Bangalore District Court
) P. Muninarayanappa vs ) Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 September, 2022
1
L.A.C. No. 166/1998
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 21 th day of September 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M., M.Com., LL.M.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.166/1998
CLAIMANTS:
1) P. Muninarayanappa
Since dead by LRs
1(a) Smt. Munithayamma
W/o late. P. Muninarayanappa
Major
R/at Mahadevapura village
Bengaluru South Taluka
Bengaluru District.
1(b) Smt. Dhanalakshmi
D/o late. P. Muninarayanappa
W/o M. Chandrashekara
Major
R/at No. 78/28, 8th cross right side
Shankarappa Garden
Magadi road
Bengaluru.
1(c) Smt. V. Bharathi
W/o late. M. Ramanjaneya
Major
R/at Mahadevapura village
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka
Bengaluru District.
1(d) Kushal Kumar R
S/o late. M. Ramanjaneya
S/o V. Bharathi
2
L.A.C. No. 166/1998
Major
Aged about 28 years
1(e) Karthik R
S/o late. M. Ramanjaneya
S/o V. Bharathi
Major
Aged about 26 years
1(f) Kavya
D/o late. M. Ramanjaneya
D/o V. Bharathi
Major
Aged about 23 years
Claimant (d) to (f) are
R/at No. 81,
Muninarayanappa compound
Mahadevapura
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluka
Bengaluru District.
2) V.G. Nellamma
W/o late. Veerappa Reddy
Major
3) V. Veerabhadraswamy
S/o late. Veerappa Reddy
Major
4) V. Somanathaswamy
S/o late. Veerappa Reddy
Major
5) V. Shamala
D/o late. Veerappa Reddy
Major
6) V. Gayathri Devi
D/o late. Veerappa Reddy
Major
3
L.A.C. No. 166/1998
(Claimants 2 to 6 are LRs of
late. Veerappa Reddy)
R/at No. 186, Vishwa Nilaya
Murugesh Palya
Bengaluru -560 017.
(C-1(a) & (b) - Sri. HSGR, Advocate)
(C-1(c) to (f) - Sri. PK, Advocate)
( C-2 to 6 - Sri. SAK, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Visveswaraiah Tower
Vidhana Veedhi
Bengaluru-560 001.
2) Defense Estate Officer
DRDO,
Bengaluru.
(R-1 DGP)
(R-2 - Absent)
JUDGMENT
The SLAO in pursuance to the order in L.A.C. No. 13/1995 under Section 18(3)(b) has sent this reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act, for enhancement of compensation.
.2. The brief facts of the case is that the land in gramathana measuring 5 acres 39 guntas of Mahadevapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka has been acquired for the purpose of Information Technological Park, 4 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 Bengaluru. Preliminary notification was issued on 28.07.1988, possession was taken on 23.07.1989 and award was passed on 16.05.1991. The L.A.O. has fixed the award of Rs.1,30,000/-. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimants have filed the application under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
.3. After receipt of the reference from the respondent No.1, this court registered the case and issued notice to both the parties. The claimants and respondents have appeared through their counsels.
.4. The claimant Venkatesh has filed claim statement stating that he has received the award amount under protest. His land is situated within Bengaluru city Planning Area. The market value of the land at the time of acquisition was more than Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The land is an urban land having site potentiality value. Around the said land already buildings have come up. That apart many factories like State, Central Government and Private factories are existing including HAL, ITI and other military installations like DRDO are existing near their land. Their land comes under the HAL Sanitary Board. Hence, prayed for enhancing the 5 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre with statutory interest.
.5. To prove their case, the claimant No.1(c) is examined as PW.1. Claimant No.1(b) is examined as PW.2. Claimant No. 3 is examined as PW.3. Documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to
21. .6. Heard the arguments.
.7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. to the claimants is in-
adequate and meager?
2. What Order or Award?
.8. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following:-
R E A S ON S .9. Point No.1: The claimant No.1(c) V. Bharathi has been examined as PW.1. She has stated that potential value of the land is very high and the property acquired being the gramathana land is very valuable property and situated in a well developed industrial area and as such, they are entitled 6 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 for compensation at Rs.200/- per sq. feet. She admits during cross-examination that she has not produced any documents.
.10. It is stated that in case of undeveloped lands situated at Mahadevapura village and Kaggadasapura village acquired under the same preliminary notification dated 28.07.1988, this Court has enhanced compensation from Rs.1,30,000/- per acre to Rs.2,48,000/- per acre in L.A.C. No.71/1992 and connected cases and also awarded statutory benefits. It is stated that the property acquired in the present case being gramathana land is very much valuable than that of the land in L.A.C. No.71/92 and connected cases. So, they are entitled to higher compensation.
.11. To corroborate the said contention, the claimants have produced Ex.P.1 sale deed in L.A.C. No. 71/92 and connected cases. From the said judgment, it is seen that acquisition is in-respect of very same notification. From the judgment, it is seen that enhanced compensation is awarded in-respect of survey number lands. The L.A.O. has fixed the award amount of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. The market value has been enhanced by the Court to Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. 7
L.A.C. No. 166/1998 .12. PW.2 has stated that her father P. Muninarayanappa had purchased the gramathana property measuring to an extent of 5 acres 39 guntas through a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1952. She has statedthat the property in question was acquired and was given as property No. 85 in Janjar number as 138 in the records of Vijinapura Group Panchayath. In support of her contention, she has produced demand register extract for the year 1977- 78 as per Ex.P.11 and 12. From the said documents, it is clear that property comes within Mahadevapura Group Panchayath, K.R. Puram Hobli. Ex.P.13 to 17 are the tax paid receipts. PW.2 has not been cross-examined. So entire evidence of PW.2 stands unrebutted.
.13. PW.1 has stated that the lands situated at Binnamangala Manavarthakaval, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka which is situated almost adjacent to the property acquired in question and the same was the subject matter of M.F.A. No. 3832/99 along with Cross- Objections No. 81/2000. The said appeal was disposed off on 17.06.2004 and the High Court has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs. 41,38,200/- 8
L.A.C. No. 166/1998 per acre and the land in question is more superior and ideal than that of the land, which was the subject matter of M.F.A. No. 3832/99. Preliminary notification in the said case was issued on 12.08.1993 where as in the present case it was issued on 28.07.1988. There is 5 years difference between 2 notification. So, the said judgment cannot be relied upon to fix the market value in the present case.
.14. PW.1 has stated that the properties in and around the property in question which have been acquired and have been decided and also the properties have been sold and in fact, the lands very close to the property in question which have been acquired by the KIADB in the year 1984 vide preliminary notification dated 13.09.1984 published in the Gazette dated 11.10.1984. It is stated that the L.A.O. has awarded the compensation at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre i.e., more than 4 years earlier to the date of preliminary notification in the instant case and by adding appreciation of 10% thereon, which works out to Rs. 16 lakhs to Rs. 17 lakhs per acre as on the date of the present preliminary notification. To corroborate the said contention, the claimants have relied upon Ex.P.2 endorsement which discloses that 9 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 land measuring 232.16 situated at Pattandur Agrahara was proposed to be acquired by KIADB for Information Technological Park under preliminary notification dated 11.10.84. Final notification was issued for acquisition of 85.36 acres of land. The landowners entered into an agreement with KIADB to receive the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre as full and final settlement of compensation. Some of the owners did not choose to participate in the negotiable settlement. So, the SLAO has determined the compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The claimants have produced judgment in L.A.C. No.204/96. From the judgment, it is seen that the claimants have sought for enhancement of amount in-respect of Sy.No. 119/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Pattandur Agrahara of K.R. Puram Hobli. Preliminary notification was issued on 13.09.84 and final notification was issued on 30.08.93. From the judgment, it is seen that some of the land owners had agreed for consent award and they had agreed to receive Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. The L.A.O. had fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, which includes 10 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 statutory benefits for the acquired land and it was further ordered that the respondents are liable to pay interest on the said amount at 9% p.a., for the first year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a., till the date of payment of entire compensation amount.
.15. The claimants have relied upon the judgment in L.A.C. No.44/95 as per Ex.P.5. From the judgment, it is seen that to an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.No. 97/1 of Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, belonging to the claimant was acquired for the purpose of KIADB for establishment of industries. Preliminary notification was issued on 13.09.1984. The respondent had fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre. In para 14 of the judgment the Court had observed that the Advisory Committee had suggested market value for the acquired land of Pattandur Agrahara village at the rate of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. The Court has held that L.A.O. should have paid Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. The Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. It is submitted that Mahadevapura is nearer to City than Pattandur which is about 6 kms from Mahadevapura. In para 11 L.A.C. No. 166/1998
-14 of the judgment, the Court had observed that the Advisory Committee had suggested market value.
.16. The claimants have not produced any documents with regard to sale transaction. So, this Court cannot fix the market value on the basis of capitalization method.
.17. The respondent has not led any evidence. The respondent has not sent the General Award. From the award passed in-respect of claimants land it is seen that L.A.O. has stated that he has visited the spot and there are no remains of collapsed houses or any mark of remains of village and no habitation. There are jungle trees / plants on the lands. So the land has lost the entire character of gramatana and now it is agricultural land. It is stated that according to the records the land in question is a becharak village measuring 5 acres 39 guntas owned by P. Muninarayanappa. It is stated that normally the gramatana land will be numbered as Khaneshumari numbers the measurement of site will be as 130 X 60 feet. So, the Khaneshumari Numbers dimension will not be in acres. Hence, the becharak village according to the V.P. and L.B. Act 1959 West with Government. He has stated that even the house / land assessment register copy 12 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 obtained from the village panchayath shows that there are no exact measurement of the Becharak gramatana. Now the administrator has filed the objection for payment of compensation to any body other than village panchayath. He has come to the conclusion that as there was objection with regard to payment of compensation, he has referred the matter to the Civil Court. The L.A.O. has stated that the land owned has claimed Rs. 40/- sq. feet for the acquired land, which is exorbitant and cannot be considered since the basic character of the land is agriculture.
.18. Now law is well settled that the decided judgment of any of the reference Court can be relied upon in order to come to just and fair conclusion in-respect of fixing just and fair compensation. In this regard, I would like to bank upon the following decisions reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4382 wherein it is held as under:
" (A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S2-Compensation-
Determination of, on basis of earlier judgments-Plea that High Court erred in not taking sale instances into account while fixing compensation-Compensation already 13 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 fixed by High Court in earlier proceedings and Supreme Court in one such proceeding has already approved rate fixed-Best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and Awards and not sale instances - High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments" & one more decision which came to be reported in 2005(4) KCCR short notes 264 (General Manager, ONGC V/s Sendhabal Vastram Patel & others), which is as under:
" Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - market value - the best method for determining market value of acquired land is the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale - in the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the Court may take recourse to other methods, viz., judgments and awards passed in-respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring 14 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 villages. The Reference Court has to apply the comparable sales method and also the situation of the land, which is to be appreciated upon considering the question as to whether acquired land is similar to any land sold in the vicinity".
.19. The counsel for the claimants has submitted that the land in L.A.C. No. 44/1995 is situated in Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R. Puram Hobli. The counsel for the claimants submits that land in the present case is situated in Mahadevapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli. The distance between two villages is about 6 kms. It is stated that after Mahadevapura village, Pattandur Agrahara village is situated. So, Mahadevapura village is more close to Bengaluru than Pattandur Agrahara village. The said fact is not disputed. Hence, I intend to rely upon Ex.P.5 judgment. In Ex.P.1 judgment L.A.C. No. 71/1992 pertains to same notification. At para No. 24, it has been observed that:
"In fact, from the very observation made by the L.A.O. in page 14 of the General Valuation Memorandum it is to be seen that the acquired lands are within 10 km from Vidhana Soudha and surrounded by Indiranagar, Jeevanbhimanagar, NGEF, 15 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 BEML, HAL and other residential quarters of the defence department. Villages like Nagavarapalya, Benniganahalli, Kaggadasapura and industrial establishments in Mahadevapura village are also in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands. These villages and industrial aspects aforesaid come within the radius of just one km from the acquired land. These lands are fit both for residential and industrial building purpose and also for putting up huge factories. These lands have got potential value for both residential and industrial establishment."
Therefore, from the very discussion made by the L.A.O. it is clear that potentiality of the lands in question and all around development that had already taken place by the time the lands were notified for acquisition. As the lands in Pattandur Agrahara village is far away from Mahadevapura village, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of rs.12,00,000/- per acre as enhanced by the Court as per Ex.P.5.
.20. Preliminary notification in-respect of lands in Ex.P.5 has been published on 13.09.1984 whereas preliminary notification in the present case has been published on 28.07.1988. Thee is difference of 3 years 10 months between two notifications.
16
L.A.C. No. 166/1998 .21. In KLJ 1980(2) 441 (H. Narayanaiah Vs. L.A.O., CITB, Bengaluru) wherein it has been held that:
"Since the preliminary notification in the other case was nearly a year earlier to the preliminary notification in the present case, it was proper to take judicial notice that market value was appreciating gradually from 1960 in and around Bengaluru city where the lands were situated and it was proper to allow 10 percent appreciation to the market value fixed in the previous award."
.22. In AIR 2002 SC 1558 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib) wherein it has been held that:
"Determination of market value by taking price fixed under old comparable sale transactions as base value and grant of appreciation in value of land at 10% p.a. for every subsequent year - Is neither excessive nor unreasonable."
In view of the above decisions, I am of the view that 10% appreciation can be given every year to the market value fixed in the judgment as per Ex.P.5 for a period of 3 years 10 months. The market value in the present case would be 16,60,000/- per acre.
17
L.A.C. No. 166/1998 .23. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record leads to the unmistakable fact that the claimants prove that the market value fixed by the respondent - L.A.O., in-respect of their acquired land, in this case, is unjust, inadequate and on lower side. Thus, the market value of the land is enhanced to Rs.16,60,000/- per acre from that of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre as awarded by the L.A.O. .24. Ex.P.7 is the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1248/99. From the judgment it is seen that the SLAO had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre and had determined total compensation amount of Rs. 14,38,165/-. As there was dispute between the parties, same was deposited in the Court and reference was sent in L.A.C. No. 109/92. In L.A.C. No.109/92 the judgment and award was passed on 04.1.99 holding that claimant No.3 is entitled for compensation to an extent of 5 acres and claimant P. Muninarayanappa also entitled to compensation by way of apportionment to an extent of 39 guntas less than the area measuring 30 X 40 feet which has been sold by him in-favour of Venkatesh. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the said P. Muninarayanappa preferred M.F.A. No. 18 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 1248/99. In the said case parties had filed the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. As per the compromise entered between the parties the claimant P. Muninarayanappa is entitled for 55% of the compensation calculated for 5 acres of land, in addition he is entitled for compensation calculated for 39 guntas less the area 30 X 40 feet. Likewise, the respondent No.3 is entitled for 45% of the compensation calculated for 5 acres of land. The compensation payable to Venkatesh to an extent of 30 X 40 feet. It has been further agreed in the compromise that with regard to the matter relating to enhancement of compensation, which is numbered as L.A.C. No. 166/98 is pending before this court and in the said proceedings, the appellant i.e., P. Muninarayanappa has no objections for respondent No.3 being impleaded in view of compromise and the appellant who is one of the claimants in the said reference proceedings shall be entitled for the compensation to be enhanced in the same ratio as agreed upon i.e., 55% to the appellant P. Muninarayanappa out of the enhanced compensation in-respect of 5 acres of land and 45% to the respondent No.3 M. Veerappa out of the enhanced compensation to an extent of 5 acres and the appellant P. 19 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 Muninarayanappa shall alone be entitled for enhancement of compensation in-respect of remaining extent of 39 guntas less 30 X 40 feet. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as stated above. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
.25. Point No.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is partly allowed.
The market value is enhanced to Rs. 16,60,000/- per acre from Rs.
1,30,000/- as awarded by the
L.A.O. in this case.
The claimants are entitled for
compensation as follows:
Claimants Percentage Acres
LRs of claimant No. 1 55 5
LRs of claimant No. 1 39 Guntas less 30
X 40 feet
Claimants 2 to 6 45 5
20
L.A.C. No. 166/1998
Further, above claimants are
entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1)A of Land Acquisition Act @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced market value of Rs. 16,60,000 - 1,30,000 = 15,30,000/-
from the date of preliminary notification till the date of taking possession or the date of award whichever is earlier.
Further, above claimants are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. on the enhanced market value of Rs. 15,30,000/-under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
Further, above claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value of Rs. 15,30,000/-, solatium and additional market value 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.21
L.A.C. No. 166/1998 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 21 st day of September 2022) (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
PW.1 V. Bharathi
PW.2 Dhanalakshmi
PW.3 Veerabhadraswamy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of judgment in L.A.C. No. 71/92 and other connected matters Ex.P.2 Endorsement Ex.P.3 Certified copy of judgment in L.A.C. No. 204/96 Ex.P.4 Award copy Ex.P.5 Certified copy of judgment in L.A.C. No. 44/95 Ex.P.6 Award copy Ex.P.7 Certified copy of compromise petition between claimants 1 and 2 in M.F.A. 1248/99 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of decree passed in M.F.A. Ex.P.9 Judgment of M.F.A. 22 L.A.C. No. 166/1998 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.1952 Ex.P.11 & 12 Attested copies of assessment register extracts Ex.P.13 to 18 6 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.19 to 21 2 pages of Deccan Herald English paper and one page of Prajavani paper
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.