The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Smt Sakamma W/O Late Siddegowda on 21 October, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Smt Sakamma W/O Late Siddegowda on 21 October, 2008

Bench: Manjula Chellur

 ammo =    

E

IN THE HIGH COURT' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 213? DAY OF OCTOBER 2008___

PRESENT:

THE HOIWBLE MRSJUSFICE MANJULA QHi§LL{¥jR  

AND "

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.»;,A1{EsHAvAN--ARAs*A1=eA  " 'V 'V

M.F.A.No.3771/gods 11,-A}.C)iv"   L '
M.F.A.No.377g/2o.o3~(LA) ' "

BETWEEN:

IN M:;F:A.N0';3?E7"1)"2<>93 E'

THE SP_E3_CIAL LAM}, At3QLIIsi=11x.QN.%0FFIcER,

MYSQRE URBAN Li7E'v£'L91>ME_NT AUTHORITY,
JLB R'{_)Ai'),' MYESGRE _   'V L ~
BY SRI;S.PALAIAH~  _    APPELLANT

(ByVS;'i. P. $;Mg§N.JI;INATH"'$u SR'I.VIVEKANANDA.'I'.P., ADVS.)

A  

MAJOR,  
w/0 LE;TE.SIDDEGOWDA,
RESIDENTS 012 ILSALUNDI VILLAGE,

 JAYAIRV---'F'0R'FURA HOBLI,

V' ~ MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT.

 . RESPONDENT

 '*«:('a'yEsr1.G.a.:4ANJUNATH, ADV.)

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 54(1) 0? THE LAND

V' WACQUISITIQN ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

_\f_\

DATED 17.4.2008 PASSED IN LAC 530.358/2004 ON THE
FILE OF' i ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 CUM,
MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE ?ETITION
FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION.



IN M.F.A.No.377g/2003

BETWEEN:

Tm; SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION, OFFICER,  '
MYSQRE URBAN DEVELOPMENT;  V  = = %
AUTHORITY   

JLB ROAD, MYSORE, ,    3
BY SRI.S.PALAIAH *    ..;v-APPELLANfI""--~~ 

(By S1'i.P.S.MANJUNA'I'i~I 65 SI§I_J\}'I:\("E§$§AN.A'IH'DA,fI',AE§'., ADVS.)

AND:

1. DooDATHAr<m%;Gc§w:>A'V.«:
GR,   _ % .... ..

s/0 my-E      

2. Munuggeowm.» *
MAJOR,      
S/G-APACHVEGOWDAV4  "

3. SMT. Ha.MBA1,AM'MA__

M.A_--:}0R, " . A " *
wgo LATE CH-EKKAIVIYDEGOWDA

  AL1.:Ri3$I~9_ENTs or
 {_ K'. SAL! 1Vrm1~vvivL1.gAGE,

JAYAER 'mRT'L§RA HOBLI,
wgona TALUK as DISTRICT. .. RESPONDENTS
(ay"'sr;L.G';'s.MAN.311NA'1*H, ADV. )

 ..  mis M.F.A. IS FILED UJS 54(1) OF THE LAND

'  "«.?.CQU;ESFFION ACT, AGAINSI' THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
%  DATED 17.4.2003 PASSED IN LAC 1~:o.332/2004 ON THE

  FILE ()1? I ADDITXONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM,
 -MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
 FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION.

THESE M.F.AS. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS .

DAY, M}1NJUZ.A CHELLUR, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:



JUDGMENT

This appeal pertains to common judme1;if '»wiﬁ1 regard to LAC Nos.332/2004 and 353/ 2Loo4; Doddathammegowcla and Smt.'::~sx¢:~A.,:::f'3*f g 'V :

acquisition of land bearing and another land bearing»c'Sy..I\¥o. J,_ sf acres, respectively, situate which were the subject matter notiﬁcation and final noﬁﬁcaﬁon under of Karnataka notiflcation in the . 199'? not in dispute. So far as ownezfshiij; Atzitie and interest of the present V' . resg5lective'vo--xjesporidehts herein are also not in dispute. ~. ; Acquisition Oﬁicer in the course of g s.c<ii1izsiV§;iVoi:i V proceedings after taking into consideration V' V' V. statistics from the sub reg'strar's oﬁice ' to the year 1997, ﬁxed the compensation at Mf2s.1,55,O0O/-- per acre. He considered the lands in question as agicultural lands because of the sales statistics. When the matter was taken up before the reference court by the claimants, the authority contested the matter. Evidence _ the claimants not only that of oral but ot;'~:eff: ~. were also relied upon by then} claim that the lands respondents hereunder has jtéilue than ordinary ofﬂle land being situated in outs and also being within of f}'oi?t::_at 34 kms.

'uI"11eV of the reference Court after taking other facts and circumstances '_uIt;iﬁete1y relied upon Ex.P.2 in order to \\r\ V Rs.1,55,000/-.

aesess..the' inarket value of the land in question in the i.e., the year of preliminary notiﬁcation. he enhanced the compensation to 'R's;--13,49,000/- per acre as against the compensation

-atvarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Apart from this compensation, other beneﬁts allowable under the Act like solatium, interest 5 etc. were also awarded. Aggrieved, by the said award of the reference court, the acquiring authorities have challenged the award contending that the very adopted by the reference court placing _ Ex.P.2 pertaining to LAC.No.46{)/93 ., according to the learned ?:...g; appellant, in LAC.No.4--6O/931,.'the7l,ai3!iV at:

small piece of land which K We railway lines situated in at Therefore, placing P32 f'iS'e1*Ioneous approach on the part the' is the contention of the counsel foe' appellant 1'--'..sn agai_I'1et----~this, the learned counsel appearm' g " -~ respondents brought to our notice Ex.P.2 several facts were taken into considejéation by the refexenee court to arrive at the coﬂpensation now awarded and those factors are f 3 it _;~§ubsta11t.iated by exhibits and also oral evidence of P.W.1. Before the reference Court, he relies upon Exs. 19.3 and 4, 8 to 21 photographs, Ex.P.5 -- a booklet acquisition. but the land pertaining to the pgfesent ciaimants is about 3 acres each.

6. On perusal of the entire judment we note that the Lands were acqtxired not"

purpose of installation of I11dia1;1.AOiI_' for putting up a residentiai fo14'tIo_e the V V L' said company. The said in} between two railway lines of the easy conveyar;-§A:e,_ lajnri-.§vas";«identiﬁed as best suite(I*__ land __ - ' 7 Q The at the compensation of Rs.%{;,5<),ooo;d_%w'ato 13;--:.I5.2 in LAC.No.460/93 was the Tfvalue said land with regard to the "' 1fee_iden4t:j-zga. e{te*S situated at Brindavan Extension nearby the--- land the said case. In other words, the learned Ju.(:14ge"i'1.t.1 LAC.No.460/93 did not assess the quantum of "eora;§)ensation based on the fact that the land was "'eequiz*ecl for the purpose of commercial activity and therefore higher compensation has to be awarded. On the other hand, the learned Judge with reference to a ,\ , \m residential colony i.e., Brindavan Extension, placing reliance on Exs. 13.9 and P. 18 in that case Rs. 19,053,'? 50/ -- as the cost of 1 acre and 50% towards development charges in ortier toe" = iand suitable land for resideIitja1:_"'p1iri5ose.' Rs.9,52,875/-- as the ni:a1'iget "va'.1V:1ie_ ;ana. Ultimately, he reducepi it to S3,5ﬂ,,O0t.)/'*-

8. In the light of deﬁnitely the argument of V tiie.._1eaif1'§ed' the purpose for w11icf1__t11e was acquired has to be taken note of, i's,_'_re.jeotetit:1)3I': it In the present case also, we no,?.:e t1ie'~..ei(:_idei1ce of P.W.1 who is examined on oiajmants that there are several residential to the iands in question like Mysore V x.;Em;ployees Layout, Siddaramaiah Layout, V' District Journalists Association, Government Housing Society, Subramanya Housing oo- operaﬁve Societies Layout, Kaveri Housing Co---operative Society layout and proposed Chamuudeshwati layout. Apart from this, he has deposed before the court that ii reference court in arriving at the compensation of Rs.13,49,000/--- per acre in the present case.

10. Accordingly, We do not ﬁnd any 4. to interfere with the judment theu reference court. Hence, ﬂ1ese"1'a;§;ceéls dismissed.

11. Accordingly} " are dismissed.

A, sdﬁ Judge] .....

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court