Srinivas S/O Laxminarayan Tiwari vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 15 November, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Srinivas S/O Laxminarayan Tiwari vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 15 November, 2011

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE ism DAY or NovEMB1«:R..20»i':i'  ~ 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTlCI?l\I;AN:AN;DA"  In

MFA No.31309/20:10 I(LAc)
BETWEEN: A A '
Srinivas S / o Laxrninarayan Tiwa-ri: 

Age about 50 years _ ._ .  V V ~
R/o Yadalli, Tq. & Dist. Yadgir  

  Appellant

(By Sri.Harsha\}ai':'ih:jn 

AND:
Spl.  Officer I 

M & MIP, Rcdm.,N_g.'7_ 
Mini Vidhan Soud.h'a,  _ I
Gulbarga:5"85 102 I  '-

 V (By IShiVakurnar Tengli, AGA)

 Respondent

Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 54-(:l")' Igandv Acquisition Act, praying to allow the appeal "wilthpcosts~-.and"inodify the judgment and Award passed by the 'Civil 'Judge (Sr. Dn.) Yadgir Dated 2404-2010 in LAC No.04 of 2003 and fix market Value for and acquired at the rate of CRs.l,OO,OOO/- per acre and award all statutory _'be,n_efits:' And grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the 'interest of justice and equity.

I\) This appeal coming on for adniission..,VthVi.sl'day, t;1h'e._ Court delivered the following: p ._ j; l The lower court records are'-.received,,.".; The rr'itat"ter'=.p is listed for admission. consentllltofvlttlearnedll' counsel for parties, it__is taken. for finai'di_spHc§sa1.

2. I have heard R. Malipatil, learned cou~nsel:pI"for=__ Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, 1e;.gn¢a.t AGA :fo'rfc'j'.Stlat_el.:p. ._ -- for appellant would submit' that the Court while determining the corifipensatio-n_ adopted capitalization method. The Court ii"/lhile doing so has held that appellant pwiaspligroiying-.only one crop per year and thus arrived at annual income.

The learned counsel for appellant would submit that this court in respect of similar lands acquired under the saine notification hﬁg taﬁinco e Vvw from two crops per year for the purpose ' annual income. y

5. The learned G.-ovyernrnent AdV'o(:uate:

submit that appellant has 'i':o:t'i.producedgdocumentary evidence to show thatxéghe 'crops per year. Therefore, the ,h.as'_V__not committed any error while' in terms of the A the impugned award and the records 'prodguicedgbyp the appellant. The appellant has not produced copies of records of rights to show that he v"vas__r_aising two crops. V ' 7:."*«v.fI'h.e-Reference Court taking into consideration loc.atiov_n~ land and nature of land has capitalised annulalincome on the basis of single crop pattern. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to lwinterfere with the judgment of Rence C urt. 1',' « dismissed. Parties to bear their Accordingly, aPI3ea1 is T A costs.

LG

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court