INTTHEHKH{COURT(H7KARNATAKA
CHRCUHTBENCH}H7DHARW%I)
DATED TI-HS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 10,:
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE3 MR. JUSTICE A.S.,.E'C:RANN,A--- % é 5
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL-.1$Io.2O4V:1O/2'O,O§._;{LAC'j
BETWEEN:
1. JINAGOUDA S /O. ANN}\G.O{1:)}x::PATfiI.}_;:.V
2. SUBHASH S /Q;,fTfAMN1Ti\I\{}§(30-IjI§g§-.1?Ajf'IL.
BOTH ARE: 455_"YRS;3,._ OCLf3:"}3x(3{RIC:U'LTURE3,
R/O: zUNJU.Rw,-D, TQ': ATHA_NI,}'
DIST:
, R " PETITIONERS
[By Sri. ANIL AD--v,)" R J
_ ----
1. ACQUSITION OFFICER,
URpE~R,~KR1S»HNA' PROJECT, JAMKHANDI,
' D1ST;.,4'EAOA_Lg;OT.
H.RESPONDENT
V –M:£EGHA C KOLEKAR, HCGP)
A’ ,. .
E “”‘?r%:§–‘uC1li1§/
(SRDN) AND ASST. S1Z%1SSl(_)NS .1L_11)o1’i«:, A’1’1-1AN’1’~..__:” 1>;;1{‘1”1_”;’\*’If ”
ALL()WlNG THE R_IT€.I?I’3l{.I-ENCIE 1>1:;«:’1’1’1’1 gm 1=fo1_§ 1eN:;1,me1;pe1 ”
COMPI~3NSA”I’ION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FO’R:P1DMISS1IOwN:”Ti;§1:§bAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED TEE FOL.L’OW_’I1\T’G.:_
V JUD/WQMEKIZII I
Learned GoVei”nri1..er1t”Adyocate {:0 take notice for the
respondents,.and_file rnemo’*-of-apipearance in four weeks.
2. The 1aed 1oserIi–n’–LAC”‘N.o. 158/2004 is before this
Court seekirrgoo e-nhanee’1nen’t of the market venue as egainst
the reference Court by its common
judgrn”ent’___ ‘ES/4/2006. The reference Court has
IV’.:–?determine’d t’I91’e~.:’n1arI<et value of the acquired Iand at
"per acre for irrigated land. The Land looser
oh.'=._cIai'r:1ant"is:seeking further enhancement of the same.
DJ
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
4. The fact which is not in dispute is that .
question in the instant case is acquired_for the ”
Project and lands are situated in Zunjurwaeli’viVillage”at
Taluk, Belgaum District. The preliminary
issued on 15/3/2003. At the titne—ofv–_hearing,”‘thAeVA,.learned
counsel for the appellant to:fth:e’*~ notice of this
Court that in respecptofi the inzthe same village
irrigated lands are grown, this court by
the judgment dated MFA No.3902/2008 (LAC)
“vial_u_e.:of the property at Rs.2,18,000/–
A A.
5.”lri”*that a perusal of the certified copy of the
_gjjudgeornentupaissehdi in MFA No.3902/2008 would indicate that
‘i while awarding the said market Value had relied on
ii”iie’ar_liergudgement of this Court in MFA No.12l95/2006
wherein the Eands in question were acquired for very same
purpose and situated in the same area. From a fu’r_ther
perusal it is seen that infact in the case in
12195/2006, the issue related to the Very ”
notification dated 15/3/2003 which islavthep…§t1hj=9;etr..fi1att’er__Voi}at
this appeai. Therefore, keeping this -aspe<V:t._i'ri
value in the present case requires:V¥'_t:te_:_be_ erihahejedivvfon the
same rate. A AL V 9 Vt » p
6. Accordingly, the appea1–., part. The
market value in is fixed at
2,18,oo0/-pe,i% is also entitled to the
statutory benefitsaas vwell thheicbhst incurred in this appeal}.
_____
JUDGE
VV’ir.I_’I1b,fV–