Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
-1-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103527 OF 2015 (LAC)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100083 OF 2023
IN MFA NO.103527 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
[
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GLBC DIV. NO.1, GHATAPRABHA,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM
TQ:HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI HALAPPA SIDDAPPA WANTMURE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT 2A. SRI SULTAN HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
NARAYANKAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
KARNATAKA
2B. SRI KENCHAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2C. SRI BHIMAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SIR MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A TO C)
-2-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 09.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.157/2014, ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
RAIBAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AT RS.12,58,400/- PER
ACRE AND ETC.,
IN MFA CROB NO.100083 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI HALAPPA SIDDAPPA WANTAMURE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1. SRI SULTAN HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SRI KENCHAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. SRI BHIMAPPA HALAPPA WANTAMURE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O:RAIBAG-591317, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GLBC DIVISION. NO.1, GHATAPRABHA,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591306.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, TQ:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.103725/2015 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG IN LAC NO. 157/2014 DATED
09.04.205 ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AT
RS.16,00,000/- PER ACRE FROM RS.12,58,400/- PER ACRE WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS AND COSTS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CROSS
OBJECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-3-
MFA No.103527/2015
C/W MFA CROB No.100083/2023
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND CROSS
OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 01.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE BASAVARAJA)
Both appeal and cross-objection arise out of the
judgment and award dated 09.04.2015 passed in LAC
No.157/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Raibag (for short, 'Reference Court').
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before
the Reference Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The beneficiary of the land acquisition the
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (for short, 'KNNL') has
preferred MFA.No.103527/2015 for modification of the award
passed by the Reference Court by reducing the award amount
and the cross-objectors-claimants have preferred
MFA.CROB.No.100083/2023 seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded.
4. The brief facts leading up to filing of this appeal and
cross-objections are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(for short "Special Land Acquisition Officer") has acquired the
land bearing Sy.No.581B/B measuring 2 acre 15 guntas of
Raibag village for construction of Raibag Upper Stage Canal
KM.13 under Ghataprabha Project vide preliminary Notification
issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which
was notified in gazette on 22.10.2009. The SLAO has passed
award vide No.LAQ/JSR/44/2009-10 dated 31.03.2012 and
awarded compensation of Rs.70,911/- per acre with statutory
benefits and same was paid. Being dissatisfied with the award
passed by the SLAO, claimants filed Reference petition under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to refer the case to
Reference Court for determination of actual market value of the
property. Accordingly, the case was referred to Reference
Court and was registered as LAC No.157 of 2014. To
substantiate the case of the claimants, one witness-Sultan
Halappa Wantamure was examined as PW1 and sixteen
documents were produced as Exhibits P1 to P16. On closure of
claimants side, respondents have not adduced any evidence on
their part, but marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2.
Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Reference Court
passed the judgment and award determining the value of the
land at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre against Rs.70,911/- per acre
determined by the SLAO with statutory benefits. Being
aggrieved by this judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court, the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited has preferred
this appeal seeking modification of the award by reducing the
amount to Rs.4,50,000/- per acre as against Rs.12,58,400/-
awarded by the Reference Court. Claimants have preferred
cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj C.Bellakki for
the appellant-KNNL; learned counsel Sri.Madanmohan
M.Khannur, Additional Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1-SLAO; and learned counsel Sri. Laxman T.
Mantagani appearing for the cross objectors-claimants and
perused the appeal papers along with original records.
6. The learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj C.Bellakki
appearing on behalf of the KNNL would submit that the
enhancement of market value at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre by
the Reference Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable
and excessive. He further submits that the Reference Court has
not assessed the evidence on record in the proper perspective
for arriving at a just compensation and has committed serious
error in holding that the petitioners' land had NA potentiality,
even though the land is purely agricultural land surrounded by
agricultural lands and situated at a considerable long distance
from the developed lands. He further submits that in fact the
claimants in their reference application have specifically
pleaded that the land in question was a sugarcane growing
agricultural land. He would submit that the Reference court has
erred in assuming that Sy. No. 469/1 was a nearby land to
petitioners' land which is already developed and NA plots were
laid and being sold. Learned counsel would further submit that
the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on the sale
deeds of small plots produced by the claimants pertaining to
fully developed plots situated at a well-developed locality and
they were incomparable with the land in question which is
totally undeveloped and is purely an agricultural land. He
further submits that Reference Court has erred in placing
reliance on the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 6/2009
and connected matters dated 26.02.2011 though the said
judgment and awards are in appeal and the same are pending
consideration before this Court in MFA No. 24857/2011 and
connected cases. He submits that, looking from any angle, the
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is opposed
to law and probabilities of the case. Thus, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
7. Sri. Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the cross-objectors-claimants would
submit that the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court granting meager amount of compensation is contrary to
the material evidence placed on record, hence the amount of
compensation is required to be enhanced. He further submits
that, the nature of land under acquisition is a fertile land with
an irrigation facility and growing commercial crops. The mode
of irrigation is that of pipeline from Krishna River, Bore-well,
Open well and Canal and is cultivable land. It is also submitted
that, the neighboring lands bearing Survey Nos. 469/1A/3,
587/A/1B and 587/A/1D have been converted into NA land,
plots have been formed and several plots have been sold,
hence, the land under acquisition has got NA potentiality. It is
submitted that around the land in question there are play
grounds, Anandibai High School, five factories, New High
School, KEB, residential layouts and there is a main road which
leads to Sugar factory, Degree College, Maharaja Palace, etc.
Further, there are various offices, garages and other
commercial establishments. He submits that the Reference
Court failed to appreciate and consider that the land under
acquisition comes within the jurisdiction of Pattana Panchayat,
Raibag. It is submitted that the Pattana Panchayat, Raibag has
issued a certificate that the above neighboring lands come
within the jurisdiction of Raibag Pattan Panchayat. He submits
that though it is clear from the materials available in record
that the land under acquisition has got NA potentiality, however
the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs. 12,58,400/-
per acre which is on lower side. It is submitted that, the lands
acquired for the very same purpose from same village through
preliminary Notification dated 08.01.2004 covered in LAC No.
6/2009 and connected matters, the Reference Court therein
was pleased to fix the market value at Rs.10,06,000/- per acre
by judgment and award dated 26.02.2011, whereas in the
instant case the preliminary Notification published on
22.10.2009 and the Reference Court awarded the
compensation at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre and submits that the
claimants are entitled for escalation value of 10% per annum
for Six years, however the claimants restrict their claim for
Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, he submits that the
judgment and award fixing the market value by the Reference
Court at Rs.12,58,400/- per acre is on lower side and the same
is required to be enhanced suitably. On all these grounds, he
sought for allowing the cross-objection.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal and cross-objection papers along
with original records, the following points would arise for
consideration:
(i) Whether the appellant-Karnataka Neeravari
Nigam Limited has made out ground to reduce
the amount from Rs.12,58,400/- per acre to
Rs.4,50,000/- per acre?
(ii) Whether the cross-objectors-claimants are
entitled for enhancement of compensation as
sought for?
(iii) What order?
9. Our answer to the above points are as under:
Points (i) & (ii): in the negative
Point No.(iii) - As per final order for the following
reasons:
Regarding Points (i) and (ii):
10. Before re-appreciation of evidence on record, it is
appropriate to mention here as to the relevant legal principles
enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of
cases. The same are as under:
"(1) It is well settled that in determining the
compensation the court would take into consideration the
potentialities of the land existing as on the date of the
notification published under Section 4(1) (State of
Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra, (1995) 5 SCC 203)
(2) This Court in Sardara Singh v. Land Acquisition
Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar, (2020) 14 SCC
483, has held that the rates of compensation awarded in
adjacent villages cannot be disregarded if in the given
- 10 -
set of facts and evidence, similarity is established.
Similarly, in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2016) 13
SCC 190, the Court held that compensation awarded in
the adjoining village can be considered when there was
similarity in potentiality. [See also Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708]. In
view of this settled position of law, we see no ground to
interfere with this finding.
(3) When there is a choice between an exemplar
where the transaction is between unrelated parties
dealing at arm's length and between an exemplar where
the transaction is between related parties of a higher
value, both of which are broadly around the same period,
prudence would dictate and common sense would
command that we accept the value of set out in the
transaction between unrelated parties. We are inclined to
accept the transaction which is at arm's length and
accept the market value of the amount of Rs. 100/- per
sq. ft. and reject the claim of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft.
(4) It is well settled that market value is determined
based on the price of a willing buyer-a willing seller at
arm's length. In Administrator General of West
Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150, it was
held:
"8. The determination of market value of a
piece of land with potentialities for urban use is
an intricate exercise which calls for collection and
collation of diverse economic criteria. The market
value of a piece of property, for purposes of
Section 23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at
which the property changes hands from a willing
seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer,
dealing at arm's length. The determination of
market value, as one author put it, is the
prediction of an economic event viz. the price
outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in
terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar
lands with similar advantages and potentialities
under bonafide transactions of sale at or about
- 11 -
the time of the preliminary notification are the
usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market
value. Other methods of valuation are resorted
to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not
available."
(5) In Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2013) 16 SCC 392, this Court, dealing with the
issue of deduction of development charges in the context
of acquisition for a railway line held as under:
"33. The approach adopted by the Reference
Court and the High Court in making deductions
towards the cost of development/development
charges from the market value determined on
the basis of the sale deeds produced by the
appellants was clearly wrong. The respondents
had not even suggested that the development
envisaged by the Reference Court i.e. laying of
roads, drains, sewer lines, parks, electricity lines,
etc. or any other development work was required
to be undertaken for laying the railway line.
Therefore, 25% deduction made by the
Reference Court and approved by the High Court
under two different heads is legally
unsustainable."
(6) Insofar as the Development charge is concerned,
as held in Himmat Singh, where no Development is
envisaged like laying of roads, drains, sewer lines, parks
etc. and what is required is only construction of a flood
control wall, the question of deducting any development
charge cannot arise. [See also Nelson Fernandes v. Land
Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 447]."
11. We have carefully examined the material placed
before the Court. It is not in dispute that land was acquired
under 4(1) Notification dated 22.10.2009 for the purpose of
construction of Raibag Upper Stage Canal KM. No.13 under
Ghataprabha Project. It is also not in dispute that the SLAO has
- 12 -
passed an award vide No.LAQ/JSR/44/2009-10 and awarded
the compensation of Rs.70,911/- per acre.
12. The claimants have filed application under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act and same was referred to the
Reference Court for determination of actual market value of the
property. Respondent No.2-KNNL filed objections to the said
application contending that the award passed by the SLAO is
just and proper sought for dismissal of the reference petition.
To substantiate the case of the claimants, one witness Sultan
Halappa Wantamure examined as PW1, has deposed in his
evidence that the land in question is having NA potentiality and
the said land is situated within the limits of Raibag Pattana
Panchayat. He states that Raibag is a developing town and the
worth of this land is Rs.50,000/- per gunta. Further, he has
deposed that Sy.Nos.469/1A/3 situated in Vidya Nagar, Raibag
Pattana Panchayat and Biraj Plot in survey Nos. 587/A/1B and
587/A/1D are within the limits of Gram Panchayat. Further, he
has deposed as to the sale deeds dated 22.08.2008,
06.11.2008 and 17.11.2001 of lands sold, are adjacent to the
land in question. On all these grounds, sought for
compensation.
- 13 -
13. The claimants have also produced the documents in
support of their case. Ex.P1, the record of rights pertaining to
the land bearing Sy.Nos.581B/B of Raibag village for the year
2009-10. Ex.P2 is the map of Raibag, Exs.P3 to P6 are the
certified copies of the sale deeds relating to plots in
Sy.Nos.469/1A/3, 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D which are executed
on 22.08.2008, 06.11.2008 and 17.11.2001 respectively. Ex.P3
discloses that two plots measuring 40 ft X 30 ft each were sold
for Rs.52,500/- and in toto Rs.1,05,000/-, Ex.P4 discloses that
two plots measuring 40 ft X 25 ft each were sold for the
consideration of Rs.56,000/- each, Ex.P6 discloses that plots
measuring 40 ft X 25 ft each have been sold for consideration
of Rs.28,000/-, Ex.P7 is the document issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Raibag which discloses that in Vidya Nagar area the
price of land for commercial purpose is Rs.47.31/- per feet and
for residential purpose Rs.43.28/- per feet, Ex.P15 is the
certificied copy of the judgment passed in LAC No.11/2001 and
other clubbed cases on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Gokak, sitting at Raibag dated 30.07.2007.
14. A careful examination of oral and documentary
evidence placed by the claimants reveal that in the surrounding
areas of the land in question, there are schools, colleges,
playgrounds and various offices, residential houses, Vidya
- 14 -
Nagar, Vivek Nagar, etc., apart from this, land relating to
Sy.No.469/1 have been converted into NA land, plots have
been made, sold and several constructions have already come
up. Similarly, in the vicinity of the lands acquired, there are
offices, commercial shops, etc. As could be seen from the oral
evidence of PW1, the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants
were relating to nearby lands which were executed respectively
in the year 2001 and 2008 and particularly prior to issuance of
4(1) Notification. In addition to this, the Town Panchayat,
Raibag has issued a certificate at Ex.P8, which goes to show
that the land in Sy.No.469/1A/3 is within the limits of Town
panchayat. Exhibit P9 goes to show that the lands bearing
Sy.Nos. 587/A/1B and 587/A/1D are within the limits of Grama
Panchayat of Raibag.
15. During the course of cross-examination of PW1,
respondents have not disputed the documents produced by the
claimants. Respondents have also not adduced any rebuttal
evidence to discard the evidence of PW1 and documentary
evidence. Considering all these material and relying on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred in the impugned
judgment passed by the Reference Court, the Reference Court
has determined an actual market value of the property at the
rate of Rs.18,87,600/- per acre and deducted 1/3rd towards
- 15 -
roads, drainage, amenities, development charges amounting to
Rs.6,29,200/- and awarded the compensation of
Rs.12,58,400/- per acre.
16. In the instant case, the land in question i.e. land
bearing Sy.No. Sy.Nos.581B/B measuring 2 acres 15 guntas,
wet land situated in Raibag village within the limits of Grama
Panchayat, Raibag. The Development Officer, Grama
Panchayat, Raibag has also issued a certificate to the effect
that Sy.Nos.587/A/1B and 587/A/1D are NA lands situated
within the limits of Grama Panchayat, Raibag, which is not
disputed by the other side.
17. Ex.P2-Map pertaining to the Raibag Pattana
Panchayat reveals that the land in question is situated within
the jurisdiction of Raibag Pattana Panchayat adjacent to NA
potentiality lands bearing Sy.Nos.587/A/1B and 587/A/1D
which is also not disputed by other side.
18. Ex.P8, the certificate issued by the Chief Officer,
Pattana Panchayat, Raibag also reveals that Sy.No.469/1A/3 is
situated within the jurisdiction of Pattana Panchayat, Raibag.
Considering all these aspects, the Reference Court has rightly
held that the land in question is having NA potentiality.
- 16 -
19. It is settled principle of law that the actual market
value of the property has to be determined as on the date of
publication of 4(1) Notification. In the case on hand, the date
of publication of 4(1) Notification is 22.10.2009. Exs.P3 to P6
are the sale deeds and price list issued by Sub-Registrar Office,
Raibag. Admittedly, Ex.P3 is relevant as it is of the year 2008.
Ex.P3, sale deed reveals that two plots were sold for
Rs.1,05,000/- and each plot is Rs.52,500/- (i.e.Rs.47,190/- per
gunta). The Reference Court has rightly observed that there are
no material to show that this sale transaction is not genuine
sale transaction. Moreover, this sale deed is registered much
prior to 4(1) Notification. Accordingly, the Reference Court has
determined the market value at the rate of Rs.47,190/- per
gunta which come to Rs.18,87,600/- per acre (i.e. Rs.47,190 X
40 guntas).
20. On the basis of the material placed before the
Reference Court, the Reference Court has observed that the
land acquired is having NA potentiality and is located in a fairly
developed area and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, so also, the judgment of this Court. The Reference
Court has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the value, towards road,
drainage, amenities, development charges, etc., and awarded
Rs.12,58,400/- per acre.
- 17 -
21. On re-appreciation, reconsideration and
re-examination of the entire evidence on record and keeping in
mind of the aforesaid relevant legal principles, we do not find
any error/legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant-KNNL would
submit that the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance
on the judgment and award passed in LAC No.6/2009 and
connected cases dated 26.02.2011. The said judgment and
award was challenged in appeal before this Court in
MFA.No.24857/2011 and connected cases, the said appeals and
connected cases are dismissed by this Court on 9.09.2022.
Hence, there is no force in the arguments submitted on behalf
of the counsel for the appellant-KNNL.
23. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors-Claimants
would submit that the lands acquired by KNNL in the same
village covered in LAC No.6/2009 was acquired through
preliminary Notification dated 08.01.2004 and the Reference
Court had fixed the market value of Rs.10,06,000/- per acre by
judgment and award dated 26.02.2011, whereas in the instant
case the Preliminary Notification published on 22.10.2009 and
the Reference Court awarded the compensation at
- 18 -
Rs.12,58,400/- per acre by judgment and award dated
09.04.2015, hence the cross-objectors are entitled for
escalation value of 10% per annum for six years, however, the
cross objectors restrict their claim for Rs.16,00,000/- per acre.
24. A perusal of Ex.P10, certified copy of judgment and
award passed in LAC No.6/2009 clubbed with other cases
reveals that the land bearing Sy.No.639/1 and other lands
situated in Raibag Village acquired by the KNNL for the purpose
of construction of connecting canal to the D Block Distributory
within Raibag Taluk acquired under 4(1) Notification dated
08.01.2004. The SLAO has awarded the compensation of
Rs.84,808/- per acre, and thereafter the Reference Court has
awarded compensation of Rs.10,06,000/- per acre as against
Rs.84,808/-per acre. The judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court in LAC No.6/2009 and other clubbed cases is
confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
MFA.No.24857/2011 and connected cases dated 09.09.2022.
That there is a long gap between the acquisition of the land
pertaining to LAC No.6/2009 and other connected cases and
the land in question acquired by the KNNL. As per Preliminary
Notification dated 22.10.2009, the Reference Court has
awarded the compensation considering that the land in
question is having NA potentiality and based on the sale deed
- 19 -
adjacent to this land. The Reference Court has rightly
determined the actual value of the property. Since there are
sufficient material to determine the actual market value of the
property as on the date of the 4(1) Notification dated
22.10.2009, it is not appropriate to consider the award passed
in LAC No.6/2009 and connected cases which is confirmed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in MFA Nos.24857/2011
and connected cases which pertains to the year 2004. Hence,
the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimants cannot be
accepted. Hence, we answer points No.1 and 2 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
25. For the aforestated reasons, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Both, appeal and cross-objection are dismissed.
No costs;
(ii) Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court
records, along with the copy of this judgment, to
the concerned court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
