- (1.) THE appellants are the owners of a plot measuring 140 x 99 feet It is about 12 guntas in Sy. No. 14/1/2 of Lakmanahalli in Dharwad District. It is a remaining portion after the Government taken over the excess portion under the repealed Urban Land (Celling and Regulations) Act The said left-over land was acquired for Karnataka Housing Board for construction of houses. Preliminary Notification was dated 20-3-1989 and Final Notification was dated 18-11-1989. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 8-5-1992. Compensation awarded was Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the Appellants sought reference under Section 18 (1) (a) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act of 1961 (hereinafter called as "l. A Act" in short) for higher compensation by determining the market value of the land. The reference Court passed a common judgment and award dated 28-1-2002 in l. A. C. Nos. 267 and 268/93 re-determining the market value at Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits after conducting on enquiry under Section 21 of the L. A Act Being dissatisfied with the same also, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation urging various grounds contending that determination of market value is contrary to legal evidence on record and law on the question.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants raised the following grievances against the impugned judgment and award: i) Though the reference court re-determined the market value on the basis of sale statistics, it has not correctly applied the same and the documents are not properly considered and therefore the findings recorded on the contentious point are not only erroneous but also error in law; ii) That the reference Court was not justified in giving deduction of 53% towards development charges and since the acquired land is in a developed area and it being a small plot, development charges shall not be deducted as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 2298;
(3.) LEARNED Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Narayanappa sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.;