AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim, J.—State is in appeal against the judgment dated 24.5.2011 passed in LACA 300/10 on the file of Principal District Judge, Mysore, by which enhancement of compensation by the reference court in LAC. 681/07 by judgment and award dated 12.1.2009 has been confirmed. The appeal has come up for admission.
Heard, Perused records. It reveals:
a) By virtue of preliminary notification dated 27.11.2003, land measuring 0.4 guntas forming part of Survey No. 123 situate at Madhavagere village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk, belonging to the respondent was acquired for Varuna Canal. It culminated in final notification and passing of award on 18.3.2005 fixing compensation at Rs. 46,000/- per acre.
b) Respondent was not satisfied and sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. In subsequent action, reference was registered by the trial court in LAC. 681/07. In the enquiry that ensued, respondent tendered evidence and produced Exs.P1 to P3 which included certified copy of the judgment and award passed in LAC. 659/07, enhancing compensation from Rs. 46,000/- to Rs. 2,67,400/- per acre.
c) The award passed in LAC. Nos. 476/05 and 475/05 were also produced in evidence with consent and marked as Ex.P1. Learned trial judge noticed determination of compensation in those land acquisition cases relates to acquisition of land under the same notification dated 22.1.2004 for the same purpose, and the location of both lands which had the same potential, was in the same village. Therefore, the learned judge accepted the compensation fixed vide Ex.P1 to be just compensation and allowed LAC. 681/07 in terms of that order.
d). Assailing it, State was in appeal in LACA. 300/10, but the learned appellate judge found no favour with the grounds in appeal and has dismissed the same.
In this appeal, there is reiteration of the same defence as urged before the trial court. It is material to note, the LAO who is championing the cause of the State has himself to blame. He did not lead any evidence before the reference court nor did he substantiate with any material that the land of the respondent has less potential compared to lands in respect of which such award was passed earlier. He has failed to produce any other material to show that the value of the land in question would be less than the compensation awarded in respect of the adjoining lands vide Ex.P1. There is no merit in any of the grounds in the appeal. It is dismissed at the stage of admission.