The burden lies with the claimant to prove inadequacy of compensation; courts must adhere to evidence of market value, particularly for agricultural land, and cannot arbitrarily increase compensation without substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017 passed in LAC No.3/2006 and the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017 passed in M.A.No.10008/2017 and also prayed this Court to fix the market value of the land bearing Sy.No.7/1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas of Neerakodu village, Sagar at Rs.47/- per square feet with all statutory benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/claimant that he was the absolute and exclusive owner of the land measuring 2 acres 01 gunta of wet land and 9 guntas of dry land comprising in Sy.No.7/1 situated at Neerakodu village, Avinahalli hobli, Sagar Taluk. The said land was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of bus terminus on the request made by the first respondent by issuance of notification in terms of Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT on 18.03.1992 and final notification also issued in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act and market value of the acquired land was determined to the tune of Rs.28,800/- per acre by an award dated 18.01.1995. Upon service of award, notice was issued by the second respondent and the appellant filed an application in terms of Section 18 of the Act and the said application was rejected by the second respondent as time barred and hence, the appellant filed a petition before the reference Court in L.A. Misc. No.6/1996. The said petition, after contest, came to be allowed by an order dated 10.11.2005 directing the second respondent to refer the matter with all papers on or before 30.01.2006. Pursuant to the said order, reference was made and same was numbered as LAC No.3/2006. Upon service of notice issued by the reference Court, the appellant and the respondents have appeared.

4. The appellant herein examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15. In rebuttal, the respondents marked one document by consent as Ex.R1 and no evidence was adduced. It is the case of the appellant that document at Ex.R1 clearly show that market value of the acquired land as on the relevant point was Rs.500/- square feet. The counsel also would vehemently contend that illegally determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.11/- per square feet. Being aggrieved by the said order, MFA was filed before the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.10367/2011 and the said appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded by setting aside the earlier order to consider the matter afresh. The counsel for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court that after remand, he has adduced additional evidence by placing the document at Ex.P16 to P46. In rebuttal, the respondents have not adduced any further evidence. However, the reference court once again held that market value would be Rs.11/- per square feet and the same is challenged before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.10008/2017 and the Appellate Court also failed to consider the grounds which have been urged before it and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present MSA is filed before this Court.

5. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the reference court failed to notice that the documents namely Ex.P5 which is a sketch prepared by the office of second respondent and Ex.P6 and P7 which are valuation reports submitted by the Public Works Department Engineer while fixing the price of the house of the appellant and Ex.P9 is the tippani extract and other documents which clearly showed that the acquired land of the appellant