JUDGMENT :

These appeals and cross objections are filed against the judgment and award dated 01.08.2011 passed in LAC No.10/2009 and connected matters, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, whereby the reference court ordered that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/-per gunta and statutory benefits in respect of the land acquired by the respondent authorities.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the reference court.

3. It is the case of the claimants that the lands in question belonged to them and pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the ‘Act’) by the respondent-authorities on 30.05.2007, the lands were acquired for the purpose of gauge conversion of railway track and in this regard, the respondent-authorities, issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 19.06.2008 and thereby, the respondent-authorities took the possession of the lands for the purpose of bypass line of railways. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘SLAO’), after acquiring the land, awarded compensation of Rs.2,598/-per gunta, and being not satisfied by the compensation awarded by the SLAO, the claimants have sought for reference under Section 18 of Act and accordingly, the civil court has registered LAC Nos.7 to 13/2009 and LAC Nos.15 and 16 of 2009. After considering the material on record, the reference court fixed the market value of the land belonging to the claimants at Rs.75,000/-per gunta and ordered consequential benefits in favour of the claimants as per Land Acquisition Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the beneficiary of the land has preferred these appeals on the ground that the land acquired by the authorities in LAC No.10/2009 is only 10 guntas, however, the Reference Court has wrongly calculated the compensation on 16 guntas of land which requires to be interfered in these appeals. Beneficiary of the land, also questioned the award made in connected claim petitions and sought for

4. We have heard Sri Ajay U.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary of the land, Sri Santosh D.Naragund, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, learned Addl.Government Advocate for the respondent-Government.

5. Sri Ajay U.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary/appellant submitted that though the land acquired by the authority for the purpose of gauge conversion in LAC No. 07/2009 is to an extent of 10 gunta, however, the reference court has passed an award with respect to 16 gunta, which requires to be interfered in this appeal. Emphasizing on this aspect, he further contended that, in an identical matter, the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.23747/2013 decided on 23.06.2020, has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.75,000/-per gunta in respect of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 16.06.2008. In the instant case, the preliminary notification was issued on 30.05.2007 and thereby there could be a 10% de-escalation in respect of the compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants herein. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and others V/s Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 390 and judgment and award dated 23.06.2020 in MFA No.23747/2013. Accordingly, he sought for interference in these appeals.

6. Per contra, Sri Santosh D.Naragund, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the award made by the reference court is just and proper, it does not require any interference for reducing the compensation. He further submitted that he has filed cross-objections in these appeals contending that in respect of land situate adjacent to the lands of the appellants, compensation has been awarded at Rs.80,000/-per gunta. He sought for enhancement of the compensation on the same line. He fur