IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, omD:i£f
AT DHARWAIL). .
DATED T1-{IS THE 25TH DAY. .03?1s;oV£§1\z:I:§:§:1é;"D2t2o3D.D_D A x
PRESEfiT7fl v
THE HOIWBLE MR.JDs%§fmE K;
THE HONBLE MR."4§JD_'S'fi'I(§:ED:'B;$£§2f:§Efl1\/ASE GOWDA
: .1; -5
BETWEEN' " ' " %
KARNA* LTD
REPRESEN'TED~.B"s:7p1'i'SMANAGiN(} DIRECTOR
No.1, f;'.OFFEE B€)ARD""BI3fl.D11\}G, 7
4TH FLDQR, DR.B.R.,AMBEDKAR
VEDDHI, BA§\i'GA,LORE"'0 1 APPELLANT
* _ (B§é':"Sr,i-.:SRIKA1\fTH;'J;VBHAT : V.Y.KUMAR)
:; BAu% _{i;.\IiiALHARI KUMAR SINCE DECD BY HIS ms
IA) SR3 APPOASAB BABU KAMBAR
AA Agca: null
%%D;B) SR1 ASHOK BABE} KAMBAR
Age: Hull
2. SR1 LANNAPPA MALHAREI KAMBAR
Age: null
3. SR} BANDU MALHAFII KAMBAR
AGE: NULL
4. SR1 BANDU MALHARI KAMBAR
AGE: NULL 1 "
5. SRI KRISHNA REAMCHANDREAKAMBARE ' %
AGE: NULL I
6. SR1 DHONDIBA RAMACIIAIIDIQA
AGE: NULL %
7. THE SPECIAL LANI5II.ACQ{IIsIfII0fI§GFFICEII
HIDKALDAM -
I "";'.,_T{ESPON£)ENTS
(By Sri.S__VNV i-II.VIr"":I'Z%E:'.I,VFCPR"I§i{Aj(§)Rf2~R3,R5)
(BY SR1 C;S--. VVGOVZF. ADVCICATE FOR R7)
MFA F'ILEDf-11;'SE{)L"'54{'1) OF LA AC1', AGAINST THE
JUDGMEN'? as AvJ:f?iRVI)."17/3.1/2005 PASSE9 IN LAC
N0. 57/2904-. ON =fI'I~I§~ FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(sR.I3IsI_I <:I~IH<:():z3I; PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
. t PEf£ITIcjI»I §?OR"COMPENSATION.
' 'Phi-S coming on for hearing this day,
R-A<';), J., delivered the foilowing: ~
JUDGMENT
7~C.S.Pati1 takes notice for the Government.
H * ‘ii-The Respondents’ (claimants) land acquired for the
of consnnctjon of a cane}. T116 LAO awarded
3
compensation at the rate of Rs.25,0{)0/- per acre. The
Reference Court has considered the lands as NA
potential and granted compensation at tl1e–‘1f;;ite
Rs.12/– and Rs.15/- per sq.it;”””i’he’
Nigam Ltd. (for short, ‘KNNL’) has it i
the compensation gamed Vexeessiye’eaf;dVViV’aisd contend
that the land has 110 NA ” i
2. The award -loft’ I,.:A{j_’.jV.vdi.sc1oses that the
opinion of the value of the land
ranges hehVvVVee;’;V-.,- and Rs.32,000/- per acre.
The LAG the sales statistics of the lands
the to 1999 which are prior to the
__’I’he sales statistics disclose that the lands
– to Rs.32,000/- per acre. The
lands lands. The value for the registration of the
it of Hinekudi village is fixed at Rs.33,000/- per
acre for the relevant year.
3. The claimants, on the other hand, have
produced the rmords to shew that the lands bearing RS
W1
Nos.393/3, 451/ 1, 395/2, 394/28, 213/3, es
No.-409 of Hirekudi village are oonxzeifefi’ jsfor
Agicultural purpose. The fjad_io§{xi V
question. The claimants have
Show that RS No.388 is to i..VVI$I:on-‘:I3§;gIie121tura1
purpose, house sites’ __Padaiai1e, each site
measuring 30′ 3340′ The saie deed
of plot as Ex.P.29. The
the land in questier:
is issiied -‘Survey No.30′) is within the
village of However, on perusa} of
the eerfified of the villsge map produced discloses
is situate immediately adjoining Chikkodi-
said land is nearer to Chikkodi than
.’;.I:’he sale deed also recites that RS No.388 is
it ’44i”V.fl:sit’u:=iteVVV”about 4 Lime away from Hirekudi village and
‘ Chikkodi – Mira; road. The lands in question are
” situate far off frem Chikkocii — Mira} Road to the North-
West.
5
4. The claimants have produced record.s.:t0_.l_lsliow
that the lands adjoining the lands in
converted to New-Ag:{‘ieultural purpose. e _
also situate to the West: of Chikkedi
away from West of Roadv,-eAaiiCi”‘tl1ey
almost situate in the and
Chikkodi «– Mira} ma the location or as
No.388 and am] that as No.388
has no in question. The
claimants —.pm’dueed any material to show
that in any plots have been formed
The Court; has mainly relied upon the
EX-..Pe.29 pertaining to RS. No.388 to determine
.: Jthe said document is excluded, there is
fie credible material to assess the market value
‘VA ~ eflthe lands in question.
H 5. There is no material either way to shew
.marhether the NA converted lands do really have NA
potential or that the conversions are manipulated in
6
anticipation of the acquisition. There is absoiutely no
credibie material available on record for this Court to
determine the just and proper compensation. The
claimants have also not let in convincing evidenceettetprove
the market value. Only one witness is e;§;«s-11’1;i:i_ed’
heavy reliance is places on Ex.P.29, the aiipiot
in RS No. 388. in View of the jj.oi’,e€2?.id-ei1ce,s:_’ ido
not feel that it is just and proper to_spee113ateV_Airiv foe.
merket: value of the lands itiie interests of
justice’ and –. the parties. It is just and
necessalfythat the Reference Court is to be set
asi.ée,’VVt11e mé151:ter__teAbe remanded to the Reference Court
for ..£1vesh.tcoi*1sideratio21 and disposal in accordance with
are permitted to aciduce further evidence
in Isietter.
it I 6. Keeping in View the fact that a considerable
has elapsed and that the parties are denied of the
compensation, We direct that as an interim measure,
KNNL Shel} deposit compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,50,0()O/- per acre inciusive of the aWaIfl§”h”}?i§1.€f: ‘Lee
LAO in each case. The deposit to be
weeks. Claimants are
deposited. It is direcied that me..Refere:;eeV&:
dispose of the case within 1 V
It is clarified aeed not be
influenced by any pf made
regarding ._ and the market
yotez1tViVa1_._ ieept open.
It is further reepect 0f each case if
KNNL has of Rs.1,50,{)OO/- per
ac::e,_ .119 fieposit “WV
I ‘fee is allowed.
Sdfié
Tudqe
seiéée
Tudae