RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for acquisition of his land.

(2.) SUBJECT matter of these proceedings is land bearing Sy.Nos.52/1 and 53/1 measuring in all, 5 acres 19 guntas of Peenya Village, Bangalore North Taluk. These lands were requisitioned by the Defence Department in the year 1942 -43 under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The lands were continued to be in possession of the Defence Department till they were acquired in the year 1986. The Assistant Commissioner and Competent authority under the Act first respondent fixed recurring compensation by virtue of his order dated 14.08.1985. The claimant was eligible for crop compensation from 10.01.1968. Thereafter, first respondent revised rate of recurring compensation at Rs.750/ - p.a. from 01.01.1980 to 31.03.1985 and at Rs.1,125/ - p.a. from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1986 by his order dated 14.08.1985. A notice was issued to the claimant. The claimant challenged the order of the competent authority before this Court in W.P.No.9675/1991 seeking a direction to appoint an Arbitrator. This Court allowed the writ petition directing the Government of Karnataka to appoint an Arbitrator as required under Section 8 of the RAIP Act. In pursuance to the order of this Court, Government of Karnataka appointed Sri Narayana Rao, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed his award on 02.12.1993. Aggrieved by the said award, claimant filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.43978/1993. The writ petition was allowed and the Government was directed to appoint another Arbitrator. Thereafter, Sri K R Bhat was appointed as an Arbitrator, who later resigned on health reason. Thereafter, Government appointed Sri T.J.Mariyappa as an Arbitrator.

(3.) CLAIMANTS filed fresh claim petition before the Arbitrator. The respondents filed their objections. Issues were framed. One Shivakumar was examined on behalf of the claimant and some documents were produced. One Sri Raghavendra Rao was examined on behalf of the respondents. The Arbitrator, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: