Mahilavidya Peeta Trust vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 26 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 

AT DHARWAD.

DATEE) THIS THE 19% DAY :0? }N%0V;§:"M$Ef<,      n

PRESE$T_ '

THE HON'BLE L4R.JUS':'i(;:«: K;a:2;o k %

THE HONBLE MR.  SREEMVASE GOWDA

 

MAH1LAwmA PEETATRUST 

VIDYANAGAR,' H¥..§BI,I"REi? BY ITS SECRETARY

SR1 I{RISHNA'G0'WD13:..PATIL

s/0 THIMMANNA C-OWBA, MAJOR

R/O Navamezm, HUBL1 ...APPELLANT

% A'  - {13y% éri;"M B_1~:ARGt}ND & sow. VAKKUND)

1.'  THE  ACQUISITION OFFICER
Am) 'mm ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD AT DHARWAD

    CHAIRMAN

" GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY, LAXMI COMPLEX
NEELIJIN ROAD, HUBLI  RESPONDENTS

MFA FILED U/S. 54(1) or-‘ LA ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD ET. 31.1.03 PASSED IN LAC
No.13/93 ON THE FILE OF THE PR1… CIVIL JUDGE

(seem, HUBLI, DISMISSING THE
PETYFION FOR ENHANCED compemsanofi. o * 2

This Appeal is coming Von’ for _ ‘day’,

SREEDHAR RAG, J., delivered the 1{‘elIer\vi.jg:.. V’

Sri C.S.Patil takes 35 if 1

The land in qneefion agricultural land.
Appenam is tj:eV’.land1oedf;:: “;L to 3 before the
Reference V tenants of
the the land for the
of — housing society. The

LAO at the rate of Rs.16,300/- per

_ acre,’ “The sought for reference under

the Land Acquisition Act seeking

of compensation. A reference is accordingly

xnaae… appellant is shown as the 4th claimant in the

‘V V’ * ifeferrenee application. It is alleged that the appellant and

‘ ‘second respondent filed a memo at Ex.R.I before the

‘4 WLAO submitting that the disputes between the apwllant

on the one part and respondent No.2 on the other part,

have settled their dispute and

reference proceedings.

2. The Reference J

tenancy application of the
befoxe the Land K no.._vee§;ed right in
the property to the eommnsation.
The Refereneefileurtiaiso egzpeflant and the
second at Ex.R.1 to dmp
the Aaflneetlzerefore, held that it is not
‘ “Q reference and accordingly
dismissed ieepficafion.

,. The . taken by the Reference Court is

V. In the first place, the finding of the

that the claimants 1 to 3 Irmve no vested

g to enhancement of compensation is untenable.

V. ‘ occupancy rights, they would have right to seek the

enhanced compensation in accordance with Law.

‘:4

4. The counsel for the appellant that

the memo at Ex.R.1 is concocted and

and second respondent have 1

The authenticity and genuir1enes_s:’o_f mei:.ucmo
also a disputed question
filing such memo, rttie r.sho’1i1ié:i” given an
opportunity to explain the dismissal

of the refcifence the just
compensai:io’:};..V Court is bad in law.
if’i:.i.1eéV’o’f_t.’r1e_* Feference Court is set aside.

The mam is the Reference Court for fresh

V. are kept open for consideration by

The appellant is entitled to refund of

Court ffiafs, A

Sd/–

Judge

Sd/-w
Judge

nvb.