1N'mE HIGH COURT 011' KARNATA1iYLENDi§§V 'VKU}NIAR' %
AND V'
THE HONBLE MR;-«'iB'S'I;1I€E..SUBH2§s.S}{B. Am
' %ffi:'-'.:i:i'nA:v:.N0_o 462%s'}%2'e0%1&i{LAc)
BE";'wEE.§I;
The Assistant,
And Laxjgci' Acquisitiafi-~(}fi'1Cer,
Eélarwar. v, 'V . ._ Appcliant
e;§s§.,sz§,_:;.":~;. Kf1lk'&:12.i,___{3m«"£. Adv.)
s1~3gmq Vithal Naik,
,. S.f.nce deceased by LES:
LL ~ Nanda Sfikant Naik,
age: 42 years, Occ: Cmpenter,
15, Kishore Srikant Naik,
agfi: 35 years, Occ: Pvt. Senricva.
1C. Smt.La1ita Srikant Naik,
age: 38 years, Occ: House wife.
Ail are r/:) Sanlquwada, Baad,
Karwar.
2. Ramacias V1313} Naik,
Aged about 45 years,'
3. Kamala Vithal Najk, _
Aged about -A
All are agicuiturists, VA ,
Residing at SaI1_kruwada,. V
Baad, KaxWa;a;'4.n_ '
4. '1'1*ieE;§;:cu€i-;ve Ex,;gine:gf','"" 'V
:Kar:1ata;ks:'t.. __E!o:mil,
Elibli I3hs'isii3:1;' ,
Hub1i..~ . .. Respondents
(83% Ravi”L’}.V_,VS’abf1ahit, Adv. for R2, R3;
31’i..1:L£’2.g-~.?I’a§haI1th”‘£’;VPandit, Adv. for R1 to R8))
. *1*i?;i,s,r»a::«?;s; is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land
A<:guisi§:.i.Q:1- Act, praying to set asicie the juégxnent and
awardfiaied 16.3.2001 mada by the ieamed Additional
C7113! " Judge (Sr. D11), at Kazwar, in LAC
' Ni:;-..29/ 19991, 3316,. etc,
' This appeal coming 01': for hearing on LA, this
flay, Subhagh B. Adi, J., delivemé {km foliowing:
JEEDGMENT
Though this appeal was listed for ordéf
impleading, with the consent c$fWb;<}t;h._ the-:
matter is taken up for f1na1Vdisp<:)Sai;'–._.
2. This appeal byAV_td>fi¢:.._Sta§te,..’que:sf.i<i3r1i11g the
enhancanlent of comfienmtidrz , t1::¢ leamed Civil
Judge: in afld award
dated .":.I"'9V;'.{…)'¢..:'V'.2:.',:.k':?'i(') d t
3.” ta 3 ciajming to be owners
of t1;1e” landd by the State sought for reference
lief to the Civil Court under Sectien 18(1) of
Act. It is alleged that their lands
Wei’: in pursuance of a notification dated
for the purpose of constnzction of houses by
Kaxnataka Housing Board and in pzzrsuance of the
Edie} riotiiicatiezz, an award Cams {:0 be passed on
15.13886 fixing the market value of the iands acquired
at Rs. 1625/ ~ per gunta. Claimanta; being not satisfied
with the determination of COI11p€I1SatiOI”£ by
Acquisition Officer, sought for reference of
the Civil Judge (Sr. D11), Ka1wai’,”‘m3deFl
the Land Acquisition Acfi.
ieagmed Additional Civil thee’
reference as LAC . adduced
evidence in support of
e0mpez1satir:1er% ‘d;-.V_1te;:3 .= V ig%.%§;2Mo03)§kk
modified the award iifiurt inter
aiia fixing the :markct%_ at Rs.7,000/ –
per gunta StafufC1{°§’:–ben:éfits like additional
mar1§et%’va1:§;, “ir3;tei:*est on the same.
5; learned Government
Agisgbbate, for the State submitted that in the
:1é§1Vr1t decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Vs. Union of India, reported in LACC
2501, the claimants are not entitled for
.. “i1*1f§réét, 021 seiatiurn. I-ie 2:130 submitted that the
Civil Judge ( Sr. Dn.) as well as this {hurt have
‘ not considered tha said dscisiorz.
§>1:%:*2%
6. As already stated, 3. Divisicn
Court while dispe:::s;iI1g of a large x1umber§}f» ‘
out of thr; same
N0.622/2001 & conxzectcd
14.7.2003 (correctd by datcidai has
modificd the cf’ ‘thé iéVa rned Civil
J udge. The fer the State
does not_ Cgnsidering the
submissitm VC0ur1se1 appearing for
the State; Wt: is no error committed by
the _ far as granting of statutory
———- under Section 23 of the Land
As the Division Bench of this Court
alrérrfiyil disposed sf large number of MFAS arising
out “of__3;he same notificafion, and the said judgment is
‘rmeiiher modified nor set aside, when the State has
A. iaccepteé the: juégment and award of this Court in
respect of the other similarly placed ciaimants, we do
.r
not find any justification to difier with ..
judgrnent-
7. Accordingly, in t.hr~:””‘1ight ‘pf :::é:’:.sic;1
Bench judgment of this
connected I{l3.fLt€I’S, dated .. by ‘ ordef’
dated 12.9.2003), afl.$f_ing ‘oii1:: t”i1.c;- sa¥ne”*n6fiflcation,
these appeals are Ciaimants are
entitled fozj» .. other statutory
benefitég as -by – this Court: in the abovxa
referred V .
V’ _ ;’}XC,C{}ré1′;;I1glj5x%V,’E§£ate Appeal is partly ailowed. Parties
cost in this appeal.
Sd/-%
Judge
Sd/-1
Tudgé
Sufi’