IN THE HIGH court or KARNATAKA AT
nwmn THIS Tim 269* DAY or JUNE ~
PRESENT
THE Horrnm am..ms*r1m 'cr;P£si}£§_{% kk
TI-IE HODPBLE mz..ms'r*1cE¢.mI.I
M.F.A
clw MF'A.Creb. Ha.277[2G94 E
W mi-'A §'b';E[04, _
§
'i't~iE SP1... LAND A£;QUiSiT!'.l()i\|
OFFICER V
VLSVESWAKAJAH "
3% FLOOR, I%OE¥_I13Ri'Tn3L(3.C;K;. L %
BANGALORE .% APPELLAM'
(By Sri %
AND:
& is.t3€wiIidappa§% « %%%%% 14 .
A%!¢--B3"'9%9:>a:%
2. %
7._::som r/ak.nanc:m~aham,
1 4 ' " V Cihegnna 1*" ayapatna Hobli,
" e 'i){:v.-agnahalfi Taluk
' file Chief Construction b.'ny'neer (RFD),
' "'DI~Z'{)O, Bangalore, Cambridge Road,
(}pp.<.)MS Office, Agaram Post,
Bangalerc. RESPONDENP3
(By Sri P.KRlSHNAP}'A-ADV FOR R1-2
Sri N.DE'VADAS-»Sr.ADV AND SR1
1*;£.C.SUNDAKESH FOR R3)
THIS M.i«'.A IS 1«m«;1) u/s:e;<;.54(1) _-<fiu%' '
AGAINST TILE' JUDGMENT' AND AWARD"? 19/#2003
PASSED 1:»; LAC No.24/02 ON 'l'Hh'._ i2'.!LJ;3 0%-1+' '1'H:s;»9RL;_.AvVc:%y1L%.
JUDG1'1(SR.DN.} BANGALGRE 'A *m$'i*:§1c1*,
BANGALORE, PARTLY A£A,()WlaN(}?__ T "THE. g{n';«'i::1s:.s;:2~:(;1a:
PETFPION. A % %
m amna anon. Eo.277[z004-'Y
mrrwwnz '
1. 3.(3avindappa,_f' A V
S/°°B3'?aPPa2'
Both
Chen_naray'apa'i:z1aV-_Hob1i;' " -
'1"a.!1;k V ..CROSS o1:w::c1'01<s
'1'HI:s3.S3i~'L. LAM) ACQUlS£'i'1(.)N
3 ~ QFFICER
* _ «_v1::svr:swA1<AmH CEN'l'l<E.
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE --- 560 001
THE Al.)i.)l'l'£0£\IAL (3lr~iiEF' CONS'l'RUC"l'1ON
ma GlNJ:)h3R(Ri+"'D) memo -
BANGALORE
land acquisition eases namely LAC Noshe to 68 of 1997; 43
to 51 and 53 of 1993 1 1 to 31 of 2001 and 24 and 25jof2uu2.
2. The respondents in the present
claimants in LAC No.24/02. ‘1’he;’e1jpe£1ant
Cress-objectors herein are the
judg1ner1t and respective ‘Hiéeferenee
Court. The SpLLAO, wh§~~..was” the said
37 land acquisition Court, has
awards and the
r–.K”‘*.v-\a\
preferred 3’?
said “gvthe 37 appeals namely
M.1+’.A.Noe~¢_49%$9,’Oe:V:e;nd» 5050 of 2094 along with the
corresponding are disposed of by passing the
}}i§igmen€”as—-~etated above. Now the present appeal
crossmobjection are taken up for
of our said common judment.
* :3..’_ The cross~objectors have claimed initially, in their
.’e:’eee¥e’hjections enhanced market value at the rate of
T i,00,0U()/- per acre in addition to the market value of
.u1:<s.3,30,000/– awarded by the Reference Court. Subsequent
(
hold in this appeal also that the amendment petitiofi by
the cross~objector under Order 6 Rule 17
151 and Order 41 Rule. 3 of UPC seeking _
prayer column claiming ex1l1ancf;'-d ::§:tiarl{ot': ,'fhe"~.._
acquired land at the rate of as
per acre in addition to by the
Reference Court desaorv6:i§4_._t::3 we hold that
the market: value Adete1*I;;ino(l.. Court in the
impugned :k's:.3,30,0U0/– per acre
in respect of being inadequate
reqtiires to l<s.7 lakhs per acre with
all conscquonfiial thereon as awarded by
the Refozgfoiaoc tho said common judgment.
V' }:'o1*:ALho"'m-asons aforesaid, We pass the following:
_ T 9…}?-!E_.,R
if" 'jllaoznendment application filed under Order 6
A Rlllfl fl-Emmad with Section 151 and Order 41 Rule
: 3 of UPC in the cross-objcctions by the objoctor–
owners hereirl is allowed. The cross-objectors
3'
shall make necessary amendment to the prayer
column in the /97 and other 36 cases,
‘V eiess V _am:ou::1t of compensation which the
‘._A’m.
have already received.
snan he modified accordingly. The
court fee shall be deposited by the cross-
Vwobjeetor claimants within eight weeks from the
date of drawing up of the modified award. The
eross~abjector/ owners are also entitled for costs
(–..3-‘)”””‘I—v-\b__’
Sgsl
thatane directed to be paid on the enhfi
compensation amount in this judment.
sd/-5
Judge
sdl-%~%%