- (1.) The present appeals are by the Agricultural Produce Market committee, a statutory body under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act,. 1966. It has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(2.) Section 4 (1) of the notification was issued on 17-11-1977 proposing to acquire about 50 acres of land for the benefit of the petitioner Committee. After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed it at the rate of Rs 5000 per acre. The claimant aggrieved by this went in reference. The Reference Court relying on Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-4 enhanced the compensation to Rs 85,000 per acre. Ext. P-1 is an award passed in the year 1944 whereby 2 acres and 11 guntas of land was acquired in which compensation fixed was Rs 3630 per acre. The Reference Court basing this, added 10 per cent appreciation per year from 1944 to 1977 to arrive at a figure of Rs 85,000 per acre. It is this enhancement which is challenged in the present appeals. The second challenge is, from this amount there has been no deduction for the development charges. Hence this fixation cannot be accepted to be the true compensation awarded in accordance with law. The State, which is the acquiring body, filed an appeal challenging this fixation in which the present appellant was not a party, before the High Court. The appellant made an application for its impleadment, which was allowed on 20-2-1995. However, in spite of this opportunity learned counsel for the appellant did not appear when the case was taken up for hearing in the High Court. The Court under mistaken belief that the appellant's application for impleadment is still pending, dismissed the same. Thereafter, counsel for the appellant filed applications, being las Nos. 3 and 4 for recalling the aforesaid order passed by the High Court which was also dismissed.
(3.) Thereafter came another series of litigation pertaining to the deposit of the amount awarded when despite the order passed by the High Court, no deposit was made. The Assistant Commissioner and the Land Acquisition officer issued show-cause notice to the appellant directing him to deposit the awarded amount of Rs 1,51,34,844. 00. On its failure the said officer issued notice and attached the appellant's property. This led the appellant to file a contempt petition challenging this notice. The High Court by interim order directed the respondent to restore all the attached articles. Thereafter, another attachment order of the bank account was passed which led the appellant to file a second contempt petition. Ultimately on unconditional apology the contempt petition was dropped. The High Court thereafter dismissed both the appeals, one filed by the appellant and the other by the State. The main reason was the dismissal of the earlier State appeal in MFA No. 2373 of 1994, as the present case also arose out of the same acquisition proceedings raising the same point. The appellant sought remand of the case based on his petition under Order 41 Rule 27 for leading additional evidence in the said appeal which was dismissed. It is this order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal which is the subject-matter of consideration by us in the aforesaid appeals. We may record here that the State has not come before us in appeal as against the same impugned judgment.;