SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION Vs. MALLANAGOUDA KALLANAGOUDA PATIL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common Appellant - State, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad Sub -Division, Dharwad and second Appellant in MFA No. 1442 of 2003 - The Divisional Railways (Works), Hubli and the Cross Objector - The Divisional Railways (Works), Hubli in MFA CROB No. 258 of 2004 and MFA CROB No. 259 of 2004, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16th August 2002 in LAC No. 185 of 1987, LAC No. 181 of 1987 and LAC No. 186 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hubli, on the ground that, the amount awarded by Reference Court is excessive, have presented the instant appeals and Cross Objections respectively before this Court.

(2.) THE Divisional Railway (Works), Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli, Dharwad District, who is second Appellant in MFA No. 1442 of 2003 and a beneficiary, has filed the instant two cross objections namely MFA CROB No. 258 of 2004 in MFA No. 1443 of 2003 and MFA CROB No. 259 of 2004 in MFA No. 1444 of 2003, praying this Court to set aside the judgment and award passed by Reference Court on the ground that, the enhancement of market value is on a higher side and therefore, claim petitions filed by claimants - Respondents are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Government Pleader appearing for Appellant - Special Land Acquisition Officer in the above three appeals and Respondent in the two cross objections is that, the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that, the major extent of land is an agricultural land and only an extent of 31 guntas has been converted from agricultural to non -agricultural land. Therefore, the Reference Court has committed a grave error in fixing the market value uniformly at Rs. 4,335/ - per gunta for both agricultural as well as non -agricultural land which were acquired as far back as in the year 1981. Further, he submitted that, in the absence of cogent evidence to show that, the land in question and the land concerned in Ex -P3 - the sale deed dated 8.1.1981, under which four guntas of land was sold for Rs. 26,000/ - were similar in all respects, commanding the same advantages, the Reference Court ought not to have drawn any support from Ex -P3 for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands in question. Further, he submitted that, the Reference Court ought to have deducted at least 65% instead of deducting only 33% towards cost of development. Therefore, the market value determined by the Reference Court is on the higher side and that judgment and award passed by it requires modification.