Fa.) This MFA is filed 13/8 5231} :_ei?..LAorAc~ii,V"a;gaii?.st*ithe judgment and award dated: 'O2;'.Q4/20$?"vpassed. in LAC'..No.28/2006 on the file -er the Prl. em: Jlidrgfii .«:lsr.lnnj> and JMFC, Srirangapatnac"apartly ail<)winpgh_= the reference petition for enhanced cornpensaiion andpseekiing further enhancement of compensatien'j * ' This MFA coi:1i::g it ifilearing, this day, N .K. Patil J delivered.t.he'»foi1owin'd':i. ' _ i 31 U r byljpthle_cla.iinjant ismdirected against the judgnient--V..and',;_:awiirdffdfatedl 2:1}-cit April 2007 passed in Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and (hereinafter referred to as "the" Refer-e;_1'ce: Court"), on the ground that the ccimpieiislatiion awarded by the said Court is inadequate ' and npeedspp enhancement. impugned judgment and award, the .'R_eference':--__C0urt, awarded a sum of ?2,92,500/-- per acrecir: respect of wet lands and 31,20,000/~ per acre, Afspinkrespect of dry lands, with all statutory benefits, as Vgenvisaged under the relevant provisions of Section 23 sf H the Land Acquisition Ag; (hereinafter referred tn as "the 9 WM. [ox Mwwww X' 9* 3 Act" for short). Not being satisfied by the same, the e1airnant/ appellant has presented this appea}~,,v_fs:ee}§ing enhancement of compensation. 3. Facts
in a nutshe11__ta.re__that,M’1ands’
Survey Nos.97/5, 103/7, 207/ti, Q5;/i2,diiss”/i§t+, §aiiri’jtrnd
96/ 1, measuring O~2412éi.’V:v’grintas’, O~O”E}V
guntas, O’-O8 guntas? O-13—gtii1tas, O-13’gnntEas and O~
O5 guntas respeetixdreiyag’ all Sanaba Village,
Chinakurali Hobli, ;_’Pa.nda¢yrapn;:a ‘Ta}uk, were notified
and flcotnpetent authority for
submergenti-e 5;? wat’er’V of Tonnur Tank, Vide
Pre1irn.inary dated 4*” April 2002, issued
under ‘Seeti’onV’V~.4A(‘1_) the Act, followed by final
dveeiarfation isst1eti'”tinder Section 6(1) of the Act. The
Acquisition Offieerr Nagarnangalat after
vtrith the mandatory provisions of the Act,
Apasseddthe award on 3rd August 2005, determining the
‘i13_8tt5ket vaine at the rate of ?90,640/~ per acre? in
.. Vdrespeet of Wet lands and €37,200,/- per acre, in respect
I
%’ ti,/ewe
Xi, w)»,,.»»~”‘”‘°w
of dry lands. Not being satisfied with the award passed
by the said authority, the claimant/appellantVli7:le<1_ an
application under Section l8( 1) of the
Reference Court, seeking enhaneernentof 'eo'rn1;5ensatio:ri' C
and the same was registered 2{)l(l6–.A.""l?he
said application came upl for considerationj"hefere the.'
Reference Court on_ 2nd "*l-':I.'lhe_d§Reference
Court, after assesslirig evidence
available on4_:l'ile_e 'an Apex Court
decision SC R362, allowed
the "lvalue at ?2,92,500/~ per
acre,l°*i_n" lands and ?l,20,000/~
per acre,"'~.ir1* dry lands, with all statutory
..e_Notalbeing" further satisfied with the market
V"vlai'de" by the Reference Court, the elaimant,/
.a;)!:;l3ellanltle:l:–.has presented this appeal, seeking further
enhalrteernent of Compensation.
4. We have carefully gone through the grounds
__.’:l1I’g€(1l in the memorandum Of appeal and heard learned
Additional Government Advecate appearing for first
respondent and the learned counsel appevarling_V_ for
second respondent/the beneficiary of
question. We have also perueed the”en:tire’=.0rigina;l’.
records placed before us.
5, Learned Additional V Adfiroclai-ei L’
appearing for first learned
counsel appearing /beneficiary, at
the outsetr ‘fairly lsubject matter
involved by the judgment
of the 26th April 2010 in
Civiir.:c’:)j’.’_l2.010 arising out of SLP (C)
No.207é7,llof 2l0_O8 (Special Land Acquisition Ojficer
If1§il’i,gOll1&d’v~««–C¢Fld others), pertaining to the very
V =sa1nr€”‘preIrin3.inary notification and the Very same Village
llassrthat .c5i–.jé;11::e case on hand. In the said judgment, the
ApeX;_ Court has determined the market value at
~ per acre, in respect of wet/ garden lands
___and 31,53,400/~ per acre, in respect sf dry land.
Therefore? they submit that, following the said
judgment, the instant appeal may also be of,
modifying the impugned judgment and axvairdl
the Reference Court, fixing the Mrnarket’ ‘Val-iie,o’f» the
lands at 33,30,000/~ per acre, l’l’¥1p:er
acre, in respect of dry if if if if
6, Further, they silmilargpmtitters filed
by the elaimant/ s already been
disposed of the aforesaid
decision Court.
thellsaidvsubmission of the learned
Counsel for ” 2, learned counsel appearing
for appellant does diisplute the said fact and he also fairly
s1.;«li}mits thatl’is’ine_e____the case on hand also pertains to the Very
» pi*elirn’inary notification as that of the one dealt by the
~.lelo.ri”idlVellll_;%*lpe;§:’llbourt, the impugned judgment and award
Reference Court may be modified accordingly.
Placing the said submission of the learned Counsel
7.fo’r”the parties on record and following the judgment of the
if ” ‘”‘Apex Court dated 26″‘ April 2010 in Civil Appeal
if
,f Mic
/’ M»
/i/ :9)?”
{z
No.3838 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No.2076’7 of
2008 (Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. I{;ir,f. g'(;wda
and others) and for the reasens stated thereifi’
is also disposed of’
The impugned juéjgmefifv .’
dated 2nd April 2007. passyéci Q2 ‘
Court, in L.A.C.N’€x:Z8/2006,. A
modified, detejmining. 3:116 ‘ ” njariiét vxrAa11ie at
the rate of %’2; in respect of
wet/ garden 1and_§’ per acre,
in respé§t_’ . of idry’ $111 statutory
Sections 23(1~
Cfificétdchéuvfifi§sfimafd,accordhg§y.
3&3;
Efiégé
§%i§%:§