Shivraya vs State Through Special Land … on 7 March, 2008

;KlSHAI'u RAG

but

IN THE: 1-mm coum or KARRATAKA,   

DATED mm THE 7" nmr'"<w     "

nm-~oRis:V_%  T "

BETWEEN 

IN MFA ms   IL '

AGED  sift: f'a.1I5Arm_A
R] o* _1<:oDL1 ALL~AFuTR;v.cB._1'r+:cHoLL1 TALUK
GU LB-ARGA DIVE-§TRICT.__  

 -   ..   APPELLANT

1;&§f'_l.I"!E..1L 13:; me or 2.006

A  AGED_M%AJQ:2, 3/0 NARASING RAO
.  THROUGH LR.
Kswrr. sH:m*HA BAI, MAJOR

WI O..__'N}'~;-RASING RAG. R] O KODLI ALLAPUR
CHINQHOLLI TALUK, GULBARGA DIS'I'RIC2'I'
 '  APPELLANT

  -QFMFA no 7351 or 2006

 HANUMANTH RAG

Sit') RAC:H1'\?PA, MAJGR

R I O KODLI ALLAPUR,CHINC1-IOLLI TALUK
GULBARGA DIS'I'RiC1T

MQKAPPELLANT



N)

A ll.

iii iii? fie 7352 r- '.'5uuo""'
RAMANNA

S10 SAIBANNA ;

MAJOR, R/0 KODLI ALLAPUR,   n 
c:H1NcHoLL.1 TALLIK, c_;uLB_ARc;A':3_1s:R:Gr.'

IN mm No 7354 on 2006 

SHANKARAMMA   ,  ~ V

W/O HANUMATH RAO;'w~.JOR  _ ._ 
SINCE DECEASED TH_RQuGH,_L,R-' ' 
HANUMANTH. Rag, 3/0 RACHAPPA, -MAJOR
R,-'f.') KODLI?_AL1g_A;Pl_3R; Ci,-!iNCH()Ll_;E' TALLIK
GLILBARg:--A'r;Js<rs_2IC':fj  "   »

1 Vv"'S}'iIVf<A'x%A ff   4.  T
Sm *ms1iAPPA,""_MAJoR

~  HASHFW'-PA. MAJOR

%  _'  _ "%1v.1§PgNm:N'%NA L

 (By Sri : N MADHAVA REDDY&.

  HRSHAPPA, MA 'c»R

 .-__'DHA§iI§MANNA 3/0 LAXMAN
. Manon
'=-«ALL ARE R/0 KODLI ALLAPUR
CHINCHOI.-L! TAL-UK

GULBARGA DISTRICT'

- A gu--nu-u

HAFTSH SHE"T'TT, ADV F'O'R A'""t")LLAN' ') fig

,l_J\

T.  ; % ; .;.; .4§§PELfiAr4ff »



A1

I'\
II

STATE THROUGH SPECIA' LAND 
ACQUISITION OFFICER
M 0. MIP, GULBARGA

T.' '.'. ..EESP0nj'E.EHT

(By Sri: M NARAYANAPPA, 

THESE MFAS EJLEE fU/5'.-_'~. V5411) "OF LA ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND' AWARD' EAT'-E_E; 15.3.2004 PASSED
IN LAC NO. 412/2002," 413/200E-, 4~.1;4;~2002, 415/2002
418/2002 85 ;4'x9_; 2002,'RvESp'E§:TIvEL:Y;' ON THE FILE OF
THE cIv1L:;JUE.GE :(SR=;DN),"SEDAM,..--PARTLY ALLOWING
THE EEEER'E.N_'.cEe_'  E?E'Pi']'£ON . FOR ENHANCED
CQMPENSATEQN AME  }?';IRTHER 
OF cQTM,PENSA'~31_QN.... "  ' " 

TEESVE""AEPfEALS_;"COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY THE C1QURT__DE,l.~IVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:fJEDGMENT

 ;_.r1}11e;.e afipea1~s«01oug11 listed that admission, with the

'    learned counsel for the parties, are finally

.'   Eiieposed off by this common judgment.

H  These Elppeals arise out of common judment and

 ,jau}'md dated 15th Match, 2004 inLAC NoS.412 to4I5 and

 418 and 419/2002 of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Secllam. for

Short Reference Conn. 

  ie¢0~iM0NI T



3. The agricultural lands, the details of

situate at Kudli village, Chincholi taluk wezfi'  

the State in exercise of its em: Vmwent &cl'.em_sif1*  by bf

issuing Section 4(1) notification,  o11T»"4VAA..b'~.

-::"1':st3"'aC'u:r"' oi A}}""pT.ui" mi1'z:   i
:31.  Nos LKC.'Nos  Extent
7s4me' e 4&2/027'  33% 3-20
7330/35  ~ "I313    ; 4.1' 7-30
                pk
3 7351, 36 ~ . V 4 1 i«Q_2 42 5-00
4 7332106 .  37 3-20
5 7'5 ;0& "e.413,i.32 42 5-00
6 7355106 419102 36/13 3-33
______ .. (M3 pk

  1 "The  Acquisition Officer (for short LAO)

.'   enquiry and based on sales statistics

 the market value of the acquired land at

" ~ AA  - per acre, which the owners of the land being

 



414;-:.:~eo2 we  as r'w--i 333611 
were marked as F;-c.P-1 to F'-9.J\§rVIii'Ie .1: 
neither oral nor docuxnentary  he
Reference Court placing  ion
and the decision of this MFA  heid that
the yield per acne     6 qtls. of

jowar and 6 (11713. of jvaiteinate crop and

-,---_n.1L1g tLc---pnce  quntai mat RR. 1509, - mud
Re 425} -- rm" :cti*§*c'*' as diwlwearl in E*'.P':'. the 1}"'iC-'5 "ct fo*

the  '    of the gross income of
the  heducfing 40% towards cost of
caltivation    income for one year. and applying
A.'1Oi't,iiiide'aei'1Vnined the market value of the acquiied
'  Re;:3-$,600/- per acre. Hence. these appeals by the

it   lands, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Q 'A  Sri V N Madhava Roddy, learned counsel for the
  contends that the Reference Court. feil in error
 in reckoning 9.8.1994 as the date of prefiminaxy notification
issued under Sec.4(1) of the IA Act, though the

notification was gazetted on 4.5.1995, as moulded in the

ivk



award dated 25.6.1997. According to the lefilgfllfltllli

the price for one quintal of tar   

construed for the year 1995-96. {as  

list i.e., Rs.2100f- and  

reckoned the total value of    two years

'.=. Re.15 9eo,I- and en; ,-susm-:~Io'-  :'-n~._i .11 is 123.7930!-

u.u- ..'nvrr.nun.»3' .-- rv--} _ _

hi

, __1__,L:__ Anni, a...-......,.l.v ...}.,..
. . ,

_ r-v-. 

net incomg     788;' - and appljrirr
mu1up1iefe~..Vf1h:_:   the acquired land is
Rs.4-E? hastens to add that
the  «fiat justified in reckoning the

pijiee pf    for the year 1994-95 to determine

. l  " . V  as tlielinarket value of the acquired land.

 .. Pfefviiconna, learned Add}. Govt. Advocate for the

ieap(indent- LAO seeks to sustain the impugned Judginent

V "   as being well merited, fully justified and not

  for interference.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

examined the iinpugzied Judgment and Award, material on
9. I

 
 



recorci and the evidence both oral and  a

patent is that the Refelence Court  'the i j 

date of  4(1) notification as  

4.5.1995

, as inentioned of

the LAO and as a consequeHii€:eV_ in earmr iii Ieckosilig

the price of jowar and Q ‘ ._ye.,..nr 19944.15 as

Rs.1500j- andA.Rs,425_,!.n.pei’ qtiintslgrespeefiveiy, as set out

i.. E-x.P–9 the _1i:~3t its c’:e4f:miIie'”‘” the market value of ‘

:9-

‘ie the date of publication
of the the Ielevant year is 1995-96

for the’pVu1’pose,gif the price of Jowar and tur.

V6. ..ccep€:Lug we c”i1te11″on of the learned counsel for

that the price of tur and jowar being

“”Rs.560/– respectively, as disclosed in Ex.P9

fdi*–the._9y.eai*: 1995-96 is applicable, the value of 6 quintals,

..6a(‘3i1..6’fitllI’ and jowar is Rs.12,600f- and Rs.3360/-

‘..V_ies;i’ec:tive1y, totalling to Rs.15,960/-. Taking average of the

V9 V. ._..ira1ue of the two crops as Rs.7980_/- and deducting 49%-

towaids cost of culfivatioii Le, Rs=3,192,f– t…e net income

fm,m_ _n_. “m cf the acquired land is f<'s.="r'}'88;' – per year.

Applying multiplier '}.O', the market value the 4_

land in question is Rs.47,880/ — per awe. V '

In the nesult, these Va?-1)41_')ealV'<§*
impugned Judgment and is the
lnarket value of the per acre
entitling the accoxtlingly

together .V V' V

I.–'I .

:1 2.

Q3′–In
IV!
(D