JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 08.12.2009 passed in LAC No.278/2002 by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bagalkote (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court below’ for short), the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that, his land totally measuring 2 acres 36 guntas, which was acquired in the year 1999 is situated within the limits of Bagalkote which is adjacent to the Bagalkote new township. The APMC has sold plots for businessmen of Bagalkote town at the rate of Rs.15/-per sq. ft. under registered sale deeds. New township BTDA has given plots to non-PDF at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. ft. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the Court below. Though the acquisition was of the year 1999-2000, the Court below has taken into consideration the rate of crops prevailing during the year 1995-96. Further stating that the potentiality of the land has not been considered by the Court below, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. 3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the Judgment and award under appeal and also the lower Court records. 4. The summary of the case of the appellant as could be gathered from the materials placed before this Court is that, the land of the appellant in R.S.No.142/2A, measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and land in survey No.142/2B measuring 2 acres 36 guntas of Muchakhandi village in Bagalkote taluka was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of APMC market yard and new township of Bagalkote. The acquired lands have got high NA potentiality in view of development of new Bagalkote Township and are situated in the middle of the APMC market area. By growing the crops like Jowar, DCH cotton, Greengrams, Sunflower, the appellant was getting an income of Rs.75,000/- per acre and claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. However, the Court below has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,66,300/-per acre, which is meager. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments reiterated the contention taken up in his memorandum of appeal. However, the Court below has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,66,300/-per acre, which is meager. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments reiterated the contention taken up in his memorandum of appeal. He also referred to a Judgment of a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.2162 & 2163 of 1997 (LAC), delivered on 21.09.2000 in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. K. Sharadarani Srinivas and another, and submitted that in the said case, the Court was pleased to award a compensation at the rate of Rs.380/- per sq. mtr., as such, the same compensation be awarded in this matter also. 6. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent in the matter submitted that, the Judgment in K. Sharadarani’s case (supra) was considered by the Court below and noticed that the benefit under the said Judgment cannot be extended to the present appellant. The learned Government Counsel further submitted that, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is a reasonable compensation, as such, it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 7. In the Court below, the appellant being the owner of the acquired land got himself examined as PW-1. He also got examined one Jayaprakash Mallappa Bendigeri, said to be the owner of the neighboring land as PW-2. No witness was examined from the respondent’s side. However, the document as Ex.R-1 was marked from the respondent’s side. The appellant in the Court below got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-18. 8. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his Reference Petition. To corroborate his oral evidence, PW-1 among Exs.P-1 to P-18, has produced a letter shown to be a certificate issued by the City Municipal Council, Bagalkote, stating that the acquired lands are abutting to the lands belonging to the APMC and they come within CMC Ward No.11 of Bagalkote. Ex.P-4 is shown to be a letter said to be issued by the Member Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Bagalkote, stating that the acquired lands come within the modified project area of their authority. Ex.P-5 is a Gazette notification, dated 15.06.2007 about re-grouping of the wards of local bodies including Bagalkote. Ex.P-4 is shown to be a letter said to be issued by the Member Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Bagalkote, stating that the acquired lands come within the modified project area of their authority. Ex.P-5 is a Gazette notification, dated 15.06.2007 about re-grouping of the wards of local bodies including Bagalkote. PW-2 also in his evidence has stated that, his land and that of the acquired land of the PW-1 are situated near APMC Complex, at Ward No.11 of Bagalkote. 9. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 to the effect that the acquired lands come adjacent to the property of APMC has not been specifically denied by the respondent in the cross-examination of these witnesses. The contents of the documents at Exs.P-3 to P-4 also have not been specifically disputed or denied by the respondent in the cross-examination of PW-1 & PW-2. Thus at this stage, the said evidence go to show that the acquired properties, though are agricultural properties measuring 2.36 acres each in two different survey numbers, still it is shown to have been falling under Ward No.11 of Bagalkote. 10. PW-1 also got produced certified copy of the sale deed and 3 certified copies of lease-cum-sale deeds, a perusal of which goes to show that the properties situated at Muchakhandi in Survey Nos.129, 131 and 132 and few others were sold at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. ft. in the year 2005, at the rate of Rs.26/- per sq. ft. in the year 2006 and at the rate of Rs.27/- per sq. ft. in the year 2007. However, it cannot be ignored that all these properties were Non-Agricultural lands and they are all of the subsequent period of 4(1) notification in the instant case. Therefore, these sale deeds cannot be taken as a basis for fixation of the market value for the lands in question, which were admittedly acquired in the year 1999-2000. 11. The appellant as a claimant in the Court below has also produced some of the certified copies of the Judgments in few land acquisition cases at Exs.P-11 to P-14. However, it cannot be ignored that Exs.P-13 and P-14 pertain to the properties situated in Vijayapura Town in a neighboring district. As such, the topography of the lands acquired under Exs.P-13 and P-14 totally varies from the lands in question. In Exs.P-11 & P-12, the market value was assessed at Rs.7/- per sq. However, it cannot be ignored that Exs.P-13 and P-14 pertain to the properties situated in Vijayapura Town in a neighboring district. As such, the topography of the lands acquired under Exs.P-13 and P-14 totally varies from the lands in question. In Exs.P-11 & P-12, the market value was assessed at Rs.7/- per sq. ft, whereas, in the case on hand, the Court below has awarded a market value at Rs.13/- per sq. ft. As such, more than what the concerned courts have awarded under Exs.P11 & P12, the Court below has awarded to him. 12. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court delivered in K. Sharadarani’s case (supra), wherein with respect to two bits of properties bearing CTS Nos.223/N-3 (in Ward No.10) & CTS No.239 (in Ward No.2) of Bagalkote town and measuring 695.66 sq. mtrs. and 439.22 sq. mtrs. respectively, this Court has reduced the market value awarded by the Reference Court from Rs.700/-per sq. mtrs. to Rs.380/-per sq. mtrs. Relying upon the said Judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted to award the same compensation in the instant case also. 13. No doubt, this Court in the said case has fixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs.380/- per sq. mtrs, but it cannot be ignored that the properties under acquisition in the said case were two small residential properties situated within the township of Bagalkote town. The measurement of those properties were only 695.66 sq. mtrs. and 439.22 sq. mtrs. respectively, whereas in the case on hand, the properties are not residential properties, but admittedly, they are two pieces of agricultural lands, each measuring 2 acres 36 guntas. As such, the market value fixed to a residential plot bearing CTS number and situated within the town cannot be equated with an agricultural land having vast measurements and situated at a distance from the actual township of Bagalkote. In K.Sharadarani’s case (supra) it self at para No.13, this Court has observed that Ex.P-4, that was relied in the said case, though was with respect to sale of a immovable property, but the property measurement was only 27.87 sq. mtrs. Further, the said property was situated on the front road side of a portion of a prime property in an important road. mtrs. Further, the said property was situated on the front road side of a portion of a prime property in an important road. Considering the said aspect and also considering the fact that the properties under acquisition though were residential in their nature, but were situated in ordinary localities of the town, this Court did not accept awarding market value at the same rate as shown in Ex.P-4, but reduced it further. Similarly, in the case on hand also, the properties being agricultural lands, though said to be situated in Ward No.11 of Bagalkote, but admittedly they are not in the same locality of the town as it was in Ward No.2 in K.Sharadarani’s case (supra), we are not inclined to accept that the present case also deserves fixation of the market value at the same rate of Rs.380/-per sq. mtrs. On the other hand, when the market value as fixed in LAC No.8/1995 by the Reference Court which was produced and marked by the claimant himself in the Reference Court as Ex.P-11 go to show that the market value fixed therein was at Rs.7/- per sq. ft. hence, after giving 10% escalation per annum on the said market value, for the period of 8 years it comes to Rs.5.60/- sq.ft. The reasonable and appropriate market value for the properties acquired in the instant case would come to Rs.12.60/- Ps. per sq. ft. The Reference Court arriving at the same conclusion has arrived at the amount to a nearest higher digit which is Rs.13/- per sq. ft. At that rate, per acre it comes to Rs.5,66,280/-. The Court below since has fixed the market value at Rs.5,66,300/- per acre, neither we find any error in the said finding nor we deem the market value fixed by the Reference Court in any way shorter or lesser than a reasonable market value. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in allowing this appeal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed.