Loading...

Mallappa S/O Alagond Ajur vs Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 7 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Alagond Ajur vs Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 7 March, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
.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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information