1
II'! THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA A31'
namn THIS TI-IE széth may or awn: '
PRESENT
TI-IE HoN*m.E MR.JU$'I'ICE V.G;'6f'ALA
AND_
THE HODPBLE h!R.JfiSTICE-QLRAL1. maataéél}
M.F.A. N0. 507a] «2ob4Qivc§%%c%1w.
M.F.A.CROB_.264~l2%U-Q4'-.
m MFA N0 5070 «:39.
§_')i£'i'W EEN
1 *l"'H1:) SP2, 1,A:~::)'z:.<;<_;'u1é.;-:1%1#1<;N 0;-'1«'1<$:1::1<
\!iSVESW.ARAIA}i CIj3NTEsfE»«.
3:20 FLO('.§1'%'._,_ ¥'{}D'1U1s! BLQCK
BANGALORE" 566 .00 1?
. .. Ai'PELLAN'l'
(By S211 "1,,Tn}:v:;;§2r;_;é;r§:'rfi}ana G(}V!:)RNM.¥:3N'i' A1)V(}€.3A'1'k) )
, V.MUin£-=|,_YAVPPA s/1s':'
= T "£2/'AT_A"MANDARAHAl.L§
-..'crgn:mNA1<AYApA'1'NA t~i{)J::5Li
-.L)h:vA;~4A1~«:A;,L1 'TALUK
(---~..§""'\"*-"\_/4
smré. £§31'SIINAPR§:-»*'FOR R1 as 2 )
!:«'1L.i.r:}A1}-«4..l}/.,':3»'.'5;47~{' 2301:' LA A01', AGAINST T311: J UD(}Mi?)Nl'
r@'1i;.i5+;"--..:)1«t f;m«;'----m<1... <_:1vu, JUDGE {S1Aj '
R/ATMANDARAIIALLI " %
CHENNAi<AYAt'A'i'£s£A u
i)t£VANAi~iAL.|4i"'JTAiéU_1:< ' .1; .
BANGALORE }_)1§_:'fif " '
3 THE cu;f1.«:;<' CG£\{S*i'R.UL3'1'i£,)N melm-;1:;1AS;"'sK.Anv. 35 H <.: SUNIJARESH use 1+':.<
AND AWARD DT;._I9.4.G3 PASSED IN LAC N022/O1 ON THE
1 MUNHAPPA 8/ O KADAPALAPPA
(...._S"'-"'\...~.
5
referred to as the "i(*> re 68., iqa' >
te .31 am 5.13 of 2998 1 1 to 3: of -2001 am
2. The respondente in the presets, 'eppeal"v'Mwere tihe"
claimants in LAC No.22/€31. The L g.se&weuas the
cross-objectors hereiii am eemmoll
judgment and respective Reference
Gourt. The ‘v’i?éS in all the said
13′? land acquiei’ti;£}fl.V Eiefemnce Court, has
preferred :5′? respective awards and the
said common ef the 37 appeals nmnel}!
M.b’_5A.N0s:é} 94€3!.j(M; 5050 of 2004 along with the
cofres I3.dW.i;l”} “Acres-As».eb’eetiens are dis sed of I01? asein the
.P° Wi¥. 3 9° «P 3
j~,cemme1:=_ afieétated above. New the present appeal
witf1 .’thev’-eererespending ewes-ebjection are taken up fer
in of our said common judgment.
The crossebjectors have claimed itfifially, in their
.eres–e}ebjections enhanced market value at the rate of
i,f_){},()i}()/- per acre in aciditien to the market value of
Rs.3,3(),{)U£}j- awarded by the Reference Court. Subsequent
t””S-\””””\.o–1r
8
setting aside 03?’ the abatemerit and third appficati;m_ ”
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, geeking <:<;~1r1c:i1_”.1V.*:.__1’t§<3-1.1 K
cau$<~:d in fiiing the said; two apphcafifibgsgiié " .';'.i.'§,i4::é_¢_
applications are not seriously 'l')j~»'
Spl.LAO and the respondent-f}Ei;1£:cf::'ir:§a1~5;«9' . ;1.)£é1)O.
However, the cause sh0W1:i _._"in' E; $0 in
support of the I'{'3$]i)€C'€.i\_T6 be accepted
and the said applic,*§._§ic:i}:s
For the rc:asc}11S~..<1fg)re$={a:id:;":ise :péaS5:§~tt1e folicwing
1) _;;;.Ag. fligzd’ ‘V:§:’>c;t:tion 5 of the L.imitat.i0I1 Act in
the Crob. are allowed and the
V in filing the substituting petitians
the petmens for scathing aside the
” : §;bé1t;2n1ent is cendcmed. Further, the appiication
éeeking setting aside of the abatement and
sxibsiitution petition are aiso ajiewed. The
abatement is set aside and the iegai rapresentative
of the said citzcaased resnonderre-cross obiectm’ is
,.mx”–V»—
ii)
iii}
permitted :0 some on record. The ieamed AGA and
the iearned counsei far the deceased Cris-SS5
objects? in the corresp0:1ding crt)$sv0l3§j€:ctig;=}:1’4″$l§.§§;. ~ V.
czamj out {has amfindment of the »tjt;ie”‘bé€f:S1*r;£?1.’.A
{he modified award is dr:%:§%’;1.,V
The amendment ~ (3
Rule 1’1 read with Skrgfler 41 Rule
3 of CFC i1j1_ ‘tfi;_1e objector-
owner V’!-TiV1<¥i'v't:;.'1fg§"V,~§§§;0i:)ject0r$ shali
the prayer column
in ., -'
The pfesgént :':1d4.F.A.Iio.5070/O4 ifiled by
is .h¢:1~:by dismissed and M.F.A.Crob.
' filed by the ciaimant is hereby allowed
" . ii;+'pa11'{¥jitf1 costs.
i”-311
‘1’he. ;_trass-objector, who is the ciaimant $31
n L;A.c.Ho.22/91 shall be entitled to the market
value at the rate of i<s.7,{)0_.(J()()/– per acre, With
9.8 cormequczntiai statutory benefits as awarded by
the K6f€I'€'IT1{"2(i Court in tha said common judgtxnent
r~