(T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
Ningappa Thotappa Angadi __________________________ Appellant;
v.
SPL. LAO and Another __________________________ Respondent(s).
I.A. No. 5/2016 In Civil Appeal No. 2927 of 2010, decided on November 11, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The application for early hearing is allowed.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.11.20081 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A. No. 3266 of 2007 whereby the High Court has allowed1 the appeal filed by the respondent and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the appellant from Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 5,10,000/- per acre.
3. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) dated 30.05.2002 the State Government proposed to acquire the appellant’s land situated at Yallapur village, Hubali Taluka in connection with the construction of Hubli-Ankola Broad Guage Railway Line. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 21.11.2002, while the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”) determined the compensation payable for the acquired land at Rs. 7,500/- per gunta by an award dated 17.03.2003. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC, the appellant-owner approached the LAC and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Reference Court by an order dated 12.10.2006, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre, aggrieved whereby the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the said appeal and reduced the compensation to Rs. 5,10,000/- per acre, by an order dated 24.11.20081. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us in this appeal, to assail the order passed by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
———
1 LAO v. Veerabhadrappa Marithammappa, MFA No. 3264 of 2007, order dated 24-11-2008 (KAR)
