Bangalore District Court
In Both Cases vs In Both Cases on 10 August, 2021
1
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 10 th day of August, 2021.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M., M.Com., LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.117/2008 C/W L.A.C.
No.118/2008
CLAIMANTS IN BOTH CASES:
Srinivasa Reddy
Since dead by his LRs
1) R. Nirmala
W/o late. S. Suresh
Aged about 50 years,
2) S. Manu
S/o late. S. Suresh
Aged about 24 years,
3) S. Nirmaladevi
D/o late. S. Suresh
Aged about 55 years,
4) S. Venkatesh
S/o late. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
At Swamy Vivienkanada Ashrama,
Hoodi village, Mahadevapura post,
Bengaluru -560 048.
5) S. Rajashekar
S/o late. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
6) S. Vyshali
Since dead by her LRs
V. Anand Kumar,
2
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Aged about 53 years,
Husband of late. S. Vyshali,
R/at. No.225/C,
17th Main, Sector-4, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru -560 102.
Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are residing at
Konappana Agrahara, Now Electronic City
post, Bengaluru -560 100.
(By Sri.RG, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS IN BOTH CASES:
1) Special Land Acquisition Officer-I
KIADB (BMICP), Gandhi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
2) Nandi Infrastructure
Corrido Enterprise Limited,
No.1, Midford House,
Midford garden,
Off M.G. Road, Bengaluru -560 001
Represented by its duly constituted
Attorney-D. Ravishankar.
3) Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises
Limited, No.1,
Midford House, Midford Garden,
Off M.G. Road, Bengaluru -560 001.
Represented by its duly
Constituted Attorney -D Ravishankar
(By Sri.BRSG, Advocate for R.1)
(By Sri.KJP Advocate for R.2 & 3)
3
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both references are being made under Section 18 of
L.A. Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A Act for short) by
the respondent No.1, S.L.A.O.-1/KIADB, Bengaluru.
.2. The circumstances under which these references
came to be made to the extent of 4 guntas and 5 guntas
in Sy.No. 33/1 and 33/2 respectively of Doddathogur
village, was acquired under preliminary notification dated
03.06.1999. The L.A.O. collected sales statistics for 3
years prior to the reference and fixed market value at
Rs.3,37,776/- per acre. The award notice was issued on
20.05.2008. The claimants had filed an application under
Section 18 on 17.06.2008 requesting the L.A.O. to refer
the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of higher
compensation.
.3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:
The notice (letter) dated 29.05.2008 received on
12.06.2008 issued by respondent No.1 to Srinivasa
4
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Reddy intimating about award passed and making
reference to civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of L.A.
Act, in-respect of acquisition of land to the extent of 4
guntas in Sy.No.33/1 of Doddathogur village, Bengaluru
South Taluka acquired for BMICP.
.4. It is stated that the claimant Srinivasa Reddy
died on 01.12.2003 leaving behind his sons and
daughters and his first son S. Suresh also died on
11.03.2005 leaving behind his wife and son. The LRs of
Srinivasa Reddy have obtained a succession certificate in
P & Sc No.3/2006. It is stated that the award copy has
not been furnished to the claimant and the award passed
is not sufficient and do not accept the same. It is stated
that the lands acquired for widening of National Highway
in Doddathogur village, Konappana Agrahara and
Singasandra, wherein, the reference under Section 18 of
L.A. Act, the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Bengaluru has fixed the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per
guntas and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has
5
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
confirmed the same. These lands acquired under
preliminary notification published in the year 1991. the
present land acquired and the lands already acquired
under the above reference are situated adjacent and have
got similar character in nature. The compensation
amount awarded is in-adequate and is not based on
market value. The present market value prevailing in the
area is more than Rs.50/- lakhs per acre. Relying upon
the award passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Bengaluru District, Bengaluru in L.A.C. No.8, 9, 10, 82,
83 and 37 of 1998 and L.A.C. No.2/2002 fixing the
compensation at Rs.13,96,500/- per acre for acquisition
of land acquired in the year 1994 which belongs to the
claimants.
.5. It is stated that the application has been filed
within the time from the date of knowledge of the award
passed on 29.05.2008 and received on 12.06.2008.
Hence, prayed for referring the reference to the Civil
6
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Court for adjudication of proper and adequate
compensation in-respect of acquired land.
.6. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed objections,
stating that the claimants have filed the claim statement
seeking for enhancement of compensation amount
awarded by the respondent No.1 in-respect of Sy.No.33/1
and 33/2 of Doddathogur village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka, measuring 4 and 5 guntas respectively.
The claimant despite the notice of hearing before the
respondent No.1 failed to appear and present his case
with regard to enhancing the compensation. The
respondent No.1 after duly following the procedure as
prescribed under the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 and the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 passed the award dated 07.01.2008 awarding
compensation as provided there under. Aggrieved by the
said award, the claimant is before this Court in the above
proceedings.
7
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
.7. The claimant has relied only on a few judgments
rendered in certain land acquisition proceedings which
cannot be made applicable without the claimants giving
evidence on the issues like market value of the land
question of the relevant time and has chosen to contend
that the compensation awarded is not properly
ascertained and decided and the market value as fixed is
inadequate, insufficient and meager as compared to the
prevailing market value of the land as on the date of
preliminary notification. The contention of the claimant
cannot be accepted as the same is illogical and without
any basis.
.8. It is stated that the reasons assigned in the
award are based on the sale statistics of the relevant
period which should be considered at the time of
determining the compensation payable. Without following
the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, the
compensation cannot be determined. The award cannot
be made on the basis of hypothetical grounds raised by
8
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
the claimant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim
and to confirm the award passed by the respondent No.1.
.9. After receipt of the references, the notice was
ordered to be served on the claimants and respondents.
The claimants appeared through their counsel and the
respondent No.1 appeared through Addl. Government
pleader and subsequently the respondents 2 and 3 got
impleaded. Since all the lands were acquired under same
preliminary notification, L.A.C. No.118/2008 have been
clubbed with this case and common evidence is recorded
in L.A.C. No.117/2008. The claimants in both cases are
one and the same.
.10. To prove their case, legal heir of claimant
namely R. Nirmala examined herself as PW.1.
Documents got marked Exs.P.1 to 7. The General
Manager of the respondents 2 and 3 is examined as
RW.1. Documents got marked Exs.R.1 to 17(a).
9
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
.11. Heard the arguments. Written arguments filed
by both parties.
.12. The following points would arise for my
consideration are:
1) Whether the references are in
time?
2) Whether the compensation
awarded by the L.A.O. is in-
adequate?
3) Whether the claimants are entitle for
higher compensation to the acquired
property? If so, at what rate?
4) What order or award?
.13. My findings to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the affirmative,
Point No.3: Partly in the affirmative
Point No.4: As per the final order for the
following:-
10
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
REA S ON S
.14. Point No.1:- From the records along with
references by the L.A.O., it is clear that the General
award was passed on 07.01.2008. The award notice to
the claimants was issued on 29.05.2008. The claimants
have filed the application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, on
17.06.2008, which is within the prescribed time. The
references are sent to the Court by the L.A.O. on
20.07.2008 which is also within the prescribed time.
Hence, the references made by the L.A.O. in both cases
are valid and within the period of limitation. Accordingly,
I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
.15. Point No.2: The General award discloses that
the L.A.O. collected for sales statistics for a period of 3
years prior to the date of preliminary notification. From
the sale deeds he arrived at average sales price of
Rs.3,37,776/- per acre. The L.A.O. has not adopted 2
11
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
other methods namely expert's opinion or capitalization of
income method. The respondent No.2 & 3 have produced
guidelines with regard to market value of the land for the
purpose of registration as per the Karnataka Stamp Act
1957 as per Ex.R.17 published in the Karanaka Gazette
on 03.12.1998. The market value of the land per acre in
Doddathogur village as per the above document is
Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. The compensation fixed by the
LAO is less than the guideline value. The claimants have
relied upon the judgment in L.A.C. No.8, 9, 10 in-respect
of same survey number with regard to the acquisition in
1994 for the same purpose, in which, this Court has
enhanced the market value to Rs.13,96,500/- per acre
which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in M.F.A. No.2103/2000 along with connected
cases. There is no rational basis for the L.A.O. to fix the
market value at Rs.3,37,776/- per acre. Hence, under
these circumstances, it cannot be said that the approach
of the L.A.O. in determining the market value is fair and
12
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
reasonable. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the
affirmative.
.16. Point No.3: The respondents 2 and 3 counsel
has relied upon the following decisions reported in 1995
SCC (5) 233 (K. Posayya and others Vs. Special
Tahsildar), wherein it is held that:
"6. It is settled law that market value is to
be determined either on the basis of the
prevailing prices of sale and purchase
between willing vendor and willing vendee
or value of the crops realised applying
suitable 10 years multiplier property in
case of land valued of expert valuer like
urban properties could be considered for
determination of the compensation.
Market value cannot be filed with
mathematical precision but must be
based on sound discretion exercised by
the reference Court in arriving at just and
reasonable price. It should not be based
on feats of imagination or flight of fancy.
Determination of compensation for
compulsory acquisition involves
consideration of the price which a
hypothetical willing purchaser can be
expected to pay for the lands in the
existing use as well as relatable
potentialities. The acid test is the arm
chair of the willing vendor would offer and
a prudent willing buyer, taking all relevant
prevailing conditions of the normal
market, fertility of the land, location,
13
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
suitability of the purpose it was
purchased, its existing potentialities and
likely use to which the land is capable of
being put in the same condition would
offer to pay the price, as on the date of the
notification. In case of acquisition of large
tracts of lands for projects situated in
several villages, stray sale deed of small
extent here and there would not form the
basis to determine the compensation. The
reference could should be circumspect,
pragmatic and careful in analyzing the
evidence and arriving at just and fair
market value of the lands under
acquisition which could be fetched on the
date of the notification. The nature of the
land, the crops raised and the nature of
the income likely to be derived from the
lands, the expenditure to be incurred for
raising the crops and the net profits etc.,
would be the relevant factors in arriving at
the net market value and if evidence is
produced in that behalf on its basis
applying the suitable 10 years multiplier,
the market value need to be determined.
The owner or claimant should not be put
to loss by under valuation. But, at the
same time public exchequer should not be
put to undue burden by excess valuation.
It is the statutory duty of the Court to
maintain the balance between diverse
interests."
.17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the
judgment of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka
14
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Housing Board and others Vs. P.M. Mallappa and others,
reported in (1997) 4 SCC 429, held that the potential
value of acquired land shall be determined as on the date
of the notification and not after subsequent
developments have taken place. The value of the
developed land bears no relevance to further
enhancement of the value.
.18. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the
above decisions let us examine the case on hand.
.19. PW.1 S. Nirmala Devi who is legal heir of
deceased Srinivasa Reddy has filed an affidavit in support
of her plea in this reference with regard to the
acquisition of the land measuring 4 guntas in Sy.No.
33/1 subject matter of the reference in L.A.C.
No.117/2008 and 5 guntas in Sy.No.33/2 subject matter
of the reference in L.A.C. No.118/2008, situated at
Doddathogur village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka. After lands were acquired for development of
hand-looms industry, it appears from the record that the
15
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
land has been given to the respondents 2 and 3
beneficiary for formation of ring road connecting from
Hosur road to nice road. There is no dispute by both
parties with regard to the extent of land acquired from
the claimants in both the cases and nature of the lands.
The only dispute is with regard to the determination of
market value awarded by the respondent No.1.
.20. The respondent No.1 in the written objection as
well as in the written arguments has contended that
before passing of the award, the claimants were given
notice and sufficient opportunity was given to them to
substantiate their claim by giving evidence. However, the
claimants failed and neglected to appear before the
respondent No.1 and present their claim as regards to the
compensation to be awarded in-respect of the above
lands. It is stated that as claimants have not appeared
before the respondent No.1 and put forward their claim,
they are not entitled for any enhancement of
compensation which has been awarded by the
16
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
respondent No.1 and so the present cases are liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone. In this regard, the
respondents 2 and 3 have relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawarsab Babusab
Mullasab and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition
officer, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 158, wherein it was
held that:
"10. In the circumstances we are not
able to hold that the High court's
judgment is unsupportable though we
feel it would have been better if the High
Court had written a more reasoned
judgment. Considering also the fact that
in three of these appeals at least, the
parties had not appeared before the
Land Acquisition Officer and put
forward any specific amount as the
compensation due they would not have
been entitled to any compensation
higher than what was awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer. We should
add that in one case, that is M.F.A.
No.83 of 1972, it is admitted on behalf
of the respondents that a mistake had
crept in mentioning Rs.2000/- instead
of Rs.2500/- an acre. In that appeal
alone, that is G.A. No.1703 of 1973, the
judgment of the High Court will be
modified to substitute the sum of
Rs.2000/- for Rs.2500/-. Otherwise, the
appeals will stand dismissed. In the
17
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
circumstances of this case there will be
no order as to costs."
.21. The L.A.O. has not been examined in this case.
RW.1 who got subsequently impleaded though taken up
the above said contention in their objections has not
stated in his evidence with regard to the contentions
urged. No suggestion has been put to PW-1 in this
regard. The respondents have failed to prove the
contention. So, the above decision is not applicable to the
case on hand.
.22. PW.1 has stated that the lands in question are
situated by the side of National High-way, Hosur road,
Bengaluru and the surrounding area of the land in
question are well developed area. There is Infosys
company and other IT companies are located and
education institutions have come up in the said area near
by the acquired lands. The Electronic city is also situated
near by the lands. The market value prevailing at the
time of publishing the preliminary notification was more
18
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
than Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. Nothing has been elicited
in the cross-examination of PW.1 to disbelieve her
evidence. RW.1 during cross-examination has admitted
about existence of National High way, Hosur road by the
side of acquired land; that it is near to Electronic city;
that surrounded areas have been developed.
.23. The claimants have not produced certified
copies of the sale deeds of surrounding lands which were
executed 3 years prior to the preliminary notification. No
where in the evidence of PW.1, she has stated the
potentiality of the land whether it is cultivable land or
not. As such, it is not possible for the Court to assess the
compensation by adopting capitalization of income
method. She has also not produced any materials to rely
upon other 2 methods sales statistics or expert's opinion
method. However, PW.1 has produced Ex.P.5 certified
copies of the judgment and award passed in L.A.C.
No.46/1994 and 15 other cases, wherein, other lands of
the same deceased claimant Srinivasa Reddy S/o
19
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Venkatashamappa and 14 others were acquired by the
Government under preliminary notification and
published in the official Gazette on 21.02.1991 and final
notification published on 16.05.1992 for widening of
National High way No.7. The market value was fixed by
the L.A.O. at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. The Court has
enhanced the market value to Rs.12,00,000/- per acre.
Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondent had
preferred appeal in M.F.A. No.6049/2007 as per Ex.P.7.
The High Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground
of delay.
.24. From the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.3 it is seen
that the respondent No.1 again acquired 2 guntas of land
in Sy.No. 33/2 and 3 guntas in Sy.No. 33/1 of same
deceased claimant Srinivasa Reddy in L.A.C. No.8,
9/1998 and connected cases under the preliminary
notification dated 30.05.1994 for the purpose of widening
of NH-4 and published in Gazette on 26.08.1994 and
final notification was published in the official Gazette on
20
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
15.07.1995. The L.A.O. conducted an enquiry and after
collecting sales statistics in-respect of Doddathogur and
Konappana Agrahara for a period of 3 years from
07.07.1991 to 07.07.1994. He worked out average sale
price and fixed the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per
acre in case of both wet and dry land and passed
General award on 12.06.1997. This Court based on the
judgment in Ex.P.5 has enhanced the compensation from
Rs.1,50,000/- per acre to Rs.13,96,500/- per acre.
.25. Against the said award, the respondent had
preferred M.F.A. No.2103/2000 and connected cases.
Ex.P.4 is the judgment. At page No.10, the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka has observed that "The purpose of
two acquisitions namely the one in the instant appeals
and that which was the subject matter of the proceedings
in M.F.A. No.1380/1995 was the same. The parcels of
land acquired in these cases also were utilized for
widening of the Bengaluru-Hosur National Highway, as
was the position in M.F.A. 1380/95. In that view
21
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
therefore, the price fixed in M.F.A. 1380/95 can be taken
as a bench mark for purpose of determining the
compensation in the instant cases also."
.26. The appeals and Cross-Objections have been
dismissed. The compensation awarded by this Court of
Rs.13,96,500/- as per Ex.P.3 has been up held.
.27. PW.1 has stated that the acquired land in
question and lands acquired and compensation awarded
in L.A.C. No.8 of 1998 connected cases and acquired land
in L.A.C. No.46/1994 are situated in Doddathogur village
and Konappana Agrahara, Bengaluru South Taluka and
are adjacent lands having the same character and have
been notified for acquisition on different dates and
notification and are belonged to the same claimant and
others in the cases referred to above. The lands acquired
in L.A.C. No.8/1998 and other cases are remaining
portions of the lands in the same survey numbers. The
preliminary notification in the present acquired cases
22
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
have been passed in the year 1998 that the claimants are
entitled to appreciation at 10% from 1994 to 1998.
.28. The respondent Advocate in his oral as well as
in his written arguments has contended that the
claimants have relied on the judgment rendered in
support of the claim which are not relevant to the present
case. It is stated that claimants have not adduced
independent evidence with regard to market value of the
acquired land or lands surrounded to the acquired land
at the time of preliminary notification. The contention of
the claimants that the compensation awarded is in-
adequate and insufficient and not in accordance with the
prevailing market value are without any basis or logic.
The lands in the judgment referred by the claimants
have been acquired for the purpose of widening of
National Highway. In the present case, the lands have
been acquired for implementation of BMICP, which is
evident from preliminary notification. On that ground
23
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
alone, the judgment passed in Ex.P.3 and 7 cannot be
relied upon by this Court.
.29. The contention of the respondent is not
sustainable in view of the fact that the lands in the
judgment cases and in the present cases are in the same
Sy.Number and the lands have been acquired under
different notification. The lands in L.A.C. No.8, 9 of 1998
connected with other cases and lands in L.A.C.
No.46/1994 connected with other cases had been
acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway.
Whereas, the lands in the present case though acquired
for development of hand-loom industry have been
subsequently handed over to respondents 2 to 3 for
formation of ring road connecting from Hosur road to
Nice road. So object of acquisition in the above cases and
in the present case are similar in nature.
.30. The respondents 2 and 3 have examined the
General Manager as RW.1. He has stated that the
acquired lands were determined by the respondent No.1
24
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
Authority on the basis of sales statistics of 3 years prior
to the preliminary notification in-respect of the lands in
the vicinity of the acquired lands. The same was in
compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Act. To
corroborate his contention, the respondent has relied
upon Ex.R.3 to 16. These were the same sale deeds
relied upon by respondent No.1 while passing the award.
Sl. Ex. Date of Sy.No. Extent Sale
No No. sale deed of land consideration
(Rs.)
01 R-3 17.06.1996 06/6 1-13 3,65,000/-
02 R-4 14.09.1996 151 4-18 12,23,750/-
03 R-5 28.10.1996 102/2 3-18 8,80,000/-
04 R-6 14.11.1996 107/2 1-24 1,50,000/-
05 R-7 05.12.1996 56/3 0-20 3,50,000/-
06 R-8 22.03.1996 16 0-14 90,000/-
07 R-9 16.01.1997 15/3 0.32 4,90,000/-
08 R-10 22.05.1997 149 0-28 4,90,000/-
09 R-11 30.05.1997 132 1-09 5,00,000/-
10 R-12 10.06.1998 134/1 0-12 ½ 2,20,000/-
11 R-13 18.06.1997 57/1 0-20 3,50,000/-
12 R-14 03.12.1998 149 0-16 ½ 2,90,000/-
13 R-15 06.01.1999 22/3 0-19 2,85,000/-
14 R-16 17.02.1999 47/8 1-05 50,000/-
25
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
The average of the sale consideration is worked out
to Rs.3,37,776/- per acre.
.31. The counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 has
relied upon the citation reported in Major General Kapil
Mehra and others Vs. Union of India and another,
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 262, wherein it is held that:
"20. Where the lands acquired are of
different type and different locations,
averaging is not permissible. But
where there are several sales of similar
lands, more or less, at the same time,
whose prices have marginal variation,
averaging thereof is permissible. For
the purpose of fixation of fair and
reasonable market value of any type of
land, abnormally high value or
abnormally low value sales should be
carefully discarded. If the number of
sale deed s of the same locality and the
same period with short intervals are
available, the average price of the
available number of sale deeds shall be
considered as a fair and reasonable
market price. Ultimately, it is in the
interest of justice for the land losers to
be awarded fair compensation. All
attempts should be taken to award fair
compensation to the extent possible on
the basis of their accessibility to
different kinds of roads, locational
advantages etc. Four perpetual lease
deeds A-7 to A-10 relied upon by the
26
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
appellants are of the same locality-
Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme and
relate to the period ranging from
September 1995 to December 1996,
but they are just prior to Section 4(1)
notification. In our view, the High
Court was justified in taking the
average of the said four exemplars and
approach adopted by the High Court in
averaging the sale prices of Exts. A-7
to A-10 cannot be said to be perverse"
.32. In the present case, the LAO has considered
Ex.R.16 sale deed which is abnormally low value sale.
He should have discarded the said sale deed. So the
approach of the LAO in averaging the sale price is not
proper.
.33. Ex.R.17 is market value of the land for the
purpose of registration in Bengaluru as per the
Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 which has been published on
03.12.1998. Page No.47 of the Sl. No.14, pertain to
Doddathogur village. The market value of the land per
acre is fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. The L.A.O. has fixed the
market value of the land per acre less than the guidance
value which is based on expert's opinion. The market
27
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
value of Rs.3,37,776/- per acre fixed by L.A.O. did not
convey or showed the correct market value of acquired
land. It is in the interest of justice for the land looser to
award fair compensation.
.34. Except the sales statistics method, the Land
Acquisition Officer has not adopted other two known
methods namely expert's opinion or capitalization of
income method. The valuation arrived on the basis of
one of the methods of valuation may have to be
calculated by other method as held by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in ILR 1997 Karnataka 116.
.35. Our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a
decision reported in 1983 (2) KLJ 234 Town
Municipality Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Haveri ,
wherein, Lordship has held that the reference Court can
rely upon the judgment and decree passed by same Court
or other court in order to determine the market value
wherein the properties are situated in the same village or
same taluka or Hobli. In the instant case, as noted above
28
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
the lands of the claimants are situated in the same village
and acquired for almost similar purpose.
.36. The Hon'ble Supreme Appeals Reporter (SC)
1997 SC page 512 (Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Kheda & another etc., Vs Vasudev Chandrashankar
& another etc.,), wherein, their Lordship held that:
"Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec.23(1)-
Acquisition of land-compensation for-
determination of-Similarly placed land in
the same village acquired in 1979-
Compensation for the same awarded in
reference under Section 18 at the rate of
Rs.2100 per acre-Award in reference not
impugned and becoming final-Acquisition
of another land similarly placed in the
same village made in pursuance of
notification dated 14.08.86
-compensation awarded by reference
Court for land acquired in 1986 assessed
at Rs.2500 per acre taking into
consideration time lag of 8 years-Not
vitiated by any error of principle of law.
Held: It is now settled legal position that
the award of the reference Court relating
to the same village of the similar land
possessed of same quality of land and
potential offer a comparable base for
determination of the compensation."
29
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
.37. The above decision applies to the present case
on hand. Therefore, in view of the above decision
enhanced market value in Ex.P.3 can safely be relied
upon to fix the market value of the acquired lands as the
lands in these cases and the lands in Ex.P.3 and P.5 are
in the same survey number.
.38. Ex.P.3 discloses that the land was acquired on
30.05.1994 and enhanced compensation was fixed at
Rs.13,96,500/- per acre . In the instant case, the land
was acquired on 02.06.1999. It has not been disputed
that the land value are appreciate year by year. Even if
the minimum escalation of price is considered as 5% and
added to the compensation awarded in L.A.C. Nos.8, 9,
10, 82, 83 and 37/98 and connected cases, the
compensation amount would be Rs.17,45,625/- per acre.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the above said
amount.
.39. While possession of the land was taken on
09.11.2005 (as per award page No.13), where as the
30
L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w
L.A.C. No.118/2008
preliminary notification was published on 03.06.1999
and L.A.O. passed award on 07.01.2008. Therefore, in
view of the decision reported in 1997(2) KLJ page 534,
the claimants are entitled for additional amount
calculated at 12% from 03.06.1992 to 07.01.2008, 9%
from 09.11.2005 to 07.01.2008 and 15% from
07.01.2008 till payment. Hence I answer point No.3
partly in the affirmative
.40. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1
to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
Common Order
Both references made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, are partly allowed.
The claimants are entitled for market value of their acquired property to the extent of 4 guntas in Sy.No. 33/1 and 5 guntas in Sy.No. 33/2 of Doddathogur village at the rate of Rs.17,45,625/- per acre instead of Rs.3,37,776/- per acre as awarded by the L.A.O./respondent No.1.
31L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w L.A.C. No.118/2008 The claimants are entitled for the additional market value u/s. 23(1-A) of L.A. Act, at the rate of 12% p.a., on the enhanced market value from the date of publication of preliminary notification dated 03.06.1999 till the date of taking possession i.e., 09.11.2005.
The claimants are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value as per section 23(2) of L.A. Act.
The claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of acquired land i.e., 09.11.2005 and further interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
The amount already paid by the L.A.O./respondent No.1, shall be deducted in the enhanced market value now awarded.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
32L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w L.A.C. No.118/2008 Office is directed to keep the original judgment in LAC No.117/2008 and copy of the same in L.A.C. No.118/2008.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 10 th day of August, 2021) (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : S. Nirmala Devi
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 General Power of Attorney in P & Sc No.3/2006 Ex.P.3 Certified copies of common judgments in L.A.C. Nos. 8 to 10, 82, 83 and lad No.37/1998 and L.A.C. No.2/2002 dated 05.07.2003 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of common judgment in M.F.A. No.210/2000 dated 22.07.2002 Ex.P.5 Certified copies of common judgments in L.A.C. No.46, 63, 64 of 1994 to 22/1995, 70/1995 to 73/1995, 79/1995, 22, 27, 62 of 1996 dated 06.08.1999 33 L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w L.A.C. No.118/2008 Ex.P.6 Certified copies of common judgments in L.A.C. No.46, 63, 64 of 1994, 19 to 22/1995, 70/1995 to 73/1995, 79/1995, 22, 27, 62 of 1996 dated 17.07.2000 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of M.F.A. No.6049/2007 (LAC)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : R. Tippanna
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 & 2 Two Board Resolutions Ex.R.3 to 16 Certified copies of sale deeds dated 17.06.1996, 14.09.1996, 28.10.1996, 14.11.1966, 05.12.1996, 22.03.1996, 16.01.1997, 22.05.1997, 30.05.1997, 10.06.1998, 18.06.1997, 03.12.1998, 06.01.1999 and 17.02.1999 Ex.R.17 Xerox copy of latest market value of land for the purpose of registration and Bengaluru Ex.R.17(a) Market valuation list of office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluka (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
34 L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w L.A.C. No.118/2008 35 L.A.C. No.117/2008 C/w L.A.C. No.118/2008