1
IN THE) HIGH COURT 012' KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT' BENCH
AT DHARWAD. M
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 0;? NOVEMBE§§';"'2{)_(§S.:V'«' _
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE '
AND _ _ %
THE HONVBLE MR. JUSTICE""B:S;REEN'IYASi3 GQWDA
M.F.A.m:>.
BETWEEN
1. KA;R'NA*rA;§A N}2:ERAx{'ARI NIGAM LTD
R}3.']?"._ BY 'YI7S"hI;'&NAGIE§JG. DIRECTOR NO 1
0091335: Bc}A11NG, 2 FLOOR
DR 13 RTAMBEDKARVVEEDHI
BANGALC-Rm)' 3. ....APPELLANT.
; S351. 1$.RH{1§N"TH;J,BHAT : V.Y.KUMAR ADV.)
;m{% x ;-J)
1. SR1 A-.ޤf15EvENDRA MEKKALAKI
_ R/0'"H£12E§<:Um, CHIKODI
_ BELGAUM
« --T:~iE sPEc:AL LAND ACQLIISITION OFICER
HIIDKAL BAM,I§'iUKKERI. RESPONDENTS
my Sri. S N HATTI ADV FOR R1)
% “(BY SR1 C.S.§’ATIL, GOVT. ADVOGATE FOR R2}
MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LA ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD flA’i’E[} 19/11/2005 PASSED _
IN LAC No.27/04 ON THE FEE OF ‘mE=_c:mL
JUDGE(SD) CHKODI, PARTLY ALLOW§N'(}:”‘«.._
REFERENCE PE”i’I’I’ION FOR
COMPENSATION. ‘
This Appeal is coming 0n~~fr)r lite V
SREEDHAR RAG, J., delivered the fe_11oyvi*:;g: Ag’
I.A.No.2 aflowe(ii;_._”‘:})eL*g§* :’a’2.{?§{)”.edays filing the
appeal eondenect. 2 . ‘V V
;’take.£§”£}eEiee for the Government.
The-. (claimant) land acquired for
the»’;}Ai1i’pose of letien of a canal. The LAO awarded
_at the rate of Rs.25,€)(}0/- per acre. The
has considered the iands as having NA
V -V granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 11/»,
K V’ V 12/ Rs.15/- mi’ sqft; under three categories. The
Niravari Nigam Ltd. [for short, ‘KNNL7 has ffled
” Hiaepeal challenging the cempensation granted as excessive
arid also contend that the land has 210 NA petem:ia1._
~ ;.g day,
2. The award of the {A0 disc1os:;@..’,’ :_ ti:1e
opinion of the panchas Show that the :
mnges between Rs.25,0()0/~ am
The LAO has relied upon t11e4__sa1éS._$tatisthiVc:S
ssold in the years 1997 to pgfgior to the
1’l()ti.fiC3{i{)I1. The 1′ tjcéafi the lands
are said at Rs.A25,OOv{)A,1 acre. The
lands are ‘ registration of the
dry }a1’3.dHs” at Rs.33,000/– per
acre ._ ‘ ‘
3. on the other hand, have
prochgtcéé. thé “1 to Show that the lands bearing RS
Nos%,393%)L%3,352/1, 395/2, 394/218, 213/3, 328/} and RS
viliage are converted for Non-
‘ V .V The said lands adjoin the lands in
V’ ” .’Lque¥si:§0n}s The claimants have 8350 produced evidence to
S:h*§);e”§7″Ath3’i RS N0.388 is converted to N011–AgI”ic13Jtm’a1
” ifiiirpose, house sites are formed by one Padaiale, each site
meaamizig 30′ X 40′ is sold for Rs.4″7,£}(}O/ –. The sale deed
of plot No.20 dated 17 .2. 1999 is marked as
preiiminary rxotification in respect of the
is issued in the year 2001. S1.1:;*iiey”:’~!o.’§309« file g A
village limits of Hixekudi v1’l_Iage.L
the certified copy of the ‘nfilnisseiosee
that RS No.388 is sitzjete ;.adjoit§§ing Chikkedi~
Mira} road. The (jhikkodi than
Hirekudi. .c§eec1 RS No.388 is
situate mmzmdi village and
adjOiIi£”;3 lands in question are
situate f’ar off — Miraj Road to the North-
4; 1 claimants have proénced records to Show
the iands in question have been
V V’ _ coxiirexted tof”Nor;–Ag*ic1.1}tural purpose. The said lands are
_ .. , H 4siti:’ete to the West: of Chjkkodi — Miraj Road, quite far
‘é.ve?éiyA’from West: of Chikkodi —~ Mira; Road, and they are
T egimost situate in the middle between I-iirekudi viliage and
Chikkodi – Miraj Road. Considering the ieoation of RS
5
No.388 and the lands in question, we find that I§S,:.:IiE’Q.388
has no comparison to the lands in queeiie1;.._’__: _._’I’i1e
claimants have also not produced any 3210133 » _
that in the NA converted lands aijy iiafiée’ ‘
and sold. The Reference hae nfiainiy
sale deed Ex.P.29 tevidetennine
the value. If the <ioe:L?a;1er:t_':ie"excluded, there is
absoluteiy no credib1e.ma§".efia1.&tQ 'fhe market: value
of the land$..i;14q{§e$ti0f1._
-. “§’}’V1ve’i;-;’-‘,:’w-., rxiateriai either way to SIIOW
whether’ “the lands do realiy have NA
_ potezetiai or V”t11a_tV____f;11e conversions are manipulated in
*a:i1:éeip.a;,ti€)1«3 0f_ the aequisitiozl. There is abselutely no
eredib1e’§i:jatefia1 available on record for this Ceurt :0
deteurminehv fithe just and groper compensation. The
A if have also met 1e’: in eonvir;<:i2:1g evidence to prove
' the market value. Oniy one Witness is examined and
'4 §:1ee.v3s* reliance is pmeed er: Ex.P.29, the sale deed of a
piot in RS No.388. in View of the paucity of evidence, We
6
do net feel that it is just and proper to speculate fixing
the market value of the lande in question in ti1eV~.i;£x4te;fests
of justice and interests of the parties.
necessary that the order of the Reference; ie”‘te4_’_ft;e’t-eet ‘ _
aside, the matter to be remanded the
for fresh consideration and-__dis_posé1 $11 .§;1C¢;0’z%{:IéiI*:ee with
law. The parlries are per111it£e–d Vjteedduce A’ ftirth-51′ evidence
in the matter.
6. Keepfzig ‘fact ‘thet a eoneiderable
time has __el.e{‘p:eed__V the parties are denied of the
c0mpen’Se.tion,’ as an interim measure,
” shalt compensation at the rate of
per acre inclusive of the award made by the
The deposit to be made within four
V . weeks. are permitted to withdraw the amount
ddedepeeitvedd. it is directed that the Reference Court shall
— déislfseee ef the ease Within three IHOi”ithS.
it is eiarified that: the Reference Court need not be
i:1flL1e11ced by any of the faema} ebsexvatiens made
£/