Smt Mangala W/O Shripati @ Basayya … vs The Spl Lao Upper Krishnaproject on 7 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 7'1'?! DAY OF  A' 

BEFORE

THE HOSWBLE MR. JUsT1cE;:A.sfB:OPA:§NA%   'V: 

MFA No. 1o195;2ooi'a1;A.c)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANGALA w/ Q:-.sH.R1
BASAYYA MATHAPAT1', " V
R/O. ZUNJURWAD,   V
TQ: ATHANIV-   ' %

'V   APPELLANT

(SR1. B.1\/I AN_QA~D_i','   GB 85
SR1. MANTESHTASTVTHOSAMAIH, ADVS.)

AND:

 sPfiC}--AIJ 'L.ANDHA'CQ'U1s1T1oN OFFICER,

   (BY'.S1\V2I.T;'KOLEKAR, HCGP)

UPPER KRI_SHN_A" PROJECT, ATHANI.
X ' -  *  % ...RESPONDENT

g
£52

is.)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2’00_6,
PASSED ON LAC NO.208/2004 ON THE FILE OF”~C’I\./IL

JUDGE (SRIHVL ATHANL PARTLY ALLowmm3EiHE”_
REFERENCE PEHTKH€ FOR ENEANcEoxp,
COMPENSAHONI AND sEEKEK;1wpEUETHERr_’»

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATIO.N;»V

1EHs APPEAL COAENG ON EORQAEAHESHEEEEESC

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED. FO.iIE;IOWIoDI}Gx:.

JUDoMENEpp I S 00

The appellant   of
compensation as  in LAC
No .208 / 2004 ..     the market

“fluein:REiiAiacg/{peggagijTA¢1and1osA–AibeA»e
this of the said amount.

2. I~Ieard,_theIiiilearhecfy’Counsel for the parties and

.pe1used{.the* appeaipapers.

‘ which are not in dispute in this appeal

rare theE1__ai’1cV1s in question situated in Zunjurwad

.:D_0pi’_:«.._.).?i11age Taluk was acquired for the purpose of

._U’pVper00Krishna Project. In respect of the said acquisition,

i
*%

the land losers were dissatisfied with the market Value

assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. ‘I’herefor_e,.i

had filed application under Section 18(1) of”:thle::’iiand’*–‘–ii*

Acquisition Act seeking for reference for if

considering the enhancement of the

Reference Court after consideri,iffg._thel’ rivalycjontentions
has enhanced the market .y’alue«’to l”;9.0,0C)i0’/’= per acre.
The land losers are before that the

said fixation of value Reference Court is

not appropriate sarnell’i’s._ has enhanced further.

4. the emerges that this Court

while considering; th_el’siInilar situation in respect of the

V4.-vlar1dsv»»s:ituated “t–he_____same area being subject matter of

the no’t.ificati~on_of the year 2003 has enhanced the market

vali.ie.’t’oi per acre. The said enhancement

vl*~-._p_4″Was 1nad..ellr:elying on an earlier judgment passed by this

MFA No.12l95/2006 and connected matters.

–.__lTherefore, since there is no other material to indicate that

5%

fives

§”

2

i
N

the lands in the present case are not similar to the lands

therein and more particularly, taking note of the

the Reference Court has come to the conclusion *

lands in question are irrigated sugarcane groizsfiiig lan_’_ds,’I_

the same market value is to be fixed initiheiiinstant

also. 2 V’ V_ 1

5. Accordingly, the judgrriie-nt ‘.._»dated’–:_él5.V§8.2OO6
passed by the Referencve”‘-z(V;0ur~.:.1 holding
that the appellants’ are value at
Rs.2,18,000/–€. entitled to the
statutory incurred in this appeal.

In terrnsohf the appeal stands disposed of.