ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. SUSHEELA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 30.03.2010 passed in LAC No.291/2004 and connected matters on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mysore has presented this appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is disproportionate and it is liable to be modified.

(2.) THE lands bearing Sy. Nos. 19/1, 19/2A, 19/2A3 and 19/2A2, situated at Bogadi village of Mysore Taluk have been notified for the purpose of formation of ring road after publishing the preliminary notification U/Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20.08.2001 and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 23.08.2001 and subsequently the final notification U/sec. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 26.11.2001 and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 12.12.2001 and the LAO passed an award on 10.12.2002 fixing the market value at Rs.4,08,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said order, claimant filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The same has been considered by the Reference Court. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and placing reliance on Ex.P7 the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the Reference Court has determined the market value at the rate of Rs.16,72,760/- per acre with all statutory benefits under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) IN the light of the submission made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and after perusing the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, we do not find any error as such committed by the Reference Court in determining the market value at the rate of Rs.16,72,760/- placing reliance on Ex.P7-judgment in LAC No.517/2004 and other connected cases coupled with oral evidence adduced by the claimant and documents produced by the parties and placing reliance on the judgment award passed by the Apex Court and this Court and also taking into consideration the potentiality of the land acquired at Bogadi Village, by assigning valid reasons in Para 21 of the judgment and the said reasoning is given after due appropriation of the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned judgment and award which is passed relying upon the judgment and award passed in LAC No.517/2004 which has become final. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the fact of the judgment nor the appellant has made out any good ground to entertain the appeal.