High Court Karnataka High Court

The Special Land Acquisition … vs Saibanna on 28 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition … vs Saibanna on 28 July, 2008
Author: V.Gopalagowda & Nagaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKR If 5 ‘ =

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GU%LB~AR”%% A

PRESENT A

THE HODYBLE MR.

AND
THE HONBLE MR. a_zAGARA.1

DATED THIS THE
%
BETWEEN: %

‘(ELY Sm AGA)
‘V V …..

5/” S”

}z;%s;~i. Bmmm K %T
819 Sri.

‘ S’/_o–$ri–.«Hanumantha.

Sri. Saimnna.

61/2000 c herein onty in respect
compensation awarded by fixing the market

Rs.43.:200/- per acne: for the dry land and at

acre of phuct kharab land following

chosen to submit his arguments.

:2.T11’c correctness of and award
passed by me the market
trains at :Rs.V2,50O/5 per acre for
phat ‘cihallcngcd contending that
the learned the market value at
any basis. The learned Additional
submits that the yield and prices taken

imam.’ fiom the lands under are on the

fuzttmr, tamng ‘I6’ multiplia for the my

is arbitrary besides being oontraxy to the

Mg

consistent rule applied for this purpose.

requcstcd to set aside the impumwd judwclcnt

3. In the absence of the
respondaxts, we have

judgmcilt for the P? of
value re-detcrnlmcd by the on the
pm-per and acceptable yicid and the
same is in principles
regarding cf the land under

‘Amrmativo’ ” ‘

in this appeal. The

. – with the market value
% _:LAO at Rs.18,0-00/~ per me of cumvame

12s.1.Qi:o;~ in respect of phat kharab lam med an
k sectmn mm at’ the Land Aoquiwion Act

hm/

(hereinafter ndcrrcd to as ‘LAC Aet’ for short),

mm referred to the jm~;.samo’ nal Rzxcrewg
dctczminatzison of true and market;
Aeeordingly L.A.C. No. 61/2000
other similar mattms came to 5;; k A %

evidence was recorded. iiof” biaimafxts one
Sharanapm S/o Basappa 1 and Exs.P1
to P10 were therein none
was examnfl . V – V

5. The has raised three points fer
his mnsmmfiiexf answered in favour of the
to the Act and facts and legal
learned Reference Judge, on the basis

of and the yield certificate-Ex.P8 and
Listé1:xs,%P?%ka:ad P.9 issued by the APMC accepted the

% Q of’tur’ ami the price per quintal oftur ax
mm at Rs.5,400-/~ as the moss annual
more 91′ the land as on the date of its

3

mquisifiml. After dcdtwtixg W of it, towards the of

cultivadon the Reference Court arrived at

:aac3:’eastt1cnetaxmuali%c.

decision of A961: Court reported in

Rcfcmztme Court determined the at R5.t f .’.V _

per acre in respect of dry land net
amuual mcome’ of Rs.27,0GQi~. and, in
rmpect of phat kharab
mom Rs.1,000/- tCz__r””*’£k’§§ do not and any
error in doing so.

7. flwtefogg; agreement with the
findings am! an the contentious points (ai

(by Attxzc learned’ cm; Judge (SI’.Dvn.), Yadgr as

to the market value of the cultivable land

l2s.4?Q,”2V()0f-‘ Rs.2,500/- per acre of phat kharab
V _ ‘ :aj»t:z%fr, t11c present appeal is devoid of Inc:-its and the
to be dismissed.

. ” we dismiss the appeal.

\w/