The Reference Court after cons_i*d,er~i.n’g’_t11e”‘
rival. contentions has enhanced fthe…_fi1jar1§e’tA*vai–ue_f”to_’
Rs.1,90,000/~ per acre. Thegland losers areftiefore
Court contending that the said of iit’h.eii’ni’arl-‘diet value
by the Reference Court i.s a}iipropv”riatevfi’and thesarne i.s to
be enhanced further.
4. At it ‘erne_i*ges that this Court
while coivisideirinig th:e:isi:r1i.l.ar situation in respect of the
lands situated’ in is’arne._:iare~a being subject matter of the
notification of year 2{)Oi3i has enhanced the market value
ito–.};2fs.”2.i:l8–,”OOO~ per acre. The said enhancement was made
judgment passed by this Court in MFA
No.1l2..1__f35/2~QO:6Aland connected matters. Therefore, since
.l'”~.th»ere i.s iinoiother material to indicate that the lands in the
pi’ese1_’1_t.–‘case are not similar to the lands therein and more
if particularly, taking note of the fact that the Reference Court
E
ii,
git;
$15
has come to the conclusion that the lands in question are
irrigated sugar cane growing lands, the same market vaiét:1e»eis
to be fixed in the instant case also.
5. Accordingly, the judgment da_ted._Q2.
by the Reference Court stands modi«fied_’_’hdo1din;g”
appellants are entitled to the va1ti{‘eVa’t» /~
per acre. They are aiso entitled tQ_..ttte..st’a._tL1t0ty’benefits and
the costs irmurred in this aup–pea1.”– :\
tttt Se/Q
tenet