Bangalore District Court
) B. Nagaraju vs ) The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 March, 2021
1
L.A.C. No.271/2004
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17 )
Dated this the 9 th day of March, 2021.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.271/2004
CLAIMANTS:
1) B. Nagaraju
S/o late. Bachanna
Hoodi, K.R. Puram
Bengaluru East Taluk
Bengaluru.
2) Narayanappa
S/o late. Ramaiah
Residing at 73,
Bharamananda Ashram
BEML Main Road,
New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru -560 075.
3) Shamanna
S/o Munithammanna
Hoodi village,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
(C-1 - Sri. V.A.,Advocate)
(C-2 - Sri. BMS.,Advocate)
(C-3 - Sri. P.K.,Advocate)
2
L.A.C. No.271/2004
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, No.488/B, 14th cross,
Peenya Industrial Area, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.
2) Bhoruka Steel Ltd.,
White Field Road,
Mahadevapura post,
Bengaluru -560 048.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
( R-1 - Sri. PVC, Advocate)
( R-2 By Sri.TNM, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This reference being made under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as L.A. Act. for short) by the respondent No.1.
.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent No.1 has acquired the lands measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No. 34/1, 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No. 34/2, 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No. 34/3 and 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No. 34/4 (Totally 7 acres 31 guntas) situated at Hoodi village, K.R. Puram Hobli, 3 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Bengaluru North Taluk. It was acquired for development of industrial area. The respondent No.2 is beneficiary. As per the reference records, preliminary notification was issued on 13.09.1984 it was published in the Gazette on 11.10.1984, final notification on 20.05.1995 and it was published in the Gazette on 25.05.1995 and award passed on 05.02.2004 and it was confirmed on 20.05.2004. The respondent No.1 has passed an award, fixed the market value at Rs.15,645/- per acre, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,86,018/-. Due to dispute in-
respect of extent of title of the land between the parties, the respondent No.1 has referred the matter before this court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of LA Act and deposited the award amount. As per the 18 applications filed by the claimants 1 to 3, the respondent No.1 has referred the matter before this court. As per the records, possession of the property taken over on 18.03.1996.
.3. In 18 application, the claimant No.1-B. Nagaraj stated that he is interested to the extent of 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 34/1, out of total extent of 33 guntas, 4 L.A.C. No.271/2004 situated at Hoodi village. He has claimed the compensation at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. He also claimed Rs.40,000/- for bore-well, casing pipe, Rs.30,000/- for second bore-well, Rs.1,00,000/- for open well, Rs.25,000/- for the bore dug up in the open well, Rs.30,000/- for pump houses relating to three bore-wells, Rs.5,000/- for one jali tree and Rs.10,000/- for 2 honge trees. He will be received any amount in-respect of compensation under protest. It is stated that preliminary notification was issued in the year 1984. Thereafter the authorities have failed to pass the award. He had filed W.P. No.27563/2002 to direct the authority to refer the matter before this Court. Therefore, the claimant No.1 prayed for enhancement of compensation with statutory benefits.
.4. Claimant No.2 Narayanappa has filed objection to 12(2) notice issued by the respondent No.1 and stated that the award passed by the respondent No.1 is not accordance with market and it is very low. The market value of property is more than Rs.90,00,000/- per acre. 5
L.A.C. No.271/2004 There are malkies, fruit bearing trees and industrial sheds available in the land in question. The agricultural operation were being carried on, industrial Tech. Park Limited is very closed to the land in question, the said area is fully developed, many multi national companies have come near and around the said land, the land in question has grown as like anything. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- per acre.
.5. In 18 application, the claimant No.3 Shamanna stated that he is interested to the extent of 26 ½ guntas out of total extent of 01 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No. 34/1 and 03 acres 02 guntas including 4 guntas of phut kharab in Sy.No. 34/3 situated at Hoodi village. He has claimed the compensation at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre to the land in question. He also claimed for a sum of Rs.55,000/- in-respect of Bore-well, casing pipe, Rs.25,000/- in-respect of pump house, Rs.1,10,000/- in- respect of various kinds of trees were existed in the acquired land. He will be received the award amount 6 L.A.C. No.271/2004 under protest. Therefore, the claimant No.3 prayed for enhancement of compensation with statutory benefits.
.6. It is seen from the records that, after receipt of reference, the respondent No.1 has failed to take steps to the claimants 2 and 3. Hence, on 25.01.2007 this court closed the case. Thereafter, as per the Misc. petition No.447/2017 passed by this court dated 10.01.2009, case has been restored.
.7. After restoration of the case, both parties have appeared through their counsel. During pendency of the case, the respondent No.2 has filed application and impleaded.
.8. The respondents 1 and 2 have not filed objections to claim petition filed by the claimants.
.9. To prove their case, the claimant No.1 B. Nagaraj examined himself as PW.1. Documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37. The claimants 2 and 3 have not adduced oral evidence and got marked the documents. The respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.1. Documents got marked as Ex.R.1 to 8. The respondent 7 L.A.C. No.271/2004 No.2 counsel has filed memo and adopted the evidence of RW.1.
.10. Heard the arguments.
.11. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the reference u/s.18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent No.1/SLAO, is valid and in time?
2. Whether the claimants prove that the market value of the property determined by the respondent No.1/SLAO is not reasonable and adequate?
3. Whether the claimants are entitle for higher compensation to the acquired property? If so, at what rate?
4. What Order or Award?
.12. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the affirmative,
Point No.2: In the partly affirmative,
Point No.3: In the partly affirmative,
Point No.4: As per the final order for the
following:-
8
L.A.C. No.271/2004
R EAS O N S
.13. Point No.1:- So far as limitation relating to
filing and maintaining of the applications filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act, the law is very clear and well settled. The petitioner/claimant has to file 18(1) application within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice upon him. Respondent has to refer the matter to the Civil Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of 18(1) application from the petitioner. If the respondent fails to make the reference, then the petitioner has to file this kind of petition within 3 years after expiry of said 90 days. In this context, I relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 24 (State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman and AIR 1988 Kar. 11 (Asst.
Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi Bai).
.14. It is seen from the records that, the respondent No.1 has acquired the lands belongs to the claimants bearing Sy.No.34/1, 34/2, 34/3 and 34/4 totally 9 L.A.C. No.271/2004 measuring 7 acres 31 guntas situated at Hoodi village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka. The General award passed by the respondent No.1 on 05.02.2004 and it was confirmed on 28.05.2004. As per the particulars furnished under Section 19 of L.A. Act by the respondent No.1 and records, the award notice served on the claimants on 09.06.2004. Thereafter on 14.06.2004 and on 30.06.2004 the claimants 1 to 3 have filed 18(1) applications and the respondent No.1 referred the case before this court on 17.07.2004. As discussed above, I come to the conclusion that the claimants have proved that they have filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice and respondent No.1 referred the matter before this court within stipulated time as per LA Act. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, 18 reference made by the respondent No.1 is valid and in time. Therefore, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
10
L.A.C. No.271/2004 .15. Point No.2 and 3: These two points are inter- connected. For avoiding repetition of discussion, I have taken up these two points together for consideration.
.16. To prove their ownership the claimant No.1 has produced certified copies of registered partition deed dated 10.08.1933 and got marked as Ex.P.1. He has produced 3 RTC extracts of land in question and got marked as Ex.P.2. Names of claimants 1 to 3 mentioned in column No.9 and 12 of RTC extract for the year 1991- 92 to 1996-97. PW.1 in his evidence also deposed about their family properties and the parties are entitle for share in the land in question. It is admitted fact that after passing award, the dispute between the parties, the respondent No.1 referred the matter before this court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of LA Act for apportionment and deposited award amount. The said reference registered as L.A.C. No.137/1994 and pending for adjudication. I am of the opinion that, in the present case this court is not to be decided right/shares of the parties in the land in question. That aspect will be decided in 11 L.A.C. No.271/2004 L.A.C. No.137/1994. On the basis of award to be passed in the said case, the claimants are entitle for compensation in-respect of extent of their land. In this case, this court only determining the market value of land in question and other benefits under LA Act.
.17. I have perused the award passed by the respondent No.1 dated 05.02.2004. On the basis of statistics method and fixed the market value at Rs.15,645/- per acre with statutory benefits. I have perused the contention of the claimants with case on hand. The State has power to acquire the property of citizen compulsory for public purpose. On the other hand, it is duty and obligation of the state to pay the compensation to the property owners. In 18 reference while determining the enhancement of compensation, 3 methods of valuation are generally adopted namely, opinion of experts, sales statistics method and capitalization method. To consider this case on the basis of above said 3 methods, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. They prayed for to 12 L.A.C. No.271/2004 be considered this case on the basis of previous judgments passed by the Courts. It is well settled law that, the claimant has to prove his case with cogent documentary evidence for enhancement of compensation. In this context, I relied upon the decision reported in (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2238 (Mahesh Dattatray Thirthankar Vs. State of Maharashtra).
.18. PW.1 - T. Nagaraj is claimant No.1 of this case. He has deposed that he is interested to claim compensation to the extent of 27 guntas + 31 guntas, in totally measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of land in question. He is the absolute owner, in possession of the land measuring 27 guntas (Including 3 guntas of phod Kharab) comprised in Sy.No. 31/1 out of total extent of 1 acre 33 guntas situated at Hoodi village. He further deposed that he is son of said Bachanna entitle for compensation in-respect of 1 are 18 guntas.
.19. He further deposed that poultry shed with Mangalore tiled roof was existed in the acquired land, he is claiming for compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- 13
L.A.C. No.271/2004 per sq. feet in total claiming Rs.6,60,000/-. He is claiming for compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in-respect of 3 bore wells, Rs.2,00,000/- for open well, Rs.50,000/- for bore dug in the said open well, Rs.60,000/- for pump house of houses of 3 bore wells and Rs.15,000/- for 1 jally tree and 2 Honge trees. He further deposed that he has produced certified copy of judgment in L.A.C. No.204/1996, L.A.C. No.44/1995 and judgment in M.F.A. No. 3832/1999 connected with Cross objection No.81/2000. Hence, he prayed for fixing the market value on the basis of documents produced by him.
.20. I have perused the cross-examination of PW.1. The respondent No.2 has adopted the cross-examination done by the respondent No.1 and further cross-examined. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side was suggested that, they have not produced the documents for enhancement of compensation and not entitle for enhancement of compensation. It was further suggested that at the time of preliminary notification market value of the acquired land for a sum of 14 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per acre, more than 90% of land owners received compensation at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre under consent award, whatever award passed by the respondent No.1 is correct. But PW.1 denied the same. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.2 side was suggested that the acquired land was not fertile land, whatever award passed by the respondent No.1 is correct, they have produced false documents and deposing false evidence. But PW.1 denied the same.
.21. RW.1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he is working as Manager in the office of SLAO, KIADB, Bengaluru. The State Government has initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for establishment of Industries in various survey numbers in and around Bengaluru city. Land in question involved in this case acquired vide preliminary notification dated 13.09.1984. He further deposed that the claimants have not claimed any particular compensation setting out the 15 L.A.C. No.271/2004 grounds for their claim during the award enquiry proceedings. He further deposed that the respondent No.1 obtained the relevant sales statistics from the concerned Sub Registrar relating to the relevant period at the time of preliminary notification, taking into consideration of nature and potentialities of the land, he has determined the market value and it is correct. The respondent No.1 followed the procedure contemplated under the Act. He further deposed that the claimants have failed to establish their claims for producing documentary evidence for enhancement of compensation. He further deposed that more than 90% of the land owners have voluntarily agreed and received the compensation amount of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre including all statutory benefits under Section 29(2) of the Act onwards full and final settlement by entering in to an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act. Accordingly the respondent No.1 passed general award. He further deposed that the respondent No.1 already determined the market value of the acquired land for a sum of 16 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Rs.12,86,018/- for total land including building, pump- house and bore-well with statutory benefits under LA Act. Therefore, RW.1 prayed for rejecting the claim of the claimants for enhancement of higher compensation. The respondent No.2 side submitted that they have adopted the oral evidence of RW.1.
.22. I have perused the documents produced by the respondent No.1. Ex.R.1 is the order of respondent No.1 for permission granted to RW.1 to depose evidence in this case. Ex.R.2 is certified copy of final notification and Ex.R.3 is certified copy of General award dated 05.02.2004. Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.5 are certified copies of letters by respondent No.1 to the Registrar, City Civil Court for referring 18 reference and for referring case under Sections 30 and 31(2) of LA Act. Ex.R.6 is certified copy of map of Hoodi village. Ex.P.7 is the judgment dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 370/2006. This appeal has filed as against the order dated 02.09.2005 passed in RP No.2/2003 on the file of court of the Principal, Civil 17 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Judge (Sr.Dn), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The Hon'ble court allowed the said appeal in part and directed the respondent - KIADB to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre with interest @ 9% p.a, for the 1st year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter 15% p.a. till payment of entire compensation. .23. Ex.P.8 is the judgment dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the same M.F.A. No. 370/2006. This appeal has filed as against the order dated 02.09.2005 passed in RP No.2/2003 on the file of court of the Principal, Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing the Review petition and modifying the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/1995. The Hon'ble court has dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order of reference court dated 02.09.2005 in RP No.02/2003.
.24. I have perused the cross-examination of RW.1 by the claimants' side. It was suggested that they have not passed an award to the poultry farm shed, 3 bore wells, one Mangalore tiled roof, 3 pump houses, 3 trees 18 L.A.C. No.271/2004 and one open well existed in the acquired land. RW.1 stated that they have passed an award as per JMC report. It was further suggested that they have not fixed the market value as on the date of preliminary notification, whatever compensation awarded by them is meager and claimants are entitle for enhancement of compensation. But RW.1 has denied the same.
.25. To prove the market value of the property as on the date of preliminary notification, the claimants have produced several documents and got marked in evidence. As stated above, the claimant No.2 in the objection stated that the acquired property was valued Rs.90,00,000/- per acre as on the date of preliminary notification. But to prove the same the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. The claimants contended that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired land was developed property and it is surrounded by many multi national companies, International Tech park Ltd. To prove the same, the claimants have produced photographs ( Ex.P.34 to 36) and Ex.P.37 of CD of said 19 L.A.C. No.271/2004 photos. PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted suggestion put by the respondent No.1 that Ex.P.34 to 36 are recent photos belongs to respondent No.2 company. I am of the opinion that, these photos are not relates as on the date of preliminary notification. Hence, I come to the conclusion that these photos will not help the case of the claimants.
.26. Ex.P.5 is certified copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 17.06.2014 in M.F.A.No.3831/1999 along with Cross Objection No.81/2000. It reveals that the SLAO, VV Tower has acquired the land measuring 34 guntas in Sy.No. 6/12 situated at Bhinnamangala Manavartha kaval, Bengaluru South taluk. It was acquired for department of Defence. The SLAO has passed award and fixed market value at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. As per 18 application filed by the land owner, the SLAO had referred the case before this court which was registered as L.A.C. No.256/1996. On 28.05.1999 this court passed judgment and award on merit and enhanced the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- 20
L.A.C. No.271/2004 per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the land owners had preferred M.F.A.No.3832/1999 and the SLAO had preferred Cross Objection No.81/2000. The Hon'ble court fixed the market value at Rs.41,38,200/- per acre. On the basis of judgment and award passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated supra, the claimants prayed for fixing the market value.
.27. I have perused the Hon'ble Court judgment (Ex.P.5) with case on hand. Preliminary notification issued in the present case on 13.09.1984 and in M.F.A. on 12.08.1993. It is clear that after lapse of 9 years from the date of preliminary notification of this case the land acquired in M.F.A. No.3832/1999. The acquired land is situated at Hoodi village and land in question in M.F.A. situated at Bhinnamangala village. RW.1 in his cross- examination stated that about 10 kms distance in between Bhinnamangala and Hoodi village. I am of the opinion that, the claimants have not proved that both lands are adjacent and having same potentiality. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, on the basis of Ex.P.5, 21 L.A.C. No.271/2004 this court cannot determine the market value of the property as urged by the claimants.
.28. Ex.P.3 and 3(a) are certified copies of judgment and award dated 20.07.2000 passed by this court in L.A.C. No.204/1996. The respondent No.1 has acquired the land bearing Sy.No. 119/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Pattanduru Agrahara village, K.R. Puram village, Bengaluru South Taluk. The preliminary notification dated 13.09.1984 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 11.10.1994. The respondent No.1 passed an award and fixed the compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre. As per 18 application filed by the land owner, the case was referred to this court and numbered as L.A.C. No.204/1996. After considering the case on merit, this court fixed the market value at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre with interest @ 9% for the 1 st year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter 15% p.a. till the date of payment of entire compensation. It is noticed that the court has not granted statutory benefits of solatium and additional amount. 22
L.A.C. No.271/2004 .29. Ex.P.4 is certified copy of judgment dated 19.02.2001 passed by this court in L.A.C. No.44/1995. The respondent No.1 of this case has acquired the land bearing Sy.No. 97/1 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas situated at Pattanduru Agrahara village, K.R. Puram village, Bengaluru South Taluk. The preliminary notification dated 13.09.1984 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 11.10.1994. The respondent No.1 passed an award and fixed the compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre. As per 18 application filed by the land owner, the case was referred to this court and numbered as L.A.C. No.44/1995. After considering the case on merit, this court fixed the market value at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, with interest @ 9% for the 1 st year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter 15% p.a. till the date of payment of entire compensation. It is noticed that the court has granted statutory benefits of solatium and additional amount. It is admitted that fact that as per the Review Petition No.2/2003 filed by the respondent (SLAO) the said court has modified the judgment and award that 23 L.A.C. No.271/2004 the claimant has entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- acre with interest @ 9%. p.a, for the 1 st year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter 15% p.a. till payment of entire compensation. Further, the court has passed an order that the claimant has not entitled solatium and additional amount. It is also admitted fact that the said order passed in review petition, has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 370/2006 (Ex.R.7 and Ex.R.8).
.30. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the judgments produced by the respondent No.1 (Ex.R.7 and ExR.8) are not applicable to the case on hand. The respondent No.1 has not fixed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification. He has not properly fixed the compensation in-respect of poultry shed, building, bore-wells, open well and trees. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as prayed by the claimants.
24
L.A.C. No.271/2004 .31. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the SLAO has acquired the land in question, on the basis of statistics method, he has fixed the market value at Rs. 15,645/- per acre. He further submitted that as per Ex.P.3 and P.4 of judgments in L.A.C. No.204/1996 and 44/1995, the court fixed the market value at Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre including solatium and additional value. Date of preliminary notification issued in the said 2 cases and present case are one and the same, all the lands acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, he submitted that whatever the award passed by the respondent No.1 is correct. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has cited the following decisions of the Hon'ble courts:
1) (1996) 4 SCC, page 174
2) 2005 AIR SCW page 1775
3) (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases page 801
4) AIR 1995 Supreme Court 840 25 L.A.C. No.271/2004 .32. I have perused Ex.P.3 of the judgment dated
20.07.2000 passed by this court in L.A.C. No.204/1996 and Ex.P.5 of the judgment dated 19.0.2001 passed in L.A.C.No.44/1995. From careful perusal of said judgments with case on hand, it is clear that in all the cases preliminary notification issued on 13.09.1984 and it was published in Gazette on 11.10.1984. All the lands were acquired for the benefit of respondent No.2. Acquired lands in L.A.C. No.204/1996 and L.A.C. No.44/1995 situated at Pattanduru Agrahara village. In the case on hand, the land situated at Hoodi village. .33. I have perused the decisions of Hon'ble High Court cited supra with case on hand. I am of the opinion that the claimant has lost their lands. Hence, sufficient compensation to be awarded to them is required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their judgment reported in 2009 (5) Kar.L.J. 193 (SC) (Special Land Acquisition Officer U.K. Project Vs. Mehaboob and another) was held that: "Award of compensation for - Compensation offered should be reasonable, realistic and 26 L.A.C. No.271/2004 very near to value of land acquired, and payment compensation should be prompt so that land loser will be able to purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood ". It is noticed that the land in question was acquired for the benefit respondent No.2. I am of the opinion that, on the basis of judgment and award passed by this court in L.A.C. No.204/1996 and L.A.C. No.44/1995 (Ex.P.3 and 4) to be fixed the market value is required. In the said judgments this court fixed the market value at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre including solatium and additional amount. The said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.370/2006. In both cases, Court granted interest at 9% p.a., from the 1 st year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% p.a., till payment of entire compensation. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O., in the present case is in-adequate, meager and it is to be enhanced. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitle for compensation to the acquired 27 L.A.C. No.271/2004 land at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre with @ 9% for the 1st year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter 15% p.a. till the date of payment of entire compensation. Further I come to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitle for statutory benefits of solatium and additional amount under Sec.23(1)A and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
.34. I have perused the award passed on 05.02.2004 by the respondent No.1. It is mentioned about existence of trees, building, pump house, bore well in the acquired land. The respondent No.1 received a report from the Chief Development Officer for value of building, pump house and bore well and fixed the compensation of Rs.5,95,868/- that amount also deposited in L.A.C. No.137/2007. In 18 application, the claimant No.1 B. Nagaraju stated that he has claimed compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards bore-well, Rs.30,000/- towards 2 nd bore well, Rs.1,00,000/- towards open well, Rs.25,000/- towards bore dug up in the open well, Rs.30,000/- towards pump houses relating to three bore-wells, 28 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Rs.5,000/- towards one jali tree and Rs.10,000/- towards 2 honge trees. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief stated as follows:
(a) there existed the poultry shed with Mangalore tiled roof measuring 132 X 25 feet with electricity and for which I claim the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- for each one of the square i.e., 10 X 10 feet and in all it is about 33 squares and for which I claim the compensation in a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-, which is quite reasonable and fair and even the said poultry shed has been taken possession by the Authorities.
(b) I submit that, there are three bore-wells in the land in question and first bore well is of 325 feet in depth with 6" diameter and I claim compensation of Rs.60,000/- in-respect of the said bore-well;
(c) In-respect of the 2nd bore-well in a depth of 250 feet of 6" in diameter, I claim the compensation of Rs.50,000/-;
(d) In respect of the open well of 20 feet in diameter and having the depth of 40 feet which is stoned reverted and I claim the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-;
(e) Besides, I have also put a bore in the said open well to a depth of 185 feet and 6" in diameter and for which I claim the compensation of Rs.50,000/-;
(f) For all the said three bores, I have put the casing pipe to the length required. There are pump houses relating to the said three bore- wells and for each one of the pump houses I 29 L.A.C. No.271/2004 claim Rs.20,000/- each i.e., in a sum of Rs.60,000/-;
(g) Besides, there are malkies i.e., there has been one Jally tree, aged about 25 years and for which I claim the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and for two honge trees of 20 years old, I claim the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the said trees and claiming the fuel value for the said trees as on the date of the preliminary notification;
.35. I have perused the above said contention of the claimants. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief stated about existence of poultry shed with Mangalore tiled roof house totally measuring 33 squares and claiming compensation of Rs.6,60,000/-. But it is noticed that in 18 application, the claimants have not mentioned about existence of poultry shed in the acquired property as on the date of acquisition. It is also not mentioned in 18 application that the claimants were running poultry farm in the said shed. The claimant No.1 has produced Ex.P.6 certificate issued by Veterinary Department that he has under went training for poultry farm in the year 1987 for the period of 15 days. It is noticed that PW.1 in his cross- examination stated that they have not produced the 30 L.A.C. No.271/2004 documents to show that they were running poultry farm in the land in question. I am of the opinion that in the award, it is not mentioned about existence of poultry farm and running poultry farm by the claimants. I am of the opinion that, the claimants have not produced documents that existence of poultry shed and running poultry farm in the said shed. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, the claimants have failed to prove that there was existence of poultry shed with Mangalore tiled roof house in the land in question and they were running poultry farm in the said property. They have not produced the licence issued by the concerned authorities for running poultry farm in the alleged shed. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, the claimants are not entitle for the compensation in-respect of alleged poultry shed and poultry farm.
.36. The claimants have produced Ex.P.7 to 13 works order for supply of water issued by the respondent No.2. Ex.P.14 is the letter by claimant No.1 - B. Nagaraj to the respondent No.1 for receiving payment for supply 31 L.A.C. No.271/2004 of water. Ex.P.16 to 32 are bills issued in the name of claimant No.1 by respondent No.2. On the basis of said documents, the counsel for the claimant No.1 stated that the claimant No.1 supplying water from the bore well existed in the land in question. Hence, he prayed for awarding compensation for loss suffered by the claimant No.1 to supply of water to the respondent No.2. I have carefully perused the above said arguments canvassed by the claimants' side with documentary evidence of Ex.P.7 to 32. It is pertinent to note that in 18 application and examination-in-chief of PW.1 never stated that the claimant No.1 was supplying water to the respondent No.2 from the bore wells existed in the acquired land, after acquisition and taking possession of the same, the claimant No.1 having loss. I am of the opinion that, without pleadings and oral evidence, I am not accepted the contention of the claimant No.1 that he having loss for supplying water from the bore wells existed in the acquired land. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that 32 L.A.C. No.271/2004 the claimants are not entitle for the compensation in respect of alleged supply of water to the respondent No.2.
.37. Further I have perused the contention of the claimants about compensation in-respect of 3 bore wells, open well, digging bore in the said open well, 3 pump house relating to the above said bore wells, 1 jally tree and 2 honge trees. In the award, it is mentioned about existence of building, pump house and bore well in the land in question at the time of acquisition and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,95,868/-. To prove the correct value of building, pump house, bore-wells, open well and trees, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. They have not produced any estimation done by expert in-respect of said properties. However, from looking into the nature of the building, bore wells, open well, pump house and trees, as claimed by the claimants, I come to the conclusion that, they are entitle for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,95,865/- awarded by the respondent No.1 in respect of building, 33 L.A.C. No.271/2004 pump houses, bore wells, open well and trees. Hence, answer the points 2 and 3 in the partly affirmative.
.38. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORD ER The reference made by the SLAO/respondent under Section 18 of L.A. Act 1894, is partly allowed.
The claimants are entitle for market
value of his acquired property at the rate of
Rs.12,00,000/- per acre instead of
Rs.15,645/- per acre as awarded by the respondent No.1.
The claimants are entitle for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,95,865/- as awarded by the respondent No.1 in respect of building, bore wells, open well, pump houses and trees.
Further, the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of acquired land and further interest @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
34
L.A.C. No.271/2004
The amount already paid by the
respondent/SLAO, if any, shall be deducted in the enhancement of the market value now awarded.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 5 th day of February, 2020) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : B.Nagaraj
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of registered palupatti dated 09.08.1933 Ex.P.1(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.1 Ex.P.2 3 RTC extracts Ex.P.3 & 3(a) Certified copies of judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.204/1996 dated 20.07.2000 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.44/1995 dated 19.02.2001 35 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Ex.P.5 Certified copy of judgment in M.F.A. No.3832/1999 a/w Cross Objections No.81 of 2000 dated 17.06.2001 Ex.P.6 Certificate dated 21.09.1987 issued by Veterinary Department Ex.P.7 to 13 7 Work order for supply of water issued by Bhoruka Steel Limited Ex.P.14 Letter dated 19.07.1982 by claimant to Bhoruka Steel Limited Ex.P.15 to 32 18 Cheque payment vouchers Ex.P.33 Certified copy of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WA No.4844/2015 Ex.P.34 to 36 Three photos Ex.P.37 One CD
3.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : Shivananda K.S.
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter dated 19.01.2021 issued by respondent No.1 in-favour of RW.1 Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of final notification dated 25.05.1995 Ex.R3 : Certified copy of award dated 5.02.2004 Ex.R.4 : Certified copy of letter dated 14.07.2007 Ex.R.5 : Certified copy of letter dated 07.06.2004 Ex.R.6 : Certified copy of village map of Hoodi 36 L.A.C. No.271/2004 Ex.R.7 : Web site copy of judgment dated 10.11.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 370/2006 (CPC) Ex.R.8 : Certified copy of judgment dated 25.11.20103 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 370/2006(CPC) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.