Vs. S. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present appeal has a slightly chequered history. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the land, bearing Survey No. 4 of Beratana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas, belonging to the appellant. Section 4 Notification dated 29.11.1990 was published on 20.12.1990. After Section 5-A enquiry, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 18.6.1992. In the award proceedings dated 9.12.1994, the compensation was determined at Rs.10/- per square feet. An application for enhancement under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the appellant and Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 27.50 per square feet. The appellant was also held to be entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value and for additional amount at 12% p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court accepted that this was non-agricultural land and was situated adjacent to the Highway and thus, it had potential for being used for commercial purpose. The public purpose for which the land was acquired, was for widening of the National Highway.
(3.) Dissatisfied by the judgment of the Reference Court, an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Reference Court, enhancing the compensation and strangely enough held that the Reference Court had erred in enhancing the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) No. 8575 of 2006 before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 26.2.2007, set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court to consider the appeal afresh. Accordingly, the High Court heard the matter again and partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation amount at Rs. 75/- per square feet. However, the High Court deducted Rs. 25/- per square feet for development charges. The High Court also did not award the compensation towards yielding coconut trees, barbed fencing wire etc. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant, now, has come before us by way of the present appeal.;