RAMU Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and award passed in LAC No.53/2001 dtd. 3/3/2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi, at Jamkhandi, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the trial Court is that, the property belongs to the claimant/appellant is acquired to the extent of 3 acres and 14 guntas of Todalbagi village, Jamakhandi taluka in Survey No.303/1+2+3/3, and award has been passed in LAQ-SR-2/98-99, vide award dtd. 13/7/1999. The respondent has considered the appellant land as dry lands and awarded Rs.13,725.00 per acre. Being dissatisfied by the compensation amount, the appellant has filed reference application and the reference application was allowed in part and enhanced the market value to an extent of Rs.96.250 per acre with all statutory benefits vide Judgment dtd. 3/3/2010. The reference Court has adopted the capitalization method in arriving at the market value and hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the counsel before this Court is that, the reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that, the land which was acquired is having non-agricultural potentiality and the very approach of the reference Court by adopting capitalization method is erroneous. The claimant even though had produced the copies of the sale deeds to substantiate his case, but the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons has declined to accept the same. The trial Court has overlooked the fact that, the appellant was running a Dhaba (road side hotel), over the part of the acquired land which itself demonstrate that, the acquired lands are abutting to the main road and have the non-agricultural potentiality. The sale deeds which have been produced before the trial Court, which are near to the acquired land and the evidentiary value of the said witnesses which have been examined in respect of the sale deeds, were also discarded by the trial Court and hence, committed an error in appreciating the material on record.