.1.
IN THE HIGH ooum or KARNAT M
DATED THIS otrth DA (319 M4;A.RcQ,%gQo%s
11 'r.\r,\(\ 1-31*}.
D
pa} 1115---A " j V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUST£¢ E RAM' MOE;A1§U~'LEDDY A
M.F.A;4'No.9_4i?.'VA (LA(§.§) A
k
M.F.A,No.9474", 9475 ;& 94*r5,*2oo6(LAc)
BETW ,. N
12ARAGorm', «V
310'}, AL.aGo1*m
AGED. ABOUT 5'2'j;'YEARs. . 4 ,.~
AGR1cU1.1*uR1'&3'r."RiA'MA1GuR VILLAGE
'1'Q_:_ JAMAKHANDI
', MMMMM APPELLANT
A in Trvim @9474 or? 2006
" . .N'.AL1§A's5PA.'S]o ALAGOND AJUR
x I 131512. BAGALKOT
PJA '-YEARS, AGPiCUL'T'UR1S'T'
RIA MAIGUR VILLAGE, TQ: JAMKHAN D1
.. . APPELLANT
sIviT L2i"t'A'v"\r'i1 io iv':'URiG"
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS .
AGRICLILTURISF, R /A MAIGUR VTLLA T}
'l'Q_ JAMAKHANDI, DIST BAGALKOTE APPELLANT] ,_
J)
U\
I'\l LCIIATI
I''\
I" A
1 MU'T'T'AF'lT'A sic) SA'T'T'AIT'F-'A 1?;D£\i-iALi;i"' » x Q», %
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS J % W %
AGRICULTURIST
Rm MAIGUR VILLAGE
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: PAGALKOT.
iR:'sP?A 3; 0 sA1TAP?A¢:.fQAHALLi
AGED ABOUT' 55"YEARS. . ~ ._ V. "- « _
AGR1cU1;I'URIs'I*' AA '
R/O MA1VGURv11,ut.<3E__ 'V
'l'Q:JAb._riAKHAN'DI,"'~; _ _ _
'V
ix')
1 .-Wat. Sm 's;t?-.';*.mri»D:\;'v.'A=' «HAL! -1
1 I511 ll-J5 3 :4
(A3
IVII' 514'
I
V Wu H ABflU'l'5'2._Y'EAR.SVVV_,5
AGR:«::uLT=;;'R;sr._ M
R30 MA:GUR}jvI.1,LM;E-
'--'1'Q:. JAMA'K:I~!ANDI',. _
DIST: BAGALK{)'I"...
E
on
APPELLANTS
'~ _ ;.._R L uI5}\'1'§-L4 M/S PATIL 85 PATIL,
'AD I "F-DR APP" -' -5 "'''"'{CQMMON}
LJLIIJI II' I
SP1. i;ANt§ ACQUISITION OFFICER
_ TUPPER KRISHNA PROJECT
' » JAMKHANDI
. . . RESPONDENT
{COMMQN}
THESE MFAS ITT ED UIS 54(1) OF’ LA ACT AC’ri\ii*iS’i”
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.1.2005 PASSED
M
in LHL; NOS.3’2’+. J10, 6.50 35 31;: ; Asuu-4 RESP-.E}g’u’1″§’vfE’LY:'{)N_
mu 1- an A nn:-‘ nnz r\P7lr\nl\
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUl.”2(__}Evj’TV(SR;DN),V’
JAMKHANDI, PARTLY i\LLC)W1NG —
PETITION FOR ENHANCED coMPENs.=mQN,AND_ SEEKING
FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF cQMpEN.sA1’1oN;– ‘ ” .
THESE was COMING ON “‘i<'(i'R
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE.L4FQLLQW!NG;A
These appeals J udgmcnt and
award dt. §..Q4;1..20i) 6 V324/04, 325 /04,
326104 "}gddl.(1ivi1 Judge {_Sr.Dn),
, . c'D…r v
131.1311 . 'V1\u:flBnCe Gnu. .. .
.4…-.:.V..n..-…-flap. .1. ' »
p-ycuxra U ucat.-_v,_Ju Lulu LG usu
» 1 ' as falluwsf' __
' v"VAVifis~EATi."' LAC Noe. sv.No. 85 extent
"' ""'"' ""' """"§§:'fiE:g"i}'fi""'"""""""""'
AA MFA 94.74/05 325/04 Sy.No.5l/1Iu3;-
?. acres 10 g=m.ta-.5
F')
.a acre-ralfl N"-"Mu
' ' 9475fG5 326iG='r u;y'.ul6.51;' EC
2 acres Qguntas
M?’ 94?6,’o5 327,114 Sy’.No.51 12
4 acres lgunta
rm… …:.-..-……,…:.a .. _ .–.’
111 an Itibulu C LCIIL U
Maiguzr village, Jamkhandi x_:_ve1″e_- .
State in exercise of its e111i11e11t’c1o11t_’1aiii1
purpose, to wit for Upprelf L’
..t_’i 1Au_4;(:i) f_t_ e fiequisifion
Act, 1394, “or ?):ct*, ‘Le K–nataka
Gazette dt.v Ofiicer
(LAO) on the basis of
“ceAm-sensation for the acquired
laI’d’.=_
. f t .e !…nd. dis-sa….fi.e-:1 wi.L t..e
quantum.’ 0? esmgiensafion sought exfiiafleemeiit by
.__an ap -licafion under Section 13(1) of the Act,
V arefe-1’red, were numbered as LAC Nos. 324,
u a:.s%and 327 of 2004, clubbed together and tried.
for the respondents one K.Nagaraj Bhat, in–charge
Sp1.LAO was examined as RW- 1 and 8 documents were
marked as Exs.D1 to D8. The Reference Court having
INK.
considered the material on record and
oral and documentary, held; .
justjfied in deter1n1n1ng° ‘ the maicfketvailoe
lands on the basis of salef:§”‘s_tatietics,V L’
EXCW, reckoned the as 45 tones per
acre and trail’ as per Ex.P6-the
price list,”‘for. deducting 50%
towanie at Rs. 18,000 _/«- as
an 2- ” 2 ”
me ne..4_n’1ccI11e.1:erA..p}’-feral’, per awe. .9 th.e,
hp
I-II-I.\J
Reference. multiplier 10 to determine the
valu”e”at——–Rs.1,80,000/– per acre, of wet land.
V by the owners for enhancement of
‘ compensation.
3. Sri.Ravi.L.Patil, learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the Reference Court having
accepted Ex.P7, the yield certificate and Ex.P6, the price
Let, __E in error reckoning the yield per acre at 45
3
U
-r
3
I
I
— -1-}
IL I. B].
learned counsel, the _ 020$’ .
gazetted on 27.3.2003 just 4 daysgpfioiato
financial year and comméljegmefit 01″ L’
ypar 2003-D4 Qld 1;_11«31*t:f0;fc_,fli11g3′ 0t7:Rs,AE§§20.32 per
— ——M “–f t?a:–: 2000-04
Ex.P6 prictf: 2 _i:i’~.-?J;_ is ‘IJ.earned counsel
further Ex.P7 issued
by the zuixéptor’ Jamkhandi,
k % 2000-01 :0 2003-04 01.:-.
__ _:-n _… 1-_….._…….1
5 IOU IS. JJSEIIIJUU.
yieid of acre W
ha0tens….to add that if Ex.P6 and P7 are
‘ ‘and if 50 tons is taken as the yield per acre
.’ as the price per ton of sugarcane and
f _.1__tivs_1_t.i011, the market
derivyéizing 50% t0w,_rd_s an t
” ,_v’a_i11e of the acquired ianci i” 2,19,500;–.
and the preliminary
the Reference Court was
tons of sugarcane per of L’
t- d._.t_.r11.i__e he m_a_1’__et ve_l1,1;e’vof’t1;e
5. vecgjnsel for the parties
examilmd’ “i,_11e:. and award, the
dispute before & occur: lies in a narrow
‘TheT”qu_efic;;e_ am {1} whether me I? f
Court; was jvu,et:i£_’ieL’1 i11..=i’ecko11i11g 45 tons per acre as ‘the
” _ «accepted Ex.P7, the yield certificate
V Asst. Director of Agriculture, Jamkhandi,
.’ the yield of sugarcane per acre during the
It 3450 so nu-no I ‘
ycmszzooo-01 to 2093-04, man en t he 9:
(ii) Whether the Reference Court was justified in
reckoning the price of sugarcane at Re.800/- per ton,
though having placed reliance upon Ex.P6 the price neg?
Wx
‘_ .____ t”\_- …..A. .. .–..-t-.’.–u-.4-I:
i’ 11 ‘6 uutut ‘pi Ullu ‘ 1’ ‘
reasons to pare down the yie_l_d..,o_1’ aw ~c’x V
from 50 tons to 45 tons. AsV:”eaI;_”
elaborate discussion of L’
irrigated by use ofwater , river afld
hence colmidetxed ‘V{fV”i:11at:is so, tl1ere is
no good;1’ea_s_oi1v- as”1:a_V–v__&l*1y i:he_Ret’e1’ence Court ought to
have y-ieid’ ef” per acre from 50
+ V’ ‘- I n c
LG}-1 LU 45 tons 113-. my epmlcn, the cenc.us..-9.. _m.ed
at by ,t.’l1eV -Refereiice Cfiouri: is perverse and
‘:fiis1;;ataj11ab1e.’ —– –« *
1 no doubt true that the pre’1i111i11a1’y’
for acquisition was gazetted on 27.3.2003,
‘A the financial year 2002-03 though just 4 days
‘befiore the commencement of the next financial year
(\
.32’-
sugarmn’ “”3 Rs.9″‘5;’ – ‘ “‘*”” “M “m ‘
Rs.810/- and for the next i.c;”‘e2é)e.3:c4.e
Rs.920.32. Thus, there was
sugarcane durm’ g the fyeai
._e 1′.’1*id_§- Wae in the
.3.
y..|.
year when the pricecf the leaet
123.810/-, the lands in
qucsfiog yielding and
unjust and unfair if the
price fOI’~.fl’lB year’..’2;(‘3{ii)-01 was ‘Rs.905i-; 2601-fifi W”
andiixthe-««rcleva11t year 2oo2–03 was Rs.810/-,
‘ of the price per ton of sugarcane is
i’ ‘ in my opinion, in the circumstances is
0
just n-ir-n-I I\nVac~n11n}’\1n ‘r’I(1-P.
8. In the circumstances, reckoning the yield of
sugarcane as 50 tons, per acre, placing reliance on
Ex.P7- yield certificate and the price of sugarcane at
M
4 mm
123.357 .50, the $653 izlcome from ‘°9″;,j’*a_x¥”‘1-s3_V’isv
R-..~..42,375/– and dec1ucu’ng_5o%
cultivation, the net income R$.Q:1,437;’50,’
multiplier 10′, the mariéfit-.ya1121ev-i$ Rs;2,i«4,375/– %pe;}%
acre of wet land which to.
In the nesult, 3-} s ‘ in part.
T113 i1npug1(é€;T.L.J t1dg111;¢11f fii1’a!§_:1 is m_”___ifi,._’__ -_xi_.g
per the appellants to the said
sum with all “b£:ncfits including proportionate
cqs’cs, It’ -1s%mad¢%c1§ar that in the light of the order
..__ -_’_.tj -1:._LA;, 1;- …-nd.o11c .,.h.e.. delay, .11.: apmuants %
. ‘iiaf :0 interest for the pcnod 0 113 days.
