ANAND S/O SHIDDAPPA ALIAS SHIVANAIK HUBBALLI ALIAS HUBLI AND ANOTHER Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BAILHONGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 10.11.2014 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak in LAC No. 41/2012.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 101/3 measuring 5 acres 33 guntas including pot kharab of 2 guntas situated at Kalliguddi village, Gokak taluka, Belgavi District, was owned and possessed by the appellants. The respondent had acquired 37 guntas out of the said land for the purpose of construction of tank within the limits of Kalliguddi village, Gokaka taluk by passing an award bearing No. LAQ/JSR/202/2010-11 dated 9.2012 fixing its market value at the rate of Rs. 52,000.00 per acre. The appellants 1 and 2 being dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the respondent, sought for reference to the competent civil court by filing reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('Act' for short) claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,00,000.00 per acre. The judgment and order was passed by the Reference Court on 10.11.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the claimants/appellants are in appeal.

(3.) Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the Reference court failed to appreciate the reasons assigned by the claimants for not leading the evidence on 20.6.2014 when the matter was listed for petitioners' evidence. The original claimant died during the reference proceedings on 18.9.2013, as such, the legal heirs of the original claimant were required to secure documents to lead evidence and accordingly, time was sought for leading evidence. The reference court failed to note that the evidence of petitioner was taken as nil on 20/06/ 2014 and award statements were marked as Ex. R1 & 2 on 24/07/2014 and arguments were taken as nil on 20/08/2014 and posted this case for judgement on 30/08/2014. Later on, the reference court on 24/08/2014 suo moto taken this case on board as it is noticed that IA No. 1 was pending for clubbing this case with other cases and posted this case for filing objections to IA No. 1 on 26/08/2014. On that day the appellants had filed an application at IA II for reopening this case for leading their oral evidence. So the said application was filed when the case was posted for objections to IA I. Therefore the reference court ought to have allowed application filed by the appellants at IA II and permitted them to lead oral evidence in support of their claim. The Reference court without properly considering the satisfactory reasons assigned by the claimants dismissed IA-II. Learned counsel would submit that the claimants got good case on merits. Not leading evidence on 20.6.2014 was only due to the bona fide reasons as narrated above. There was neither negligence nor want of bona fides on the part of the claimants. The claimants being the land losers, their rights are affected when denied opportunity to lead evidence seeking enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired by the respondents. The Reference Court without appreciating these vital aspects dismissed the reference application primarily for the reason that the claimants have not produced any evidence to substantiate their contention for enhancement of compensation. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for allowing the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.