High Court Karnataka High Court

The Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs B S Indushekar on 11 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs B S Indushekar on 11 September, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa
?P~©mfl@wéwwr

IN3THEHKHiCOURTCH'KARNATAKA,BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11 3" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KSREEDHAR  1

AND

THE E~1ON'BLE MR. JUS'I'IC'E"'H;BI'L;AI3fv§A'V:»   

M.E.A. NO. 7951 O§*.2OO5'T
BETWEEN:-- V I A

THE SPECIAL LANE AcgU1sI*1*1O1\aO-§2'F~zcER, " -
VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, 1I1fFLQOR_.  
DRAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,' '  '  '   
BANGALORE.  H '-

    -  APPELLANT
[BY SR1 sANGAMEs1»i G.*.;>ATIL, Gv.r?.)----.'~ A 

13.5. I'§JE*usH'EKAR; _ 
  
3 i_;V1JAYAMURf_1fHY, V
-  B. 5;; ..K.E;sHNA '1v1'O'R'I'HY.
_ T.   V; »  A/IKMA'
g SUNANLTAMMA,
""11sHO13AMMA,
BHAGYAMMA.
, _ JAGADEESH PRASAD,

Fr''.O'

''  ALL ARE R/O. GUBBALALU VILLAW.
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,

aL/



OR

NO.1980. 4?" CROSS, 20?" MAIN,
JP. NAGAR II PHASE.
BANGALORE -- 78.

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
B.W.S.S.B., MALLESWARAM.
BANGALORE.

(BY SR: GURUDEV 1. GURUCHCHINAMATH; -ADV... FOR' R12} -. 

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.' 5.4m   
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANS .AWAF{I) DATE13r'30V.vO9.2Q04 _ 
PASSED IN LAC N013?/99 ON .,fmE EH;E.._'ovE_11'-,AnDL.~C1TY '

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,t"=.EtANGALo.R_E*'Cm/, CCH
No.17, ALLOWING TEE RJs;EEREN'C_E PETITION FOR
ENHANCED CoMPENSA1f§oN. 5  

This appeai is Con_1tng  'he::-ding this day,
SREEDHAR  deiivedred the._fo_1V1oWing5

The land was' Tor the benefit of respondent

No.12.’ Sn’. G{1ruAde’v”Gaehehinmath, Counse} for respondent

.aVNo.i’2V.sti’bmi”tS’_ thatwoiifsuant to the award made they have

I paid Coinpensation amount to the iandowners.

R€SAp§_’)V1’1d’€i1T.._ has deposited the Compensation amount

the exeeuting Court. Respondent No.12 has not filed any

against the award on the ground that the

_ Compensation award d is excessive. It is the LAO who is in

appeai chalienging the compensation awarded the
Reference court as excessive. When the benefici.arL$,f’-«._:if1a,s
aireacly deposited the compensation and does V.
the award. it is untenable for the LA{) to_.’fi1e–:;é£:j; “‘
Accordingly, the appeai is disrizissecli’, ‘« Q – é
eTUDGE

Sd/-Ex

UDGE