SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. B SREENIVASE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these matters are posted for orders, they are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

(2.) THESE ten appeals are filed by the common appellant The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B. Road, Mysore, being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award dated 7th February 2011, passed in LAC Nos.230/2002, 225/2002, 240/2002, 239/2002, 226/2002, 233/2002, 231/2002, 229/2002, 227/2002 and 238/2002, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'Reference Court' for short), wherein the Reference Court by the said judgment and award has fixed the market value of the lands in question @ Rs. 15,73,000/ - per acre with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the lands bearing Sy.No.179/2, measuring 01 acre 15 guntas (in LAC No.230/2002), Sy.No.167, measuring 01 acre 06 guntas (in LAC No.231/2002), Sy.No.167, measuring 01 acre 06 guntas (in LAC No.233/2002), Sy.No.181/1, measuring 30 guntas (in LAC No.238/2002), Sy.No.171/1, measuring 03 acres (in LAC No.239/2002), Sy.No.180/1, measuring 09 guntas (in LAC No.239/2002), Sy.No.168/1, measuring 19 guntas (in LAC No.240/2002), Sy.No.181/3, measuring 03 acres 31 guntas (in LAC No.227/2002) and Sy.No.167, measuring 01 acre 06 guntas (in LAC No.227/2002) ,all situate at Rammanahally village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and Sy.No.228 measuring 04 acres 26 guntas (in LAC No.225/2002) and Sy.No.288, measuring 04 acres (in LAC No.229/2002), both situate at Hanchya village, Mysore Taluk were notified and acquired by Government, from the claimants/respondents herein, for the purpose of formation of residential layouts, by issuing common Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th January, 1993, followed by final declaration dated 11th September, 1997, issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, calling for objections from the claimants and other notified khatedars, has passed the award in respect of the lands in question, by fixing the market value of the acquired lands situate in Hanchya village @ Rs. 50,000/ - per acre and at Rs. 45,000/ - per acre in respect of lands situate at Rammanahally village. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants/respondents herein filed their respective applications under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement of compensation and the same had come up for consideration before the jurisdictional Reference Court. The Reference Court, in turn, after evaluation of the oral evidence of notified Khatedar, PW1, Nanjamma and documentary evidence at Ex.P1, certified copy of the judgment in L.A.C.No.154/2003 and Ex.P18, judgment copy in LAC No.42/2005 and considering the nature of soil, potentiality of the land and the purpose for which the said lands have been notified and acquired, allowed the reference applications, re -fixing the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 15,73,000/ - per acre. Being aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Reference Court, on the ground that it is on the higher side, the common appellant has preferred these appeals. Learned counsel appearing for the common appellant, Shri.H.C. Shivaramu at the outset submitted that, the Reference Court grossly erred in relying upon Ex.P1, certified copy of the judgment in LAC No.154/2003, Ex.P18, judgment copy in LAC No.42/2005 and also the village maps at Exs.P2 and P3 for fixing the market value of the acquired lands in question. To substantiate the said submission, he pointed out that the Reference Court seriously erred in not noticing that the small extent of land involved in Ex.P1 is a fully developed area and had been designated for commercial purposes as per the zoning regulation in the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), whereas the lands acquired in Rammanahally village was designated as residential layout and hence, there cannot be any comparison between Belavatha and Rammanahally villages.