1NnmHmH0mmTmHmmmmmxmmmwsmmnm'
DHARWAD _
DA'¥'ED THES THE 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2965
PRESENT
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREE_DH£xI%'RA{)V»
AND %
HON' BLE MR. JUSPECE5¢ SREENivV}\3E
MFA N9 9891 gLA¢3~-- « 1
BWWEMI
THE s?ECIAL__1,AND% J?-s;<:5<;31;Lj1Vfs1'I:":i3.bV_1"'1=*;=:ar__<§,f;R,,,?
JAMKHANDI. = T. x
* APPELLANT.
(BY smc. PA'TI:L, A.¢A;{' . L4 % V J. "
AND; »
' $sa:.sAT*i*EI2P.»s. iF:'£sPPA JAM"}3AGI
AGE:.MAJoH,A .
' 'R}O.JA'x':1KI!vAI\EDE' ~'r:}ȢUK,
BAGALKCFF-DISTRICT;v"
'-- . RESPONDENT.
. {BY s1éi;MA2sz§J'Uwé'rH, FOR SRI.S.S.PA'I'IL GUGIHAL, ADv.,.)
THIS-IEHFA FILED U;'S 54:1; 0:2 LA. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 19/7/2005 PASSED IN LAC.NO.322/2002 ON THE
FELE._OF,' THE ADDL. cmz, JUDGE {SR.DM, JAMKHANDI, SITTING AT
__ '__MUDHOL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
'COMPENSATEON.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KSREEDHAR
.~ RA€3, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimam: has produced eviderxce 1;_o’d::at
the lands in question are sitt1ated’on ‘the; AV
river and that he is drawing to
the river. The claimanfi showed idssd groveing
sugar cane and ddsdfigardjfactory. The
Land Acquisition O¥fic.ey the iand as dry
land. RW .1 cross examination
he stateiéjtiiate. land and he was not
the VL_.A.C}.~ is passed. RW 1 is not a
compe£ea1_;ddtadd-~’dprove the contention of the State
3…. fiic VV1ands’a-ze..dIy lands. On the other hand the RTC
‘ ;.Vext;fac*§’,’ of the sugar factory clearly disclose that
d’ _ are growing sugar cane. The Reference
‘has held that the lands in question are Wet land
A 5. .gEof:v§.ng sugar ‘ cane ‘and awarded compensation of
d V’§Rs.1,8(),00O/~ per acre. Therefore grant of compensation
@ Rs. 1,230,000/– per acre is sound and proper and it does
%/
not call for Interference. Accordingly __ iihéf is
dismissed.
Iuddé