fir
,.o.
_'§Yv.«'/LC/§.Q/Ext;-,9.
I . 'W'-V »-'t_
. IQ}. *5 2' 4
'£43 /51.510?
1 ® C.£11/l(.G»';"'l._e.C9 Lp--!oQa. C
3-3-_2_Qn_3g___
MI-'A 7080104 and H
-- ' ' -Férjlaks
n
~. <5', -fiixi «
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT. .iiA1\i(§T§1gOi§E' ; Ak 7
DATED THIS THE 7"' DAY 0F..1§'EBRU_}{R'!{ f A
PRESENT ' L x L
AI~Ii.:i_ A
THE HoN*m;;H NAGARAJ
Ivmgx. I ND. 94 i ziiiis
M.F.A. No. em.(,°m:;D. No. 9512005
M.F.A. No. "mm (3303. No. 95 I 2005
M Ir A He. 7¢.,-am (,'!l.0l.l. N1): 97 129;:
ETC.' II II
M.F.A. N6; 3154 1 2001 cm. cnon. No. 172 I 2005
_ No. 3i'55f 2?I'i*i, N1'.F.A. N0. alas I auu-T A1V'fi
' ' _ M.F'.A-a.ANa.A3157
nIi~rI*\iii.A_rar.2I.rrgovEAns,
* 1."?! ".*;'.':'§°';""*
]T)?é£':ri31:3':l,.K0r. .. cnoss-oasacron
%___<"'f'*-------.
Up'
MBA muuma and
'I1iESPEClALLANDAOQUlSII'IONOFFICl§:1?.,
BILAGI. .; A91éELLANT
In mink N0. omens:
1. SIG
KALLAMBHATTAJOSHL k %
AGEDABOUTBS '
2. v1-gnmmsu sic a
Aoenanotjrosxnzmgs, %
3. KASHlNA'i'.H8iU %
KALLAMBHATTAJQSHL.
AGED .A.Iar..~v.,I1*'.rE.A~.1m;
V'A..TAL:Bi'l.A(31 '
D_1sT:BAGAu<(xr. <. .. "' cs" "aniiwraas
""--'.--___ A,'-II 'A
. I-455513 _
Y ' 'S?EClALLAND AoQU'1sTn "N ""F"iC'ER.
.. APPELLANT
5s1a_1,
A s/o HANAMANTH BILAGI,
%ED AP:'u"u"I' 55 V'""*9
' Id' 1%!
4...
'4 '7'-awn-5?.-5
L
.2' '4»
:4
run' (!'l'h'l 1 'lT|lA1(A'kl"l"'l-'I
D1 051 I...» Ulvlnnx-u
Aug- an AI! 1"
sin. I&A1.1.ArrF\.
SIO BHEEMAPPA BILAGL
AGED AKJUT 50 YEARS.
SR1. SADAPPA.
nan -In-IIUIHIQI I Aihll I T)" Af'1'I'
SID H1-usnmnrrn Dlhnun,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
SRL B.A_SA__PPA
SIO BHEEMAPPA BI1.A(31;'* ~ ._
Ll"5'B'l'\ A'l'_1rI'll"l" Al _
AUDI) flnvun -ta suruw,
SR1. GOVINDAWI3-;.,
S10 R.A.MAPPA"BH;«AGL
vnAn&'~. . _
AGED
SRLS11.-!11~1'IM. '
WlOHANAMAN'I'H.?V. % %
AGED %
sax. c1=.=..4~.1e":~.?.4;:*!*:S;.% "
s/o gmuamamn BILAGL
"E9 k"'""""'**"'*s'
.% 3&1 .MAL!I$$l*L._
% em n-nrAn«:Az~11*11 BILAGL
llli%16'Ǥl
AGED as YEARS.
SMT...1'iJl.!LSAWWA.
aw/oH.amAMANmm1A61
;¢~ 5:31.29 A.BQLl'1'46Y_F_.ARS.
GALAGAI..l.
TAL: BILAGI.
DIST; BAGALKOT.
A
1 [|IfILVp an
M!-'A
,' ",
% x Aer-mABoUr3oYEARs,
"i SR1. BM. Afiflmi A1-':13 sax RAVI. s. B.A...A1!A_M13A,1gLBHA1TAJosHL% FL
AGED ABOUT 65 ~~.. Q_
2. sm. SHRISI-IAIL RAMAPISA 3
AGEDABOUT2,1 Y'BARf3';"""--..: % A
norm AIIESLU6 1
I. -. ' V
DIST: BAGAI .1(_OT; _
1.. rrnon;'ai0.94t2m§2:Lfi%
'I'fiE 39301;-J;,..A.1~1IJA.cc;yI_:1;3rr1oN ovmcnn,
U.K.P.. ' %
1.% sk1§)1'r; JOSHI,
AGED ,£'ii'§i'.iE:T Sf': 'I:'Enn.n" M,
% ..SMT..VLiAYAAN1LCHfliAG'"N"L
" V.-"£.L"§§'.:'.) .A.BQU!' 3.5
"1('iJ'I\riA'|'r.1-9'!
L1.
KALLAMBHATTAJOSHI.
A % ..ACf§ED'ABOUT as mus,
2.kAv:=.§i1<.A'rr:su s/o
' HAWA a'0'S"'m,
A x v«~ A.GEDABOIJT65 YEARS,
5» "
.|.¢..A..S- _LN.A_1'11 810
KALLAMBI-lA'I'I'A JOSHL
AGEE :'uEu"C:"u"F % YF.mw" 9.
t-s{\"'\-.,_.mv
-II
AIIAI I
TAL:BILA(JI, " D
DlS'I':BAGALKOT. .. TA _
-- avg-nan.-n. fifth fiijlillfl-
THE SPECIAL LAND AoQU1srTiDN 'ff "'"';1i;**
'amour- cg
1. SRI.LA}{IM.N; A
am EE.A<E,
AGED Amurkjss '
2. sm.
S10 BHEEMAPPA, H "
AGED A..E.«';EIr 5.9 ~.=.'EA1.=E,.
A s/DEHEEMAEPA BILAG,
A AGED 43 YEARS,
4. % s1i1.ADAsAEEA;%
V 31-69' ._'li'5i'!'_-E':-l?2:'\:i3'!.i"F£'\ 'fiI"LAGI,
1 AGED 45 YEARS,
* A iSP;i;..QOV!.NDA.?P2';
VSIOARAMAPPA BILAGI.
AGED Au-our '.*E.,....,m°.
*5. sm. SHANTEAWWA.
A " W10
AGED ABOUT SOYEARS,
7. SR1. CHANNAPPA,
K',-Y1"-"'-:--s¢'
MI"A'?0tlJl04uIdooIudnd
810 HANAMANTH BILAGI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
8. sm. MALLESH.
Eff)' HAN BI':':'...:'-'£1,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
9, EMT. TLJLJLSAWWA
'Wl0 HANAMANTH BILAGI,
AGEn%L*r4e¥1='..A.2.«a,
TAL:BlLAOl, %
DIST: BAGAI.1§Cfi'.v.__ aasronbnwrs
THE srwm
BILAGI. _ ...RESPONDEN'l'
(BY sm ;éLo.A. FOR smo IN ALL CASES
-51:1. BM ANQADI )%N1)..sRI RAVI. s. BALIKAI, AT)V. Fran Gram
% z.,L1;n, a
' FFi'"'E'R.
% ' .. APPELLANT
s'.:iLUMAKANTHAN, Am)
" A 1. YALLAWWA,
D/O PBERAPPA MADAR,
I-WW
f.' -7.,
.1',
VP
mum 7030104
1 1 A'I'h'I"!'l'Il'III' A
MAKDW WA
DIO PEERAPPA MADAR.
gs}?
51*'
SAYAWWA
W10 PEERAPPA MADAR.
4. SHANTAWWA S. MADAR.
Us
, LILNAWWA, H. MADAR,
nu-;1.\nnA D AMADDA v
I't'Dl'I:I'I'l'\l.\al".ILlrI.|aI.annr--r V. I
'I'
_GH.
SHWAFFA
sm:-:KAP1=A A
399°?'
YALLAVWVPPA i A
10.RAW:;MANIEIC§fi???§3A3'i3*GAR*
pd
-u
'I
1..
A....AWWA
12 "'*..;;i;1..-3L're'.*}=A1J..A.1m..x1.
'rzt.L£.I!c:LII.i4Ai;3L;TL%A&%% E
DIST:BAGAL1§.0T -- RESPOND "I3
'(BY SR1. lm. ANGADI AND sm. mm. s. BALIKAI. ADVS.)
1' V} ' {Mm ansmom
* r. syrscm. IAN!) A_...L-.1'1'10N omcnn.
IJ.KP.,
(BY SR1 LUMAKANTHAN. AGA)
gm
{
-
AHIL
j
. YALLAWWA.
we PEE”‘m-u-‘ “PA Man’ “an °
2. MAREWWA
mu P!’_’.L1R_AJ’PA
SA’1’A’v”v”v’v’r’\.
w/o PEERAPPA MAI)A3.’.. M &
$4.’?
4; S1LA.NTAWWAS;*1!9)EAI.)2\R.:; *
U!
I
I»
E.
iv-
.1
E
..»P* ‘
fi
E
D
.1’
D
6
my
PEERAs3_E
sA1DLIs_ABa”AP:1fASAB”BHAGAWAN,
9° .~= 9-
oAii3UsAB4prAsAB BHAGAWAN,
fAPP.A_SAJ_3 BHAGAWAN.
k % 11. “”*f'”I$a”I’.’wT\i-T*’z’A BAJ..A.N’r9.I,
L Y ” % ALL Animi/o GALAGALI
% »f1′.A.!;L1!$.: B!L.A_C_a’r1; %
Dzs*r:3AGALKorr. — RESPONDENT3
f ~ (air SR1. BM. ANGADI AND sm. RAVI. s. BALIKAL ADVS.)
ll.lIEA.E2:.§1§’1&
4-7″”‘*’s_\–._,
ii
25
ab
ii
5:
,5!
5;
B571;/r E N-
VVI-… IV ¢
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFHQER _ A A II A
men
(BY sm LUMAKANTHAN, AGA} A k
AND: D A
A I) D 3 V
IViELfiPA {‘fi..%@Al-‘rA Emmi 11\.I.’;. _
Rl0GAL.AGALl L
BILAGITALUK. % j I
13Ac;ALxoTD1s<i1u~;:'r;
“W 01”. B.M.;¢.%mAn1 I .
3%.
II
4!
H?’
2.
£1!
£1!
. P
Ill
:2
D
‘>
e
<
lfi
\-/
'l'HESE BY 'l'HE APPl2'.l..LAN'l'8 U/854(1)
OF THE LA AND AWARD DATED
'1'.-'H3-'c PASSED IN E..A';',.;".'(..'_$.'2l!*..".!l, 217101, 21911.11, 229101 AND
1456/00* -AND MFACROBS ARE FILED BY THE
" ». 0R"!)ER 41 RULE 22 C":-C AGAIN
" 'FEE Jll1)GMEP4.'1' AND AWARD D'l'.22.l.04 PASSED IN LAC 1456/01,
7.] 45.7f200(‘–.\,_ 1458/’20()0, AND 1459/2000 RESPFCTIVELY, ON THE FILE
(EF AIl9!}L.C’5!f§L JULYJE (SILDNE) JA_M_K_!L*\_NDl,
AND CRG””‘. A’v”:.N BEEN HEARD AND
L TRESER’JED FOR JUDGMENT AND comma ON FOR
PR,0NOU’NCEMEN’l’ 01-‘ .|Ul)GM!:’.N’l’ ‘mus DAY, Amu N.4(‘i’ARA.i,
‘ D J; IV)!’-.LI_\.-“.|E–!?.I1.L| PDLLQWLNG;
C~’t-I-____
BILAGI.
“V at
/’ . 0 . ~ réqfgfifltiv Qvncntgg m’ the renlstmdent-crnsg_1fig_3;(_31-g,=
MFA 70e0i04amiconnecuu._f ‘
fl
” 1 Ann
(‘lull “W
anneal ‘
Land Acquisition Act (“hereinafter feffilffltiritt as V’
Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafier as “the. SLe5i05*},
Krishna Project, Bilagi, aggrieved «by dated
7.4.2004 and 22.1.2004 the respeeuyeiteairemjts miiL;A(i;Nm.217/01 to
2.001 ..:1.-d 145:-0 1457; 143;: mi: 14.59′: _£*_f_’u_§M;) by the teamed
A jji 1 ____;’.\__.__
Aau1.L’;ivii Judge (iieie’i:iauf'”ier rezemeu” to as “the
reference Judge’:*). 7003 of 2004 and 3154 of 2005
I the respondent_ e’Q]a”g’m ants’ respective cross-objection
Nos.94/05 to 97/0; and 172×05 we “M1-‘.A.Nos. 3155, 3152 and 3157 of
rej cietntsfiutye to file their cross-objections. Since
nu-an _nI\:Anl:n.u:s on flint’ An than annulus
“1 uIv5″vuJwvuuun also nnvu un um nnluv
mm and’~a1’i the meat in question which came to be acquired under the
i are situate in the same village, these appeals and
flu ‘ ‘ « are disposed of by this common judgment.
it ‘V }Heard the arguments of the learned Addl.Govt.Advoeate and the
i-Levine
U
‘n-l-r—-w- u — – vwvu —- — – —r w———-.— V- —-
‘-J’lF’\d*-‘
f I
s we fil… -.-……… “Minn 34’l’}~cf_t.W-
,iflI_ _A.I_ AL-
heard the arguments or com me side’: it is rue-tiu”e’d a’II|
reference made by the SLAO to the refereneeaillflso i.
various dates of relevant notifications tire’ u
possession of the respective lands
c.p9\–F’
respective respondent;-cisimafints to the market
vaiue offine larxds a.-..–*-=- gee, wine is disptlted
is the nature ofthe land 3.-e-.-…-. thw-en,
the quantity of price of the sugarcane
considered at the market value of the
is that the
5.9
I respective 3″-ts under acquisi’.i<.e-. as M
at the market value thereofat the rate ofRs.16,iiiiiii-
sales statistics but the reference Judge come '
. said lands as irrigated ones growing sugar
i crop and in the market value by adopting the
"nethucd by telfir-.3 45 tc-.~.e cf 9.-.geree.r.-..e as per sere yield and
V V V" ._ price of the sugarcane at Rs.756I'- per ton. i-ie sfirfinitted that the
reference Judge ought to have deducted more than 50% of the gross income
towards cost of cultivation. As against the learned advocates for the
<.—–'\*'\iT-
_*’
respective respondent. – (ids:-objem”” ‘
‘I
though Exs.P.24 and F72, the yield do?’
Agticultnre,which are not disputed by the
the relevant year i.e., 1996-97 per ‘of
wu Somme,
P3?! 1
ea-.,…. _.. price Em
torus. ‘i”xie’y fa;-1-‘tar a’au.u’–‘-‘.*.$ %~.c”;t3-.”-.=-9.31.3,
issued by
which ame also that per ton ptice of
sugarcane ps., the reference Judge
unset. and therefore the market
value …..’..-..r:-.’-3.-ad” at 94¢-.t_.e; -.s.:,1;.1’t.L(,lt.)t_)_I- pet of lands under
– nit and ii” “”136 raced”: m E m’.”.e.'”*…%
reepectld 9 need to be mod1fi’ “ed ‘y. ‘flue iearnea’
cross objector in M.F.A.3l54I04 further
A_._.,
comm’ learned reference Judge committed’? “rum in treating’ 2
9 ostooo in survey No.2l4 involved in LAC No.l456/00 as dry land
the *””-.-.e as wet. la.-ad me:-.’.9.e cf g.ree-.vi:-.g .eu;I.I..rce_n.e e_n_t_l
9′ fore award inthatcaseaisoneeds’ motmcaiion.
4. Onpcnxeeloftltesaidimpugnedconnnonjudglnentnitieseen
um Exs.P.23 and pm which are the price has and l:’.xs.P.24 and 9.72 the
r~””””./_’
u .. ‘n.-g,,’__V n___A__’ ‘___ ‘LA A’ .’A’-‘ A. an V’
ytelfl ceruncam 185000 93; use I.?u””‘u:puI.Um. s-us””~”‘u.s…ae-e age nee.
huthet, as rightly submitted by the s-
cross-objectors per acre yield of is 4}
shown in Exs.P.24 and 9.72 as
per es in an
i’)§v'”‘*-i Beach is;-:3!’ .. dated. 13:.Lt.It’_: id
M.F.A.No.5’749l04 (3.59), tc .i. was s i’:
was ‘ an error in taking
45 tons as the yield certificate was to
the effect was 50 tons during the relevant
year. 1’-‘-.:.-‘.1-…-‘V; ester.-..=.-.!:¥.i miglnéll by the reference Judge in the
‘l(‘n”iI’:ifJ6i”fi.\”a’6 5.”-Id efsaig-es.-‘% i:-.the
‘undetjaequziéiaien instead of taking so tons as in Exs.i=.24
2 produced in the respective cases. Thelefcre,
esrenovsis-.3 judgment we anc of the considered view that the
‘ eught to have taken 50 tons per acre as the yield of
flier.’ V
5. Aperusal ofExs.P23 and P.7l, price lists, issuedbythe Managing
Director, ‘i~:sndi Sahaknra Sakkare Karkheue Niyam|the,’ Knalmamgm” ,
c.-f””.”‘
nfial fi
Ilfil Vulllllwvuiu
which documents are not it eeiiid be
sugarcane for the relevant year 1996-97 is as ‘is.
inclusive of Rs. sou/. being aelnal
tramportetion expenses of Rs.89.3’5:. _ H
,i-…«,:,ree_-me eeuld be the taken the
namely for the yeate 1994.95 e(Re.~?{vp/-); and
97 (Rs.800I-) east of cutting and
inc of Rs.87.52, 15.90.31 and
Rs.89.35 M
6. whi§e._4r%efe.-:9-§.=:gut.<: ..f 9.1g'en_ne 1.1.1.19.– by Lhe learned
._._..I .. -….-I 1.'… AL-
ee fine shown in i:’.x.i’23 ieameu cc-cm… IUI um
V average price of Rs.826/- per ton of sugarcane
% _ ceeeeene em at by takingthe average ofthe prices at Rs.787.52,
9 c”‘.’i.E-eAA,5!(9.9 es: -_ _e,a_:a9;s; for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and
If:
1
‘ “‘iii”‘i “ices irceiaeive sf M~’w… of e*.:’.ti::g .e.’-4′. ‘.r%-0-‘*..,……….!-fiesa.
‘ n-” .1
h V the ieamed’ supporiingihe View
bythereferenee Judge submiuedlhatthe eostofeuttingandtrampmtetion
ofsugareane wouldbe paidtothe farmers only if they deliverthe supreme
¢…..r-~—«-‘-
u
MFA 7080/04 and connected
to the factory and therefore that ca-nnc M inc.-….._ i.– __e mice or
sugarcane to be taken for determining market vaiue.
‘7. Having heard both the rival contentions as to ~
sugarcane to be considered for determination: of
acqune-J. lands we of the opinion
committed an error in taker’ the average for three. of * i’
taking the price of sugarcane during the.rre}ei**”ri’~ryeaa~ i.e;,vv.l9.ri’es,., t_.e
contention of the learned counsel cross-objectors that
the learned reference ‘should of sugarcane at
-.s=_2(>!- per ton for the said three years
“”rti’-it is inclusive ” and transportation of
sugarcane he iijiiierefere, the correct price to he
considered for value of the iands under acquisition
at} the beiiiRs’;~’¢tt:0/- per ton which is the actual price paid to
the relevant year 1996-97.
3; and per ton price of the sugarcane are taken
” ” -1§res_pectiveiy at_51’i} ‘*1 ” “id Rs.8t}’J!= the. total rnrnual gross income comes to
acre. If St)”/in of this inerrne is d%ected mt-.’er…. c-st -1′
the net annual income comes to Rs.20,000I’- per acre.
it it ‘i ” multiplying this amount with the multiplier 10 we get the market value of
«~”‘..”‘
the lands under acquisition at iv’.s.2 ir:’u:i’n’s ‘pee acre. ‘P-..e=~e.”¢§,’ ‘oi? Lise
considered view that the market value of’1he *4″! >
the cases is required to be ‘ ” ”
and the respective mponaem. an ihese
the ea.’-.~.e 9.19413 41.1! Llze __
to 7-83 I 2004
_– .. .L2 1:11′
the moss-uuguufia ‘*;j!,’;i>*’..45;.«&i.-.;;o 5?’)-
I-
and 3154 of 2005 vaiiie ii iii: rate of
Rs.l,95,000/- and they have paid the
court fees submitted
t.ls,ott_hey nee not iralue atthe me of R32 lakhs which
i- ‘-1 fi'”‘6″nS !!._sL§,l.ll_ll.).t’- acre. Per ooutta placing
‘.1’elian4;:ei.ot1LA”&’!1e deéioion of ihe }ioii”o}e I-‘.1-ex Co-.3.-t é.-3 1!-…A 9….–e of
;m.;;..~.;g:…. Tafinry qfchaalnfigal-in iilii lc 1575;
learned.’ ‘ for the respective cross-objector clumIms’
claimants cannot be deprived ofthe reasonable amount
e havenetpaidtheeourtfeeonthe
V’ a.-e e*..i*.!& gig obeetvedby
o Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 3 oi’i’ne j1id§oia’n ‘use. the e*……….-=—-t
nhouldmubedeniedthebauefitofmluneedeonxaauationmemelybeoaue
hehadnothnitiallypaidptopetunommtofeounieemdtheapptoeehofthe
,..(‘”1/”””
9 I
court should not he too technicai in this regard. i*”ii'”v’e’i.-‘.3 t.eie
we hold that the cross-objector claimants in the said
the enhanced market value at this rate of
s*.atutm less the amount which they have
to payment of deficit mart .ee on
value. x it in it
10. As to the ;_Of — ciaitm-..’:*.e
in M.F.A.Nos.315§, they have not filed
cross-objectiortc in the market value of the
‘lands u:”:r’*r mg.-.ii.i;ci*.i…u..*g eeepeeeee eases, the learned advocates
these %e submitted that by
reason; of they eouid not file their c-reI_=a-
‘. ” these and therefore in order to render complete justice
exercising its appellate powers under Order 41 Rule
rate a ‘v-“P-isle 1% claimants in other appeals,
= < we-J-J ire. V
" _ ' who have filed their cross-objections, "*'" '"– a-.-.'a…….. .A.s this
.._the learned Addl.Govt.Advoca:te submitted since the reice
respondent claimants in these MI~'As. have not chosen to tile cross-
ebjectjonc further enhancement in the market value and they have
t
I
I
r-"'"""""
MFA 7080104 and connected
not paid any court fee they cannot be awarded enhanced market
these nmealst
“I’l.’
-wu
seek enhancement of the compensation before @tppe1iee¢oun
one granted by the Reference Court he haste tile ;
his cross-objections to the appeal filed by by the
awarded by the ” absence of such an
‘””‘ ** *-” “”‘”~”‘*r-‘. to $eV~~app-ea}; “co-e.. wmtld not
award in his favour. A re-determining the
market value. :’ reasonable compensation to a
land loser is the dutp ofthe. __therefore the land loser, who would
otherwise be tovthe on facts and in law and
t..ere.m _i.-.rou..d be _;-new res:ao..a_-e _or this (Joust to award same,
same,.,si1ouid.not’oe “‘””ved on ti” technical ‘*”o”‘td t}”” $e” did not
._ V _V _ ._ 3′ 3
ehoose.toi’file or cross-objections to the appeals of the
the appellate court or that having filed such an appeal
has not paid the required amount of court fees. Under
the appellate court, with view to render complete
jflfuw
:;;.’.”4.. 1. I
‘ I. ‘L116 1533
cu.
Hi
i’
E.
:-
3
V
5
Q
>
‘E
5%
.er I…-tder ¢.)rd..e: 41
Rule 33 of’CPC and award just and reasonabie compensation in
MFA 7080104 and connected
his favour despite he not fiiing o—-.-. appeai ct’ £.’!€.’.’i”.;-f..’._;–._4i£\.!i_!VS-.:iil’l:3.._1l1e
appealoftheflovemment. A I V A4
12. In the present batch of cases it
claimants in M.l*’.A.Nos.7080 to 7033 and élsrtiofizilcé t’il;ttt:lii«.-pit
and 315″‘! of hav’ ‘-not ii-.366′. Bri
B.M.Angadi, the leamed Oolnlceiiiiftlrciaifi”-1:’-“$3, in Lhes-
appeals submitted cf their poverty and
illiteracy, could ttpt tp iii; by making payment
cf r.*eI.i.r! face? tiny pleased to award enhanced
compenauu”‘ — claimants by exercising the
appellate 4: Rails 3.3 9!’
is, tl M.F.As. in which the respondeiit — ciai-1-.a.”.’.s
iiiiliyeiiileti crow-objections and also oiltet M.F.As. in which
i i the have not filed their ctoas-objections have arisen
V pattern andthe same ‘u’rn6crthe’sc 6’ii’t”.t”-3a”.’£.’:.”.¥’.%, ifLh.c
‘A iiirespondent — claimants in these appeals, who have not flied
objections, are denied the benefit of enhanced market value which is
4!’-I-_.r
4% I
(_—–…f ‘ .
_4..-..|.-.I
MFA ourlllnnuu’
awarded in favour of all the tespondem – claimants in oiiioi
ground that they have filed their cross-objections
oisimsois have not done so, it would result iiosioos ‘
this -seize -rm «.I.i’w. sis of Anioio
India provides oi-goose”.–..=«.issiijiFos ssoss-L-.~.g so i
_- .’I..:’I!4,!;:…
denied to any one by season ofhis disisemues. ‘r”iii”u”.e-.’,
the interest” of the State so far asit . 3 ofcouit fee by the
by is-.ii_n,g concerned to deduct fiom
out of the such amount of court
fee as they he to %o”sit the some it-.t.c the C-..u.rts
‘l’hetefore, we View that the respondent – ciaimants
ltiiil-‘,Ail§los;3l.5:’>,..3l5iV ttfiti”3l57 of2004, who have not filed their cross-
be entitled to receive the same amount of
V at tho oiiiisnooa rate ofmarket value for theit
AL-
‘ ” as use rcwcitfitit = cleirt-.st.’-ts in ethos’ appeals are
14. so far as cross-objection No. 17212005 in M.F.A.3i54iti4 is
–« iiconcerned the fiirther contention of the learned counsel for the cross-
cb_I;ectot’s is that the learned reference Judge committed serious
._._i:’*–;—-“‘
Ԥ
MFA 7080/04 and connected
error in heiding that an “‘x’te-in cf two aeres e. la… …….
extent of 6 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No. 37:14 invoived in L
dry land and in determining its and tllflrkfi. value @r
93,000/- per acre. As against this ii
. submitted that based on the oral 11.1e–i3
reference J-edge rigitly erri the Agmibfb acres 38
games of hard in survey Nofi 19¢ i
and the remaining ei:terIt._cf it
14. As 14 totally measuring’ 6
acres 38 guntas reference Judge at para No.13
of the the record of rights, pertaining to
the said iarid sag-area-.e in an of 4 acres
maize and jowar crops in the r'”isir””*
of and therefore the claimants are entitled to the market
valiie.»’iitVlis.93,0()()/- per acre in respect of the said two acres of
_ V_ i asitheiiseme was dry land.
A the entire 6 acres 33 gumas of land is shown as hhagayaih iand i.e.,
irrigatedene,thoughsugarcanewas growninanareaof4acres 38gun1as
Hfifh?’
——
24
MFA ?0li)i(l4 and
and jowar and sun flower crops were grown in an area of of
the remaining two acres. Simply because jowar and
two acres of the said land the reference
considered the “*6 twe acres as it
its market value on basis. should
have considered in the fwhether the eritire
extent of the said land as er sugarcane instead of
were period. Further, it
i– –.~+. we tliat~any specific portion ofthe said
land potential enouy or unfit for
growing we are of the considered View t…-I.t t..e
market eeiue respect of.two;acres ofthe said land also should have
i it e as the major crop as has been done in
e..,,__; 33 games of the land in the said survey number.
hold that me respoitdent –~ cross-objector — claimants in
L ” e M.l~’.A.N.o.3154IIl4 (Croh.No.i72f’d5′ are eiitit…-.. m the …._rl-Let value at the
Rs.2,00,000l- per acre for the entire extent of 6 :3 -1.i.-seas
No.2l4, which is inclusive of the extent of two acres, in respect
whereof the Reference Judge determined the market value holding it as dry
,5——-~..r
a
, urmefje it “is that c”ost*t-objector e1aifi’:at”tts irt 1v1.r.
8:?
V:
….t __-._J:.._I-. 1.- …-……1 ..-……..I 2.. ”;.,.;;_.a..
limo. Atsutnumgly, inc uwtuu puuuu I “£3-53
modification.
15. In view of out foregoing tee ‘}tt§1c4t:’t.V’iat’.’i.Ei:’tlte””‘~. V
M.F.A.Nos.’7080/04 to 7083/04’, aistiitigt, 3155104., 3i5″f!tH
filed by the are respective
f”¢0tr|n£I_l”‘|;A(1I’;%I % (‘Anni-ire % be aginurntl
\.avnn”\.ruJwuu ……….
Accordingiy, aii and the respective
_ with costs holding
that the – eieimente are entitled to
the market veiueet teteei*iie.t2,oo,ooo/- per acre with all statutory
benefits 1;!
…–… tee, tite e1_ree=iy received by titettt,
|.\__ .41.
1.: I: A n….I.
tl’1.e\.aIUD.
ieeiimgtizzztttieiittiietiie M.F.A.No.3l54/2004 are entitled to market value at
tiiis tee dté,oti,ouo/- pa acre with en the consequential statutory
‘ eoststhereon for the entile extent of6 acres 38 guntas
K i ASy.*No.iVi4 involved in LAC 1456/2000 treating the same as irrigated
– i-Aim… ….t…t ct :………¢. in }’tl_}.§_A_g%_31§_-5′ 350 out 31 “7 A4′
QQKQGIJI _ ,, II
III LIE lfifiyultltfiult “‘ Ilullrllllfl In 1 sun! In
_”‘v.§ti’04witohavenotfiiedtiieircross-obgeen” “onssitaiia1so’ ‘beentitI””edtot’lIe
same market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre of their respective lands as the
respondent — cross-objector — claimants in other appeals are entitled. The
e
: «–
‘3!
MFA ?’.l84J.-‘LL4. ;-.:-..r! was-
respective respondent – in ii! these u[JpUu1′””””S fiaii pay ttteidefieit
court fee in their respective appeals four iiom it ‘*
judgment
16. The Appeals and respective erossfebijectiexzsi _ it
aw.\rt.l.i.1rI.g!y casts! The respective awards irifiterms
u. ,_
ofihis j’uu31I1″‘”‘efii.
ii SA I…
A “I 3”
Judge
:3:
‘E
Sd/-4″
Judge