.. ,_7.
(C)
Smtmamaia, V b
I)/.Kn'shnaji Hindalageéiar <
and W/0.Sandip Patil, I
Age 40 years, Occzhouseh
All are resident of Chavat Be1vgau.m*.V._
3.
Sri NagojiSa11faji Hiriéiaiégéiiax,
Age 55 ycarsm _ I
Sri chagldrakm-.£isanaaj;V.LH3fi.:2aj;a;gekax,
Sifiefi *»1.¢c=:m3'R&. AV %
W; ézinfialagekar,
Ag: €:7;»'years', .Oé£:';£ia§I2se1io1d work,
TReV+.Ch4ai&.§at
'shy: $s;i1z§sh'c1§§;:inc1rakan: Hindalagskar,
u 'gage 4'1._y'€a1fi,V Business.
si¢s.~i sun:u (ihéiifirakant Hindalagekar,
Age 38..y¢Haxs.V Occ:B1}.si33.ess.
'fisppasahab Samaaji Hindalagekar,
,_ igxgéx. years.
_ . éhivaji Saztxtaji Hinczialagekar,
tkgé 56 years.
"' Sri Annasaheb Sanjtaji Hindalagekar,
Age 48 years.
All are r/<3-.Ki$a:r1 Dairy Farm,
Hixzdalaga, Tal. And; Qisi. Belgaum.
.. Aprmiiants
(By Sri S R Shinde, Adv.)
And:
The Special Lané Acquisition Q{'1'i'éc:i*,. « _'
Belgaum Develapment Authorigy, L -. .. _ .
Belaum. " .V A 5 ,_ Rcvsgofiflgfit. .
(By Sri Sachin Kulgad, A'cw} 'I~2g:;r M]'s..$a$a3.rapii§{bhu"S Pati!'
Associates) " * "
This M.F.A. is 'fi1eciL__1in§1er"Scctic:_n 54(1) of the {and
Acquisition Act, prayghégto:t:3f1h&x11cé*.:t11_¢V--~con1pensation fmm
Rs.'?,()(){)/ 5 ye: gtmta Es; 1.1,0GC¥/ gunta in respect of
Sy. N0.}.:éI51f;1f1A _IlI1ii€,{§112;i;*1gV .,«.'-»_.i.(.':I'f3 3 gumzas and the
judgm¢nt'»va13é3T:_VaWam1paxgasfiii by the Court of First Additional
Givil Lfudgé' (Sr;*--DnL}ff in LAC No. 1 1/ 1998 dated
1 3V._4_._ "bis: V accqgflizigly.
._"£'hVi s 7[N§:F.VA;'-._ t3qmifig on for orders this day,
MANJUNATH the following:
AHVUUDGMENT
E Ther:§ isva--.+:iVe1ay of 40 éays in filing the appeal.
V counsel for the respondent has no objection to
A cogidczxifis Afhe deiay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal
is cxindexied.
‘ This appeal is by the appellant saeking enhancement
cf oompengafion determined by the Reference Court in LAC
6.
-4-
No.11/1998 ‘try juaigzaent daiedv
learned i Additional Civil .1udg§A:isr;’:3ne;’),
4. By consent ef pzfitiee,’ x!§*e”v:}:iéa§%e””i1ea’Vj rd this
appeal on merits. .
5. The land of t§)e– by the Helgaum
Urban “””i£u:1der a pieliminary
Lzmd Acquisition Oflicer
the land acquired at the rate
of f§s._3:L,'{}CV${3/ per gunta. The Reference Court
after coesiflefifig f1:e’e;1*idence led in by the parties enhanced
VI’?§§«1V,(}O0/ – to Rs.7,000/ –. Being not satisfied
the present appeal is preferred.
A ‘ the course ef argument, the learned counsel for
‘t;hxev,_§:ia1″13’es have brought to our notice about the decision
V’ » fendered by this Court in MFA No,7465/2004, wherein the
market value of the land acquiral in respect of afigoixiing
property, which was aiso acquired under fine same
6,,
, – ., lfnvijclrixz gxf allowing the appeal, the appellant is entitled
H = fee.
_ 5 ..
notification, is determined at them rate ‘ .
gunta with other statutory bsnefiis. A ‘l V l
7. In g View of the };”.zicl.g111£:;:lt,: iii:%”a:’a”:of the’
opinion that the _ ent:’£tl£:<§._ :9} claim the
conapensation ai the gunta with all
other statut§;ry::«l)enefi§s. the appeal is
allowed. by the Reference:
Cc)urt~at at Rs.9,()O0/ – per _,
g13:niéa:A ami is entitled for oflzeg benefits _
l’ 4″ ” l V ” 3 E{“g%Eée:f:€fi(
35 C9nt’5*33.P3i1T€€i .11fl§1€F.x_I3h€ Lari Act. Accoraimgly,
appeal ié ‘allafvedi.
Sd/-Q:
Iudgé’
Sd/-
Judge
Bkxn.