TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arshavardhan R.Malipatil, Advocate for R2 and R3 Notice to R1 is held sufficient vide order dated 24.06.2013, Sri Manvendra Reddy, Govt. Advocate for R1; By Gourish S. Khashampur, Advocate for R1 & R2, L.NARAYANA SWAMY J., JUDGMENT In the appeals filed by the beneficiary - Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel is directed to take notice for claimants and learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Appeals have been filed by the Government as well as the beneficiary - Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, Gulbarga challenging the award passed by the Reference Court and Cross Objection has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 3. The claimants being not satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer have taken the matter to the Reference Court - Senior Civil Judge at Afzalpur and the learned Reference Judge, by his order dated 08.02.2012, enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,61,250/- per acre against which these appeals are filed by the Government as well as the beneficiary and Cross objection is filed by the claimant. 4. Government had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he acquired lands were wet lands and sugar cane was grown in the said lands and in the absence of evidence and material, the Reference Court has committed an error in holding that the lands which were acquired were wet lands and sugar cane was grown in the said lands. Ex.P13 was exclusively limited for the lands acquired in Gulbarga taluk which were more potential lands than the lands in question. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hirabai and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Assistant Commissioner reported in (2010) 10 SCC 492, wherein by referring the 4(1) notification dated 08.06.1995 which was having a gap of 11 years; and by selecting 10% escalation, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,58,760/-. Whereas in the instant case, the learned Reference Judge has awarded Rs.4,61,250/- per acre which has no reference and basis. He further submits that though vast extent of land has been acquired and number of owners of the respective lands were available, the claimants have chosen to examine only one witness i.e. PW-1 who had no knowledge about all the lands. Accordingly, learned Government Advocate prays to set aside the Reference Court'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% is added, which comes to more than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. The learned Reference Judge has not considered Ex.P15. Hence, the submission is made to enhance the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants also referred to MFA No.30605/2008 in the case of Shanta Bai and others vs. SLAO, UKP and others in which this Court by its judgment dated 02.01.2013 awarded a compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- per acre for the notification of the year 2003. If three years' escalation at 10% is added, it comes to Rs.4,36,000/-. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the claimants pray for enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grounds urged by the SLAO and the beneficiary is the dispute with regard to the character of the lands, namely that the claimants have not proved the source of irrigation. The claimants have made a prayer, without there being any evidence and materials, to prove the fact that the lands in question were irrigated for the purpose of growing sugar cane. The SLAO has committed an error in his report stating that he has seen the sugar cane grown in the lands in question and also that the lands in question are ir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examination or suggestions have been made to deny the evidence of PW-1. Mere suggestions made by the beneficiary disputing the production of jaggery itself is of no evidence unless it is supported by a piece of material evidence. It is to be observed that the nature of crops grown is not the matter, it is the potentiality of the land and source of irrigation, which is required to be considered while awarding compensation. It is the selection to be made by the claimant or farmer as to what type of crop is to be grown depending upon the market price. 10. On behalf of the beneficiary as well as the Government, Special Land Acquisition Officer has been examined and he has supported the findings made in the award. What has been awarded has been reiterated and no further contra suggestions have been made to dispute the claim of the claimants. No materials have been produced in order to disprove the claim made by the claimants. 11. By considering the evidence and materials placed on record, the Reference Judge has awarded compensation and while awarding compensation he has rightly referred the judgment in the cases of Special Land Acquisition Officer Hidkal Dam vs. Sri Vasanth Dattatray....