I Q9
;
% *r:--u:: 3191,. LAND A
GFFICER
VISVESW
3
BANGALORE"
1
I}! THE HIGH covm or mmmrmm AT a
pawn rms mm 26%' my or
pnmsrrr '
THE HOIPBLE @.JU8TICE'V;
THE HON'BLE nm.JU8TICE__ A
H.F.A A2
9_/w M.F'.A Crob."Rf9.
Nu
,_QU1SJf_Ifl:a£k.J ,, %
Ai<AlA'fi'A(;L'::'iN'1'i <te:€;_ %
RD FLOOR,
(By Sri I
1
3
Kl;'€iSHNA PPA_V_V"
% _AS&iAf}é51'flA§PA
A1<.««1. ARE R/A HANDARAHALL1
CIIE3'I1*§;AP\AYAPATNA norm
..'1fQ DEVANAHALLI
DIST BANGALORE
fi:'m_«2 CHIEF CONS'l'RU(3'l'ION
ms: Gm::1.c1) moo
BANGALORE
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
OPP: CMS OFFICE
AGARAM msw
BANGALORE
5 PA'l"i'ANAi)APPA (gr;
PATTANADAPPA
s/0 LA'l'E CHIKKAPCYIBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R,/A AN DARAHALLJ VILLAGE
CIIANNARAYAPATNA IEQBLE' §
'FQ DEVANAHAIJLI .. " "
DIST BANGALORE ..';.__I?;3)SPON1*)Eh"I'S
(By Sri RKRISHNAPPA-ADV' Vi A
Sri N.DEVADAS-Sr.ADV AI\_I_1i).__ L'
Sri 1~1.<;.su:v1)1<1,«;sut::eA1)vw§ism-a ;=e:2';=._
'1'1--us M.i<'.A 1S i<'lL;.ED' v'U'/$J:)C.';34;(_'.1) or' L.A ACT'
AGAINST THE JIIDGMENT~ Am) AWARD D'I'.19/4/2003
PASSED LN LAC3.Nf<3.51»'l/ 199.63 'c.)N.i:'m1.+;.i1«'1L1«; Ob' 'mg; 91¢.
CIVIL JUDGE(SI€5.'D_N..) 4 B_r3N(3A:.oRE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE,' _PAR"i?'LY"if-ALLQWING THE REFERENCla)
PETITIGN. , "
IN M.F.A c12FoBV';V1'Is!a,'2%r_5%zv%.
sE'rw1:EN& -
1 KRISHNAPP-AV: %
v:$_f~0;»_A€31PlzMALLAPPA
" ._ {JV'{%E_i_«€i_£V1ALLAP1'A
A:a:AI{DA15PA
s/cs ;;;:<1MA1.LAm»A
7? ARE R/A HANDARAHALE .1
WVCIIENNAPAYAPATNA IIOBLI
FTQ DBVANAHALLI
' DIST BANGALORE ...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SR1 P.KRlSI-INAPPA---ADV)
~w'
AND
I 'l'HE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION ()FFlCER
VISVESWARAIAH CENTRE
339 FLOOR, POIDIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2 'me: ADDL. CHIEF CONS-'i'RUC_'1'1'()N
I:'3NG1NEER(RFD) V
TIIE DEFENSE REs13:AIe'c1I*& .
1)EVi:)LOPMEN'1' 0RGAN1$A"i'10N
CAMBRIDGE RoA'Lx_
OPP: ems OFFICE".
AGARAM POST
BANGALORE. % ...";.._RES:}«'€)NL)EN'l'S
{BY SR1 1.. 513A :e*(}1<'1{1%,'%Vs1<1 N.lJEVADfib',
SRADV. AND S12}_Il.C--;SL)'.NDA173ESl"»;,'FOR R2)
*1'H.1S"Ci;a. 15; F.!._Li:?1} U/0.41 K22 Ob' C1-'C AGAINST
THE JUI;}vGl\_dEN'1 "»g'§a-.VA.?;.'€(""7-§_I3' 19/4/2003 PASSED IN LAC
No.52/1998 on 1&1':-212, ;+*u,'is:.v«"o1<' 'rum 91¢. <.:rv,u. JUDGE
(SR.DN.) BANGALORE DISTRICT.
';*§§11s%AAm=EAL:zg;w.cR0B HAVING BEEN HEARD AM)
xl€F2SEf~?VE.I) JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR
'i'ROPJ{)U§§iC3$MEN'l' THIS DAY, ARAIJ NIAGARAJQ. J.
DELF{ERE§:D_&TIIE EOLLOWING:
L JUDGMENT
A This; of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
for short) and the carresponding cress~objecttion
%% filed by the respondent claimant herein and also
V ‘*..,I§}LB’.A.Nos.4949/04 and 5045 to 5050 of 2004 and the
cormsponding Cross Objections therein which have been
disposed czf by us by the common judwzlcnt dated 26.6.2008
have arisen fmm the common judgment and the respective
¢…..s.”*-<-v-K.-«-…..«~
awards dated 19.4.2003 passed by the learned
(S-r.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, k3aI1gaio;¥'e,." '
referred to as the "Reference for K 3?
land acquisition cases namely LAC 43 "
to 51 and 53 of 1998 11 to 3:; o1fL2oti1.ha'r;d 2-1; am; ef 2052.
2. The respondents were the
claimants in LAC No.5§i as well as the
cross–objeetor the said common
judgment by the said Reference
Court. 4″ta*he.:jvasA theflrespondent in all the said
37 land ae¢quis:e§f§tttd;;ero;~e the Reference Court, has
preferred teppeek, the respective awards and the
jud’g11’ie–:1t. E”3ev’em of the 37 appeals nameiy
‘1’»1A.F.:A;:~aos.c<§949tje<} and 5045 to 5050 of 2004 along with the
V' ';u§i)es~objeetions are disposed of by passing the
'common jfidgnlent as stated above. Now the present appeal
ii?i.tJ1 the corresponding cross»-objection are taken up for
in the light of our said common judgnent.
3. The cross-objectors have claimed irxitiafly, in their _
V. crossmbjecztions enhanced market value at the rate of
.Rs.1,(}(3,U()U,/- per acre in addition to the market value of
(._.£”‘\r-“\__,/-…a–
5
l{s.3,30,0U0/~ awarded by the Reference Court. _4.$u’jljeequent
to the filing of his cross-objections the
filed the application under Order 5 Rule 152
152 and Order 41 Rule 3 cm they 7
prayer column in their croseeobjeetions
market value at the rate of addition to
the market value of the Reference
Court. This opposed by
the appellant =i ” objection to it.
‘0
Similar applileatixozglfiwae the crosswobjections of
the -the said seven appeals which
came to by passing the said common
Judgment
l the arguments of Sri L..UmakaJ1than,
appellant, Sri N.l)evadas, learned Senior
2 for second respondent beneficiary and Sri
l learned counsel for the cross-objector. Since
and the above said seven appeals which have
V disposed of by us have arisen from the same common
lljifiglllflnt, the questions of fact and law involved in all the
appeals are same. Therefore, following our said judgment, we
hold if} this appeal also that the amendment petition filed by
.w-~3″””””I-*’\.p~
7
15037512004 filed by the c1aimantsg”».i_$..V_hereby
ailowedinpartwith costs. L.
The cross-objectors, who ~ ”
L.A..C.Na.52/1998 beeneeédftfi::;r1eAJ:aa§~keteeh e
value at the rate.*ef_ with
all consequential awarded by
the Referen’ce_.'{‘–>QAuff ‘common judgment
and award other 36 cases,
leséeflv jjA–V§§ehi;5ensation which the
iv) The accordingly. The
deficit eeposited by the mess.
V objecter eight weeks from the
. ihgh-:a”u?i;1g up of the modified award. The
_ V ‘ewners are also entitled for costs
_ to be paid on the enhanced
_ .. . .A amount in this jtgdment.
Sd/is
Iudgé
Sd/-
Judge
Sgsl