IN THE HIGH COURT 01?
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY' ' ' L 1 kk
THE’. HG?-€’BLE M . u”J3?.’lQE 15″.”.-?e.w.1._\.».’.’
1 SHIVAQHARANAPPA S[‘0″B_HIlvES.HE’l’TY -‘ ~
1?:JociAmL1NGA *HAu.iaj
TQ c:.r.I:’fNéi»=n’:1;i..iJ*%-‘%_% ‘.
%%%% –ms’: auwaaua ‘
;.n»i_AL;;;s:%rA% sjoT.iBAsAwANNAPPA
gNiAJC1R ‘ .%
“.”!;’C.,G.’*.DI!.F.!*!£.3.i’!’;D1.4..I’\…-L-1
TQ QH:N’cH’oLi
DESTGULBARGA
” % 344 Gi;rDADAPPA sic SiD1Tu’1iviAP’r’-A
“». K’-‘5JC?.R
V ‘ i_R]Q’GADII.INGADHALLI
, T«{§CHlNCHOLl’
_ ‘mgr GULBARGA
imsponnmm
% A . lrk
. wit, Lrr”‘i’- Ivilmu i’v’iai-“i Prjwt, by isuuu
IO
{By …A.PA. Am. PA. AG.
THIS MFA FILED ms 54(1) OF LA Nae? ..AGi’§i:.:”””sa«.a V
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATE-3:” 29.1.–i2001′”PASSED ‘IN 4%
LAC N0. 625/’I:-3 Cm Ti-TE l”+’iLE C317″ THEj:.FRL; .C;iViL
(swan), GULBARGA, PARTLY M..1;ow1N’G THE REFERENCE
PETITION FOR ENHANCED »CQMPEF’!SFI.TION» ‘FiF€D’- SEEQKING ” E.
FLJRTHER ENHANCEMENT ‘V
THE APPE:u..”‘ ,,—1’Qs.’}Ivfl}-‘~13. ‘Gl’wi”‘-E-“OR OELERE, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVEJ-REi!)V’1’HE FOLLOWING:
JUDGfiEfl§Q§
of chi1j¢ho1i Taluk, Gulbarga
Distijct._v:fi£§i1. the state through the Special
Land 85 MIP, Gulbarm (‘SLAO’ for
3111:. _. }. L11. -f _.__’_11t:.11t ti_1_11;-1:1 pawn’, for at public
I
.-.u Q-I-A10
…’l1_.
2 dated 25-03-1993 under
swung 4(N1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1394, for short
” ‘Agt’ ‘the SLAO, after conducting award enqtniry based on
->=5-fies »=t.afis…1cs, fixed the market .91″… at Rs.1Q,000,I-
. Iii-I In}
‘-9 my
per acre for dry iand. The compensation “Tut
accepted by the land owners, sought lliglhts-.1′
U”*\
{L}
#2’ C-:1-an-n
_..__.__.._…_… -….. 1..-. .9.-.1:….. .. …,……………. –..i….«.”. ‘.n.”
uu.t1pcuau’I1uu uy nun; u nspusasc 1 u 1 usfificz
13(1) of the Act, which when 1=&~1;%
Judge (Sr.Dn), Gulbarga, vrias
625/1998. Before the Rofc1’c;1ce” Court, oliié:i*4’1cfsi’ci1::eti’
‘ii
–up
.::i_._,,,_. a LiA.=c,Ngs,§§é;;9s,c,p gg5;9a, 527 as
623;’ 1998 by land of arx”1i.1’i”‘fi””1 of
lands undc1f_:;t.’1c notzification
located very some public
of coinpcllsation, were
clubhpd’ t.:.~-gs.~’-._.}1;~;’,V’:*,..%c.,1%..’1.rs._..’;i;1 ’93 hcld a.1.d y a nn1um-1_
1
judgement and -__awras1*d~~’idateo ’29-01-2061 “cc-o”‘ the
valuc”‘oi’——$he acquired land to Rs.33,000/– per
i this appeal by the land owners in LAC
ii the market value.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that in
= idcntical circumstances relating to acquisition of
‘ In-n.-I knuinn 1-ha un-rvu anmnn nnfnnfinlifu in 119 ‘IP11!
IUS, 11.151.711.15 l…l.l.\.: tux’ I:m|.|..|.|u yuuuaucnuuj ua mu-.2 nun.’
same village, for the very same public purpose, under
N
U ‘\
notification dated 27-12-1992, subject
5
*=J
Ea-
‘R
E»
“‘5.
ha
53
DD
“P
r i”–deteImi1)g1tion
a Division Bench of this
2006 determined the msrkgt salsa L’
lands, therein at Rs.47, :ls.nt.1, and
that the said j1.1c_lg_m:-:r-gt. .appE§ss its fcrur’
3. V. c”urr~’i for the
judgment and award
and dated 1-7-2006 in
M.1r_,_A.€}6(§i i1:A:.”-tVlA1″s case of BASWANNAPPA AND
SPECIAL LAO, .85 MIP,
G._;ILB!$.R.Q:§.;” is appare..-it that ‘the 131163 in question
5:
‘ ‘st for a pubiic purpose under preliminary
ncufiéaéion dated 25-03-1993 while the lands subject?
of M.F.A.466/2002 of the same with
….similarit;ies and potentialities, wars .9’; the very
st-I……m.,s pu.@se, thcum, ‘”1du:-.r- a ‘T€iiIl1iI1fll’.Y ntitification
%\
{J1
A..¢-ui 0’7′ 1 0-
‘:1 if .I. ‘
Glluhll Q00 I-1’-in }’rhnI’I In ‘ ‘. Htrn
‘I
J I. .7 7H, lollla lllfllnllil “Jh”\iWflI ” . Ll
notifications being apploifimeteiy f_i1I’*ee.i: “A
Division Bench of this
relevant materials,
Rs.47,100/– per lands in
_._.1 ‘:…… ‘–1-.%;.’tv _
-…4.:-.._ 4.. 1..:…._d. ……. “H.-
53″ I aim L115 , ” ‘ 55$!’-511,53, I.
q . muuer (if
M.F.A.466/3602 dissimilar or that
they dc} a1_1_c_l_ therefore,
the of Counsel for the appellant
L T dated 1-7-2905 in
……….’I……
‘ll 1-_\_ Au’. 1′.” .11′; fifinka, _:I…4.._…_……’…._’___. L1..- _ 4..
M.r.n.IVxg.-=u3oi_z rq4a.1=c-uuuariuumig us mun I.
‘tii”i:h.-e..f9.cts of this case deeerveeasweptance.
‘ f ‘ , the appe’nan” ‘i; Has” ‘ ” ‘r’eSti’ieteu’ 5; tiiie EtIJ’],)ca1″‘
A “izo -vibe-dete1111i11at:ion of the market value at
AA .-Rs.4’2:,0O0/- per acre, nevertheless, in the of the
“jtidgment of the Division Bench in M.F.A.N_o.-466/2002,
me apmllai:-.t is din-;cf.ed. * mv “1 – d…fiei.e f h – ‘C I.L’t
‘Mr W up-In aw in w
I
.M
I
1
“P
fee a period of seven weeks irom
§:
«S
Ea: »
5. In the result, this appeal it;-:__ %’1$1t¢
mpuglltzd j_dt:11t: a_;l1ti_l t_i__s -3 Vise-» AV
.1 ._ …_.._1…4. -._1–..”,…l.’. .=..’l__ _._..’..~.’-:L.»….::1 1v.=….’.’.-1-3.4.
u unuu: us H.111 l. gnu ; nu qguuuu nuts 1,
Rs.47,000/- per acre 1
and the appcllantsnalfe pay the deficit Court
fee on the appeal today. . It is
mac 1311:? n_t C_!1titl!.’:d_ to
tiays. “i”‘né is
only after the deposit of
thfif
Sd/-3
Iudge