Bangalore District Court
Sri. G.P. Venkatappa Reddy S/O Papaiah vs ) The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 18 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
HOLDING C/C XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-47)
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2017.
PRESENT:
Shri. G.BASAVARAJA B.A.,LL.M.
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Bangalore City, holding c/c of II Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.238/2002
CLAIMANT:
Sri. G.P. Venkatappa Reddy s/o Papaiah, major,
residing at No.26/5, 1st cross, Pukaraju Layout,
Banneghatta road, Adugodi, Bangalore.
(By Sri.NHR. Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, National
Highways, Bangalore.
2) The Executive Engineer, NH-7, Bommasandra,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.DGP, Advocate)
------
2 L.A.C. No.238/2002
JUDGMENT
The Claimant has referred this case U/s.18(1) of L.A. Act for determination of actual market value of the property acquired by the Respondents.
.2. The brief facts of the application filed under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act are as under:
The Claimant was an absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property bearing gramatana khata No.247/1 situated at Bommanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which comes under Bommanahalli Municipal Council, consisting of land and building. The said property was acquired for the purpose of widening of Nation Highway No.7. Further it is submitted that his property is situated at the center of the village in the N.H. No.7. It is a gramatana property. It is the center for all business establishments. As such, the value in terms of market value as to be valued on the basis of commercial value of the site. The value of Rs.45/- per sq. feet fixed for the site by the Respondents and 30% solation and 12% additional market value fixed and paid is far below the market value. The market value is fixed on 3 L.A.C. No.238/2002 assumption and presumption without enquiring and ascertaining. Hence, the same is not acceptable to the Claimant. The correct market value of the property of the Claimant is Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet, the amount paid by the Respondents is far below the market value. Further it is submitted that for the purpose of widening of N.H. No.7 the Respondents have taken possession more than 2,600/- sq. feet from his property. Whereas, the award is made only to the extent of 2,232/- sq. feet of the land. The same is paid by fixing very low market value. The correct measurement also has to be adjudicated and the award amount has to be paid to the Claimant. Further it is submitted that the building constructed on the property of the Claimant is of RCC building "A" class construction consisting of basement, ground floor and a room in the first floor, the building was being used by commercial establishments. The value being taken for the assessment of value of the building per sq. meters is far below and the classification taken into consideration for valuing the building is totally not correct and the same is not acceptable to the Claimant. The measurement of the building is also not properly measured. The exterminable staircase portion 4 L.A.C. No.238/2002 of the building is not valued and no amount is being paid. The additional items of the building such as para putt walls, grill works, chajjas is not taken into consideration while estimating and fixing the value and no amount is paid. Further it is submitted that at the time of passing the award, the Respondents have not valued the building properly. As such, the award amount paid to the Claimant is not acceptable one. Hence, on these grounds, the Claimant sought for determination of just and adequate compensation in accordance with law for the property acquired by the Respondents.
.3. On receipt of the above reference petition, this court has registered a case and notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the Claimant appeared before this court through his counsel. The Respondent No.1 Spl. Land Acquisition Officer appeared through DGP and Respondent No.2 appeared before this court through MSP, Advocate. The Respondents have not filed any objections to the application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act. 5 L.A.C. No.238/2002
.4. To substantiate the above case of the Claimant, the Claimant is examined himself as PW.1 and one more witness is examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P- 1 to 5. After closure of the Claimant's side, the Respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
.5. I have heard both sides. The written argument is filed on behalf of the Claimant. The Respondents or their counsels not appeared before this court despite of sufficient opportunity given to them. Therefore, the arguments on behalf of the Respondents are taken as nil.
.6. Before framing as to the points for consideration it is necessary to mention here as to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court which is reported in AIR 1988 Supreme court 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another). Wherein their Lordship have held that:
"(1) A reference under Section 18 is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless 6 L.A.C. No.238/2002 the same materials is produced and proved before the court.
(2) So, also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuable cannot be utilized by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. (3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The Claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose."
Keeping in the mind of the above judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points would arise for my consideration;
1) Whether the reference made by the
Claimant is in time?
7 L.A.C. No.238/2002
2) Whether the Claimants prove that the award passed by the Respondents is not just, fair and adequate?
3) What Award or order?
.7. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : Reference is in time
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Point No.3 : Claimant is entitled for
compensation as per final order, for
the following:-
REASONS
.8. Point No.1:- I have gone through the materials placed by the Claimant. This case was referred to Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Bangalore. Thereafter, the case was numbered as L.A.C. No.75/97 in that case. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this court vide letter No.374/01/08.03.2001 which was addressed by Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
.9. After receipt of this letter, this court has registered a case in L.A.C. No.238/2002.
8 L.A.C. No.238/2002
.10. The award notice issued u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act reveals that the date of service of notice is issued on 02.06.1997. The Claimant has filed the application u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act before the Respondents on 21.07.1997 and the same is endorsed by the Respondents by putting seal and signature of the Respondents. So it is clear that the Claimant has filed this application u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act within 90 days from the date of receipt of award notice issued u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act. Thereafter, the Respondents have referred this case to the court and the same was received by the Prl. City Judge (Sr.Dvn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the case was registered in the year 1997 as L.A.C. No.75/97. Therefore, it is clear that the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has referred this petition u/s.18 of L.A. Act is within the prescribed time. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the Claimant has proved that the reference made by him is in time. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
.11. Point No.2: With regard to the enhancement of compensation is concerned, PW.1 G.P. Venkatappa Reddy s/o 9 L.A.C. No.238/2002 late. Papaiah is examined before this court. He has deposed in his evidence that he is an absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property bearing gramatana khata No.247/1 situated at Bommanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which comes under Bommanahalli Municipal Council, consisting of land and building. The building is of commercial building consisting of cellar floor, ground floor and first floor construction was made and completed during the year 1986 and the same was let out on rent and the tenants were in occupation of building. Further he has stated that the preliminary notification was issued dated 27.07.95 and final notification dated 26.12.1996. Finally award passed in respect of the land and a portion of building dated 26.03.1997 under Land Acquisition Act though the possession of land and building was taken on 22.09.1992. Further he has stated that under the award dated 26.03.1997 compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq. feet to the extent of land acquired measuring 2,232 sq. feet, building portion valued at Rs.1,31,419/-. Accordingly 30% solatium Rs.97,205 and 12% additional market value of Rs. 35,965/-, in total valued at Rs.4,57,189/- and 10 L.A.C. No.238/2002 deducted Rs.2,29,397/- and only Rs.18,432/- at 9% interest calculated and award passed for Rs.3,43,742/- as per award notice dated 02.06.1997 which is arbitrary and with out any basis. Further he has stated that the property in question situated at Hosur-Bangalore Main road NH-7. Near to Bangalore city coming under Bommanahalli B.B.M.P. 8.5 km distance from the city centre and it was in a prime place. It was a commercial property. It has got high potential value in terms of market value. Further, in the process of widening of NH-7 the properties acquired from the point Madivala, Rupena Agragra, Bommanahalli, Honga Sandra, Singasindra, Thogur village, Beratenal agra ara, Konappana agrara and such other villages up to Athibele of Bangalore Hosur road. All the villages are adjoining with in the distance of half a kilometer to two kilo meters. The property in question having more potential value was using for commercial purposes, surrounding the property well developed with large, medium and small scale industries, hotels, bus terminal, schools and colleges etc. It is in the place almost bazaar street, where number of shops have established are situated on either side of the road and adjourning to the 11 L.A.C. No.238/2002 property in question. Adjoining on the east B.D.A. had also formed residential layout called HSR layout acquitting lands of Bommanahalli village where sector 7 is formed by the B.D.A., R.K. street, BSNL Exchange office, post office, Thirumala Hospital, Garment factories, residential apartments and other number of commercial establishments are located with in the radius of ½ kilometer. Towards west B.B.M.P. office, Prashanth hospital, VRS Transport, Sai Garments, IOB bank, Canara Bank, BESCOM office, jocky garments, V.K. Exports, Krishna and Krishna exports, Jwala Mala factory, Madura garments, Royal shelters Apartments and residential layout, ICIC bank and such other commercial establishments and residential layouts with in the radius of ½ a kilometer to one kilometer. Towards North Sireesh automobiles show room, TVs motors show room, petrol bunks and transport companies, government schools and Government ESI hospital, Wipro software company, central silk board offices and many more commercial establishments, BTM layout and HSR layout sector-6 also very close, with in the radius of ½ a kilometer to 1 & ½ kilometer, the said layouts are also developed layouts. Towards South RNS Motors show room, 12 L.A.C. No.238/2002 Oxford college and Institutions, Krishna Theater, BOSCH Company, shallpetrol bunk, Nandi Toyoto Car show room, Honda car show room, Audi Car show room, BMW car show room and such other commercial establishments on the Hosur Road with in the radius of ½ a kilometer to two kilometers. The Bommanahalli village is no more a village the property in question is situated in the heart of Bommanahalli and all the developments are in existence prior to notification. Further it is submitted that the property in question is not a revenue property, it is with in Gramatana limits of Bommanahalli B.B.M.P. surrounded by commercial buildings there is no sale or purchase of landed properties on either side of Hosur main road at Bommanahalli since several decades being land owners they themselves using property by constructing commercial buildings the approach of the Respondent No.1 by assessing the market value is totally false. The property acquired is in small extent, the correct valuation of land has to be valued at Rs.1000/- per sq. feet. Further it is submitted that while valuing the building, the Respondent No.1 has considered the old rates per square yard, loss and damages to the remaining building was not taken 13 L.A.C. No.238/2002 into consideration, due to the compulsory acquisition of building loss of earning was not considered, the cost of shifting business establishment is not considered, to reconstruct the remaining building and put in use period and such other loss is not taken into account. As such the building total valuation is improper further due to the demolishing of the part of the building amenities such as water, electricity and sanitation suffered damages and 15% of the building value has to be added, as such as a Claimant he is entitled for all such damages and loss which will be about Rs.4,00,000/-. Further it is submitted that under the part payment for the building measuring 239.4 sq. meters at Rs.1128 per sq. meter considering building depreciation at 2% taken, under award plinth area of the building was taken as 131.52 sq. meters and valued at the rate of Rs.1128 per sq. meter allowing depreciation at the rate of 2% and for the amenities value of 15% was not considered while assessing building valuation, existed open well in the property was also not valued. Further it is submitted that at the time of acquisition of land and building Rs.65,000/- was the Government SR rates per sq. (10 X 10) 15% for amenities and for first 5 years no 14 L.A.C. No.238/2002 depreciation to the building and thereafter for 10 years ½ percent per annum, the said fact was not considered by the Respondent No.1. The estimated value of the building alone is Rs.8,54,723/- but the value as per the award is far below and he is entitled for the true enhanced value in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, the PW.1 has sought for enhancement of compensation.
.12. PW.2 H.T. Muniswamy has deposed in his evidence as to the estimation issued by him as per Ex.P-2.
.13. Apart from the oral evidence, the Claimant has produced award notice as per Ex.P-1. Ex.P-2 is the estimation issued by PW.2. Ex.P-3 is the copy of award notice. Ex.P-4 is the particulars of structure. Ex.P-5 is certified copy of the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.233/2002 dated 30.01.2010. The Respondent No.1 has determined the actual market value @ Rs.45/- per sq. feet.
15 L.A.C. No.238/2002
.14. To substantiate the award passed by the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have not produced any materials before this court. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that award passed by the Respondent as it is just, fair and adequate.
.15. To substantiate the claim of the Claimant, it is stated in the petition that the value of the property are more than Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet. But the Claimant has not produced any documents to show that the value of the property was Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet on the date of preliminary notification issued by the Respondent No.1. But the Claimant has produced Ex.P-5 judgment and award in L.A.C. No.233/2002. I have carefully gone through the document, which reveals that the Judgment is pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.20/2 measuring 7623 sq. feet situated at Madivala village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for widening of National Highways vide preliminary notification dated 01.08.1995. The Respondent No.1 has passed an award by determining the compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. feet and the 16 L.A.C. No.238/2002 same was enhanced to Rs.200/-. The market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.200/- per sq. feet as against Rs.50/- per sq. feet, determined by the Land Acquisition Officer with all statutory benefits. The property bearing gramatana khata No.247/1 situated at Bommanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was also acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.7. The property involved in Ex.P.5 the Judgment and award and the property in question are situated in the same village and taluk and also for the same purpose, the land is acquired. The property involved in Ex.P-5 preliminary notification was published on 21.09.1995. This property in question the notification issued u/s.4(1) is published on 15.05.1995.
.16. In Ex.P-5 the then Presiding Officer has relied upon a decision reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka page 4240 (The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, by its Secretary & Another Vs. the Assistant Commissioner cum Land Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi and others) and fixed the market value of the property at Rs.200/- per sq. feet. The Respondents 17 L.A.C. No.238/2002 have not placed any materials as to the appeal preferred by them against the Judgment and award passed by this court in L.A.C. No.233/2002. But the counsel for the Claimant has stated that the Respondents have not preferred any appeal against judgment and award passed by this court on 30.01.2010 in L.A.C. No.233/2002. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. The Respondents have not cross-examined the PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW.1 and also the judgment and award passed by this court in L.A.C. No.233/2002, it is just and proper to determine the actual market value @ Rs.200/- per sq. feet. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled for compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq. feet against Rs.45/- to the extent of 2232 sq. feet bearing khata No.247/1 situated at Bommanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
.17. The learned counsel on behalf of the Claimant has submitted that the actual market value of the property is more than Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet as the property is situated at the center of the village in N.H. No.7 and in a commercial place 18 L.A.C. No.238/2002 surrounding the property well developed with large, medium and small scale industries, hotels, bus terminal, schools and colleges etc. But in this regard the counsel for the Claimant has not placed any materials to show that the actual market value of the property was more than Rs.1000/- per sq. feet at the time of issuing preliminary notification. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Claimant cannot be accepted.
.18. With regard to the structure of the property is concerned, the Respondent No.1 has awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,419/- with all statutory benefits.
.19. PW.2 has issued Ex.P-2 estimation, in which he has given estimation as under:
a) Basement Floor Estimated value Rs.2,79,595-00
b) Ground floor shops estimated value Rs.1,88,055-00
c) Ground floor residential estimated value Rs.2,00,990-00
d) 1st floor estimated value Rs. 25,661-00
e) Open well Rs. 13,458-00
f) Electrical charges estimated value Rs. 25,000-00 19 L.A.C. No.238/2002
g) Addl. Works estimated value Rs.1,21,964-00 _______________ Total estimated value Rs.8,54,723-00 _____________ .20. Ex.P-4 is the particulars of structure issued by Respondent No.1, in which, it shows that the year of construction is 1989. It is shown as under:
1) Type of building : Clan III 'C' type RCC
2) Foundation : SSM
3) Flooring : CL
4) Superstructure : B.B.M.
5) Roof : RCC
6) Woodwork for door, window : one No. steel door
7) Electrification : Yes
8) Water supper : Yes
9) Year of construction : 1986
Valuation of the building:
1) Plinth area : 131.52 m/2
2) Rate/Sq. mtrn : Rs.1128/2
3) Amount : Rs.1,48,355/-
20 L.A.C. No.238/2002
4) Deduct amount of depreci-
ation for 6 years : Rs.0.11416 X 1,48,355
= Rs.16,936/2
5) Net amount : Rs.1,48,355 - 16,936
= Rs.1,31,419/-
.21. Now I have to analysis the evidence of PW.2. The
Ex.P-2 estimation is issued by PW.2. The Respondents have not produced any materials to show that the amount awarded to the structure is just, fair and adequate. The Civil Engineer H.T. Muniswamy is examined as PW.2 and produced Ex.P-2 i.e., Estimate showing the basement floor of old Kaneshmari No.80-
81 (New No.247/1) of Bommanahalli, Bangalore-560 068, Estimate showing the residential building at site No.247/1 Old Gramatana No.80-81 of Bommanahalli village, Hosur Road (NH-
7), Bangalore-560 068, Estimate showing the existing first floor (A.C. sheet roof) at site No.247/1, Old Gramatana No.80-81 of Bommanahalli village, Hosur Road (NH-7), Bangalore-560 068 and Estimate showing the additional works other than plinth area, for enhancement of compensation with regard to the 21 L.A.C. No.238/2002 structure. The evidence of PW.2 remains unchallenged. However, this court has analyzed the contents of Ex.P-2 and also the evidence of PW.2. The Claimant has not produced any relevant documents to show the existing building as shown in Ex.P-2. But looking to Ex.P-3 the award notice which reveals that the Respondent has taken the possession of the property on 22.09.1992. The Claimant has not produced any documents to show the estimation estimated in the year 1992. If the Claimant has produced the estimation before demolishing the structure, this court would have considered that estimation issued by the concerned Authority. But in the case on hand, according to the Claimant the possession was taken by the Respondents on 22.09.1992. Ex.P-3 also reveals the same. Ex.P.2 estimation issued by PW.2 is not in accordance with the schedule Rates issued by the Government of Karnataka. At the relevant point of time, the Respondents have not produced any schedule rates issued by the concerned Government. In the application filed by the Claimant u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act, the Claimant has not shown the value of the structure demolished by the Respondents. On the contrary, in para No.13 of the affidavit which is filed instead 22 L.A.C. No.238/2002 of examination in chief of PW.1 G.P. Venkatappa Reddy has stated that he is entitled for all such damages and loss caused as to the demolition of structure will be about Rs.4,00,000/- which is contrary to the evidence of PW.2 and also the contents of Ex.P-
2. However considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the contents of Ex.P-2, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the award amount of Rs.1,31,419/-.
.22. With regard to the date of taking possession is concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has referred the statement showing the particulars of acquisition of land in khata No.247/1 of Bommanahalli village, in which the date of award is shown as 19.05.1997 and the date of taking possession of the land is shown as 24.11.1996. The date of preliminary notification is shown as LAQ(2)SR 2/95-96 dated 15.05.1995.
.23. The learned counsel for the Claimant has submitted his argument that as per Ex.P-3 the award notice issued by the Respondents u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act reveals that the Land 23 L.A.C. No.238/2002 Acquisition Officer has awarded the additional 12% of the market value from 22.09.1992 to 27.12.1994 and the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the interim compensation before preliminary notification as they have demolished the structure of building of the Claimant. In the evidence of PW.1, it is stated that the preliminary notification was issued on 27.07.1995 and final notification on 26.12.1996. Finally the award passed in respect of the land and a portion of building dated 26.03.1997 though the possession of the land and building was taken on 22.09.1992. Therefore, he sought for interest on the awarded amount from the date of taking possession i.e., from 22.09.1992. To substantiate his argument, he has relied on a decision reported in 2016 SAR (Civil) 632 (Balwan Singh and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another).
.24. A perusal of the statement showing particulars of acquisition of land pertaining to khata No.247/1 submitted by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reveals that date of taking possession of the land is on 24.11.1996. But Ex.P-3 issued by the Respondents u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act reveals that they have 24 L.A.C. No.238/2002 collected additional market value from 22.09.1992 to 22.12.1994. In the evidence of PW.1 he has clearly stated that before preliminary notification, the Respondents have acquired the possession of the land on 22.09.1992. The evidence of PW.1 is remained unchallenged. The Respondents have not placed any materials to show that date of taking possession of the land is on 24.11.1996. The Respondents have not explained anything on what basis they have mentioned the date of taking possession as 24.11.1996 in the statement of particulars furnished by the Respondents. Therefore, considering the evidence placed by the Claimant, I am of the opinion that the Claimant has proved that the Respondents have taken possession of the property in question on 22.09.1992. Therefore, in view of a decision reported in 2016 SAR (Civil) 632 (Balwan Singh and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another) and also a decision reported in (2014)13 SCC 613 (Tahera Khatoon and others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and others). The Claimant is entitled for interest from the date of taking possession of the property i.e., from 22.09.1992 u/s.28 of 25 L.A.C. No.238/2002 L.A. Act 1894. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled for statutory benefits. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
.25. Point No.3:- For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The application filed u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act by the Claimant is hereby partly allowed.
The Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. feet against Rs.45/- per sq. feet determined by the Respondents to the extent of the property measuring 2232 sq. feet bearing khata No.247/1 of Bommanahalli village.
The Claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation for the
structure for Rs.3,00,000/- as against the amount of Rs.1,31,419/-
26 L.A.C. No.238/2002
The Claimant is entitled for additional market value at the rate of 12% on such enhanced market value of the land as contemplated u/s.23 (1-A) of L.A. Act 1894.
The Claimant is entitled for interest U/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894. It is made it clear that the claimant is entitled for statutory bendfits as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Sundar Vs Union of India reported in (2001)7 SCC page 211.
Draw an Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 18th day of March, 2017.) (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
27 L.A.C. No.238/2002ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : G.P. Venkatappa Reddy
PW. 2 : H.T. Muniswamy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 : Award notice dated 02.06.1997
Ex.P.2 : Copy of estimate of the building by LAO
Ex.P.3 : Copy of award notice dated 24.11.1995
Ex.P.4 : Estimate of building by registered
Engineer
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of the judgment and award
dated 30.01.2010 in L.A.C. 233/2002
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.28 L.A.C. No.238/2002
Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate order) ORDER The application filed u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act by the Claimant is hereby partly allowed.
The Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. feet against Rs.45/- per sq. feet determined by the Respondents to the extent of the property measuring 2232 sq. feet bearing khata No.247/1 of Bommanahalli village.
The Claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation for the structure for Rs.3,00,000/- as against the amount of Rs.1,31,419/-
Further, the claimant is also entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on that enhanced market value of the land acquired as contemplated u/s.23(2) of L.A. Act 1894.
The Claimant is entitled for additional market value at the rate of 29 L.A.C. No.238/2002 12% on such enhanced market value of the land as contemplated u/s.23 (1-A) of L.A. Act 1894.
The Claimant is entitled for interest U/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894. It is made it clear that the claimant is entitled for statutory benefits as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Sundar Vs Union of India reported in (2001)7 SCC page 211.
Draw an Award Accordingly.
(G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.