High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Appasab Tukaram Bhosale vs The Spl Lao Upper Krishna Project on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Appasab Tukaram Bhosale vs The Spl Lao Upper Krishna Project on 26 August, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA E i'  
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD  " '

DATED THIS THE 26'?" DAY OF AUGUST,:'j2.O  4- _  "  

BEFORE 

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICEVA;'$Mi3OP}§;I$IPI.A«. " 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL» No. 101S3,?2o0:7ILAC1
BETWEEN:

Sri. Appasab Tukarazn }3h.OSS_1e  1.
R/O. Zunjurwad, Tq.-Athzjinif   
     __.APPELLANT

(By Sri. B.    Hosmath, Advs.)

AND:

'The Spl. LaI1xcTACqui'Si.tiOrI" Offlcer

Ethan?'  

 ('By   HCGP)

Upper Krishna Project

 RESPONDENT

MF~A FILED U/S 54(1) OP LA ACT, AGAINST THE

‘ “C’JUDGMEN”I’ AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2006, PASSED IN
_1;A’C_N()~«..203/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),

_’ATH_AN},’ PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
7?-…_’FOR; ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
I PUITTHEP ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

1; IE§»::.W%WW.«I

to

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADM1ss1oi=1\::’j««TH:s

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING}-. .i § ,_

JUDGMEN1; 4

The appellant is _:seeking_ ii ‘ = enharfi.z;eI:nentii’3 ‘ -‘

compensation as against thevfisum iiawaredediizi in LAC
No.203/2004. The Refefenee.g’iQ_o}m__ fixedwthe market
value at Rs. 1,90,0Q0/ – perpacre is before this
Court seeking the.:sai’dv–arriount.

2.3}-Ie_ardii’E’the_iilearned Counsel for the parties and

perused thepappea-1 ”

facts”wh–i–oh are not in dispute in this appeal are

V in question situated in Zunjurwad Village

Taiui{“i.:xi’as acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna

i’Project;~ in respect of the said acquisition, the iand losers

i”E–§ver_ei’d«issatisfied with the market value assessed by the Land

Aefquisition Officer. Therefore, they had filed application

E
2%?

‘jaw

= e

Ra.)

under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking for
reference for the purpose of considering the enhancenient of

the market value. The Reference Court after consi_d’eriiig5 the

rival contentions has enhanced the markezt C’ to V’

Rs.1,90,000/~ per acre. The 1an;dAAii1o’sers'<.are-tbefore'ithis

Court contending that the said fixation-.of

by the Reference Court is not afjprepriate' and .the"'same is to V

be enhanced further.

4. At the time that this Court

while considerii’r~ig__the ‘.si’1rii1ar_* situation in respect of the
iands situated in’i.th’ei’sain_e”‘area being subject matter of the

notifi.;’a’tion of the “y’eariV’2()TO3 has enhanced the market value

~ permacre. The said enhancement was made

A”re_1yi_ng an fea.i*1ier judgment passed by this Court in MFA

No.i”219__S/21306 and connected matters. Therefore, since

. there is”n.o other material to indicate that the lands in the

_’ }’:.re’sent case are not similar to the lands therein and more

it “particularly, taking note of the fact that the Reference Court

iii
e

5.
E
2
,.i

has come to the conclusion that the lands in questilong are

irrigated sugar cane growing lands, the same marbgetvlaliie “is

to be fixed in the instant case also.

5. Accordingly, the judgment passelld.

by the Reference Court stands mod.ifled

appellants are entitled to the valu’e.l_ata]l§’Es.l21;lé;O0O/– l

per acre. They are also ént_itle_dltold’th;e statutorjbenefits and
the costs incurred in this apl-peel’; ‘lb

In .ltelr’r11.s:Csf the:.;abo’re;–.the “appeal stands disposed of.

sea
Eases

s’a,,b/”<i_f "