IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, cmcurr BENCH AT
DHARWAD. p
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER';-;V T ' L
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.
THE }~ION'BLE MR.
M.F.A.No.3264/2QQ7,.Vlviffi'.2k. %3262,*2oo7
& 3256/2007 C:/wa1.F,4A.%%32c;o;:2oo7.
M.F.A. No. 326¥:f5fl3'(:V3j7{v'.'
BETWEEN
1.
:_..ANf1;o1 I _____ ..
THE SPL LAc$,%%Lk%% kk
HUBLI--Ai~:'§{QLA AY BROAD-GAGE
. .APPELLAN'I'.
(r5y%sz¥i; kc. : ¥'."%£'I':I:I.'AGA.)
VEERABHAERAPPA MARITHAMMAPPA
, A AGE ~73 YEARS
O(3{_3:V.AGRICULTURE
R10".-ADHARA(}UNCHI, HUBLI.
k "Ass? CHIEF' ENGINEER
(CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
om, CLUB Rom
HUBLI, DIST HUBLI.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ADV FOR R3}
2
MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) 01? LA ACT AGAE§IST’~V.vvTHE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22 /9/O6 PASAS.F_.D,: A LAC
No.44/04 on THE FILE 01:’ THE PRL. CIVIL JL1£)GE”~f{SR’;’DN},
HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE’ __H§-T.’.’I*f’:1A_’.:I(T)¢_I\t” TFQuR*A(%%
ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. N9. 3260/3907
BETWEEN
1. THE SPLLAO, f
HUBLLANKOLA RA1LwAYB9.oAUs-GAGE ‘.
ANKOLA. A * “‘~~–‘i,_~–.2APPELLANT.
{By S:-1. c.s. PATi:L’i’§’§J\F£.)_ p
1. SHIVANA1′:IAGQUE_-A .EE’.ANACrO!.}’DA ERANAGOUDAR
AGED 39 YEARS, oGc;AGRzguLT1:RE
R/O KoTAGoN:>AH1JNAs31 A
HUBLI ‘.
2. fFi~IE ASST EN’G£NEER
‘(COI%’M1″€U(1’TIOIAI)SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
ZONE. “CLUB ‘R0…_ *1, HUBLI
RESPONDENTS
S1i;”‘MA¢LLiEiARJUN B HIRIIMATH FILED)
-4 (B3311. Asfiox HARANAHALL£ ADV FOR R2)
FILED U/S 54(1) OF’ LA Acr AGAINST THE
“Jfii3GMENT AND AWARD DATED 22/9/O6 PASSED IN LAC
” A:$1Q.47,/04 ON THE FILE OF THE PRLCIVIL JUDGE (SRDN),
I-i’?’.ZI3L.I,’ PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE% PETITION FOR
‘ENH.ANCED COMPENSATION.
m?
M.F.A. No. 3264/2007
BETWEEN
1. THE SPL LAO,
HUBLI-ANKOLA RAILWAY BROADG-AGE” %:%
ANKOLA. . T
(By Sri. c.s. PATIL AGA.)
AND
1. BASAPPA BASAVANEPPA GANJAI;
AGE MAJOR % " V' % occ AGRICULTURE % _ R/AT GAN'mKER1 HUBLI '
2. smmcnlmnzza BASAVANEPPAVGANJAL
AGE MAJOR ‘ %
occ AGRI<_3U'LTURE.j'
R/AT GANTAKERI om %
HUBLI A
3. %%*r;~1E AS-_ST;_CHIEF EN’G»EN’EER
‘CONSTRi}CTI£)N.._
saum RAILWAYS
ZONE”-CLUE I-2.QA13″
k>”‘..,.”vHUBLI’ A % X
DIST HUBLI} % RESPONDENTS
my m~&:1%AsHoK HARANAHALLI ADV FOR R3 AND
SR1. s.;3. MUGADAM & SHASTRY FOR R- 1,2,)
IS FILED U/S 54(1) 012′ LA ACT AGAINST THE
‘ ‘JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATEI) 22/9/06 PASSED IN LAC
No.50./04 ON THE FILE 01? ‘THE PRL.CIV1L JUDGE (SRDN),
HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
6%
*[~5P?3¥¥ANT-L
MFA NO 3266 OF 2007
BETWEEN
1. THE SPL LAO,
HUBLLANKOLA BROADGUAGE RA?{I,WAY V
ANKOLA. %
(By Sri. c.s. PATIL AGA.)
AND
1. NINGAPPA THOTAPPA ANCB-ADI * ,
AGE MAJOR
HOUSE No.21 ROAD _
NEHRU NAGAR ”
HUBLI
2. THE DEPUWTCHIEFIENGINEER
CONSTRI}._C’I’ION?’._– & ;
SOUTH wmrgkuamzm ” ‘
CLUB ROAD _
I-IUBLI. V RESPONDENTS
gay Sri.._ FOR R 1
% %Lsm.« SABTJAY aowm ADV FOR R—2)
:1 *»–.._V.,MFA7I’S« Fi1;im7U/s 54(1) 01? LA ACT AGAINST THE
Ji;}DGMENT””«–AND’ “AWARD DATED 12/ 10/06 PASSEID IN LAC
I5Q;18_1a/Q4 on THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (sR.3:>N),
HUBLI,’ VPAR__’l’LY”‘ ALLOWING TI-IE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
–._FNHA.N’CED>’COMPENSATION.
Appeals are coming on for hearing this day,
RAO, J ., delivered the follawing: —
my
JUDG-EN?
Special Land Acquisition Officer has
challengng the grant of compensation as=,’_excessi\?e. ‘:
have filed cross-objections see1dng.»enhaneenient of
to Rs.26,000 per gunta. ‘ _ I _ V
2. The appellant ” othieri lands by
prelizninaxy notification’=dated.~”i”zl.5.0l”?l purpose and
the said lands in respect of
acquisition dated 12.5.05 have
entered into award is passed granting
Rs.6,00,0GO per granted by consent award
inclmies 11ia1*l4tet___s’alue and the structures, if any,
iI1cl1idi,11g..standi;’1g’£.rees. In the instant case, the notification is of
.2662 is clear gap of 3 years. When the land
o§g;;¢:>s,% for notification of the year 2005, have been paid Rs.
acre, it is impermissible for the claimants to seek
ii .eoi11;lensation at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per gunta. The lands
‘rthe.’claimants are acquired 3 years earlier to the consent award,
if~’iV15% depreciation is allowed, the value per acre would be
Rs.5,10,000/- per acre as against Rs.10,00,000/- per acre awarded
by reference Court. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed Without
%’/t
6
costs. The compensation awarded by the refereneee .1 is
modified to Rs.5,I0,000/– per acre. The ‘is
dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant ti’*1at’~e;_$’ee§$VV J
is made and higher Court fee is paiefby
to verify and refund the excess} ‘any, .p’£u’d.en’§the appealfi .
;jg :e§fieSdf_
%}ne e Tee’ e sd/.
3 AAAA fi4%sN§f”V% “% Judge
Nm.