- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. A huge area of land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Rs. Act') on 30.5.1984 including the petitioner's land measuring 11 Acres 32 Guntas at Gobbur (K) Village in District Gulbarga for the purpose of construction of a tank. The possession of the said land has been taken by the respondent authorities on 23.6.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award under Section 11 of the Act fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3800/- per Acre. B. One LAC Case No. 500 of 1993 filed by another person was decided by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act on 28.9.1994. While placing reliance on the same, the petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of the Act. The said application was allowed fixing the market value of the dry land at the rate of Rs. 10000/- per Acre. Petitioner preferred a further reference against that order claiming Rs. 45000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs. 75000/- per Acre for irrigated lands. The said reference was decided vide order dated 27.9.2003 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per Acre for dry land and Rs. 21500/- per Acre for irrigated land. C. Aggrieved from the said reference award, petitioner preferred LAC Appeal No. 64 of 2008 before the District Judge, Gulbarga, seeking enhancement of compensation assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 24000/- per Acre which stood allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009. D. Petitioner filed MSA No. 510 of 2010 against the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 before High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2011. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that courts cannot defeat the claim based on substantial justice on mere technicalities. Learned counsel would submit that when technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail; in case petitioner was entitled for a higher compensation, awarding a lesser amount of compensation, tantamounts to expropriation of the property in violation of mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has been deprived the higher compensation as he could not afford to pay the court fees though he was entitled for higher compensation claimed by him.;