SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. KALLANGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the course of hearing these Appeals it was pointed by the learned Government Advocate that I.A. under Order 41 Rule 27 was allowed earlier by this Court permitting the appellant to produce the additional evidence. This additional evidence is alleged to be a statement filed by the claimants dated 14th May 1986 where under the claimants stated that the market value of the acquired lands will be Rs, 50,000/- per acre (in one or two instances it is Rs. 35,000/- per acre). The Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7.53 ps. per square yard which comes to nearly Rs.3,28,000/- per acre. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate, that the claimants are not entitled to seek any amount in excess of the amount claimed by them in response to Section 9 notice received by them. We do not express any opinion whether at this stage the said statement now fifed before us should be relied upon because throughout the appellant has been contending that the claimants had not filed any response to, Section 9 notice. Since the Bench had already allowed the application the impact of the said statement will have to be considered along with the stand taken by the appellant stated just now by us.

(2.) The learned Government Advocate relied on the observations made in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs RAJESAB HUSSAINSAB KALBURGI at page 4261 which reads thus:

(3.) Mr.Vijaya Shankar, appearing for the claimants, contended that these observations are not warranted in view of the amendment made to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act and these observations in fact indirectly inducted into Section 25, the provisions which were deleted when the Act was amended. This apart, if there is a statement by a claimant the said statement cannot have a higher status than an admission and the claimant is always entitled to explain awav the admission. The manner in which the admission can be explained away cannot be restricted in the manner it has been done in the above observations The circumstances of a particular case themselves may show that the claimant's statement made was erroneous or was the result of ignorance.