Bangalore District Court
In L.A.C. No.38/2016 vs In All Cases on 10 July, 2020
(Judgment after the correction and amendment vide order dated 10.07.2020)
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 18 th day of June 2020.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE Nos.38/2016 C/W L.A.C.
Nos.32/2016, 33/2016, 40/2016, 41/2016, 42/2016,
44/2016, 45/2016, 46/2016, 47/2016, 48/2016,
50/2016 and 51/2016
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.38/2016:
M/s. Vijaya Enterprises,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
Mr. A. Gopala Reddy,
Aged about 80 years,
S/o late. Annaiah Reddy,
# 213, 2nd Cross, Madivala Extension,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.32/2016:
Shri. P. Anand,
S/o late. Shri D.H. Panduranga Setty,
# 77/1, Susheela Road,
Doddamavalli,
Bengaluru -560 004.
2
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.33/2016:
Shri. Pillappa,
S/o Sri. H.M. Chikkanna Setty,
Aged about 61 years,
# 93, Chamundeshwari Layout,
Kanakapura- Bengaluru Main Road,
Harohalli, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District - 562 112.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.40/2016:
Shri. P. Vijayakumar,
S/o late. Shri. P. Radhakrishnaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
# 44/26, 4th Cross, Maruthinagar,
Madivala Extension,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.41/2016:
Shri. K. Manjunatha,
S/o late. A. Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
# 50, Annamma Temple street,
Jogi Colony, Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru -560 095.
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.42/2016:
1) Smt. Salem Bai,
W/o Shri. M. Lakshmanan,
Aged about 59 years,
3
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
2) Shri. A. Ashok Kumar
S/o late. Shri. Arunachalam,
65 years,
# 66-7-17, V.P. Road,
1st Cross, Madivala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.44/2016:
Smt. Jayanthi
W/o Shri. M. Lakshmanan,
Aged about 59 years,
# 16, Jayanthi Nilayam,
2nd Cross, Near Cauvery Canvent
Hosuru Main road, Madivala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.45/2016:
1) Smt. Rajamma
W/o Shri. Krishnappa,
Aged about 65 years,
# 119, V.P.Road,
1st Cross, Madivala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
2) Mr. K. Srinivas
S/o Shri. Krishnappa,
# 33, 7th Cross, Maruthi Nagar,
Madivala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.46/2016:
Shri. D. Velan,
S/o Sri. Doreswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
4
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
# 6/1, 2nd cross, V.P. Road,
Madiwala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.47/2016:
Smt. V. Kuppa Bai,
W/o late. Shri. C. Vishwanath,
Aged about 65 years,
# 76, Hosur Main Road,
Madiwala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.48/2016:
Sri. Ramakrishna
S/o late. Shri. Dasappa Setty,
Aged about 53 years,
# 23, 33rd Main, BTM Layout,
1st stage, Dollars colony,
Madiwala,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.50/2016:
Shri. M. Ananda Kumar,
S/o Shri. A. Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
# 10/10, 4th 'B' Main Road,
Madiwala Extension,
Bengaluru -560 068.
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.51/2016:
1. Shri. D.R. Shankar Gupta,
Since deceased, by his legal
representatives:
5
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
1(a) Smt. Geetha D.S.
W/o late. Shri. D.R. Shankar Gupta,
Aged about 69 years,
# 20, Ground Floor, 2nd cross,
BTM I stage, Tavarekere,
Bengaluru -560 029.
1(b) Shri. Rajesh D.S.
S/o late. Shri. D.R. Shankar Gupta,
Aged about 43 years,
# 20, Ground Floor, 2nd cross,
BTM I stage, Tavarekere,
Bengaluru -560 029.
1(c) Smt. Roopalakshmi D.R.
W/o Shri. Sunil Kumar B.V.
D/o late. Shri. D.R. Shankar Gupta,
# 29, 9th A Main Road, 7th cross,
Shivanagar, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru -560 010.
2. Smt. J.G. Vasantha Kumari,
3. D.R. Rajendra Gupta,
S/o Rama Sanjeevaiah Setty,
4. Smt. Saraswatamma,
W/o Rama Sanjeevaiah Setty,
5. D.R. Chandra Mohan,
6. D.R. Nagendra Prasad,
S/o late Rama Sanjeevaiah Setty,
Aged about 63 years,
No.1, Swarna Gayatri Mansion,
4th Floor, Garden layout,
24th Main, HSR II Sector,
Bengaluru-560 102.
6
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
7. D.R. Rajendra,
S/o Ramaiah Setty,
Aged about 56 years,
No.112, Matru Nilaya,
3rd Main, 2nd Cross,
Madivala Extension,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(By Sri.YKS., Advocate in all cases)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT IN ALL CASES:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
BBMP, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.TJP, Advocate in all cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these references submitted by the respondent
under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter called as L.A Act) for determination of
enhancement of compensation in-respect of acquired
properties.
.2. As per the records, all these references arose
out of same notification and award. As per the application
7
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
filed by counsel for the claimants and with consent of
counsel for the respondent, on 15-02-2017 this court
passed an order and clubbed all these cases with L.A.C.
No. 38/2016 for common evidence and judgment.
.3. Exercising powers confirmed under Section 51
of New L.A. Act, 2013, the notification No.KE-05 REH
2014 (P-3) dated 13.07.2017 issued by the Government of
Karnataka, the Presiding Officer of this court has
appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Authority
contemplated under Section 64 of the Right to Fair
Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.
.4. It is seen from the records that, though the
respondent referred these cases under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he has passed the award on
10.10.2014 under the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred as New Act 2013). Therefore, this court
8
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
considered all these cases under the provisions of the
New Act, 2013.
.5. The brief facts of the cases as follows:
The respondent/BBMP has acquired 47 properties
in total measuring 17230.95 sq. feet situated at ward
No.121 of Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala
village. It was acquired for the purpose of widening
Hosuru road from Central Silk Board Junction to Yanke
factory. Preliminary notification was issued on
16.07.2011 and it was published in State Gazette on
18.08.2011, final notification was issued on 03.11.2012
and it was published in State Gazette on 07.02.2013 and
award passed on 10.10.2014 in LAQ/CR/15/2009-10.
The respondent has fixed the market value at Rs.2,278/-
per sq. feet with statutory benefits. After passing of
award, the claimants have received award amount under
protest and filed 18 applications before the respondent.
Accordingly the respondent has referred the cases before
this court.
9
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.6. In 18 applications, the claimants have
contended that they are the absolute owners of the
properties in-respect of their cases. The respondent has
acquired their properties including land and buildings. It
is further contended that as per the notice issued by the
respondent, they have appeared in the acquisition
proceedings and filed statement of objections individually.
While passing of the award, the respondent has not
considered the same. It is stated that the acquired
properties are commercial buildings which are abutting
to the Hosuru main road. The award passed by the
respondent is very meager and there is no application of
mind by the respondent by passing the award. It is stated
that as on the date of preliminary notification, the
acquired properties were valued more than Rs.20,000/-
per sq. feet. Acquired properties are high potential market
value and which are very closed to Silk Board junction
and surrounded by layout, BDA, BTM layout,
Koramangala, St.John Medical Hospital and other
10
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
business establishments. The acquired properties are
coming under the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar office,
BTM. But the respondent has considered the market
value of properties coming under jurisdiction of Sub
Registrar Office, Bommanahalli. Therefore, the claimants
are prayed for enhancement of compensation with
statutory benefits as per New Act, 2013.
.7. As per the records, the subject matter of the
property involved in L.A.C. No.38/2016 is CTS No.147/2,
property PID No.66-3-18 measuring 235.20 sq. meters
(Rs.2,532/- per sq. feet) of site including 705.60 sq.
meters of building situated at Hosuru main road, ward
No.151 of Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala
village. (Sl.No.15 in the award). Total award amount paid
to the claimants for Rs.1,86,59,210/-.
.8. In L.A.C. No.32/2016, CTS No.152, property PID
No.66-1-67 measuring 45.10 sq. meters (485 sq. feet) of
site including 74 sq. meters of building situated at
Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of Koramangala and
11
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
ward No.172 of Madivala village. (Sl.No.25 in the award).
Total award amount paid to the claimants for
Rs.39,63,468/-.
.9. In L.A.C. No.33/2016, CTS No.134, property PID
No.66-1-78/3 measuring 9.24 sq. meters (99 sq. feet) of
vacant site situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.3 in the award).Total award amount paid to the
claimants for Rs.4,82,518/-.
.10. In L.A.C. No.40/2016, CTS No.217, property
PID No.66-1-64/5 measuring 26.20 sq. meters (282 sq.
feet) of site including 26.20 sq. meters of building
situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.30 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimants for Rs.18,78,286/-.
.11. In L.A.C. No.41/2016, CTS No.134, property
PID No.66-1-79 measuring 20.47 sq. meters (220 sq. feet
of vacant site situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151
12
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
of Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.4 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimants for Rs.10,72,262/-.
.12. In L.A.C. No.42/2016, CTS No.136, property
PID No.66-74-75/2 measuring 19.82 sq. meters (213 sq.
feet) of site including 19.82 sq. meters of building
situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.11 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimants for Rs.16,58,054/-.
.13. In L.A.C. No.44/2016, CTS No.217, property
PID No.66-1-64/6 measuring 27.75 sq. meters (299 sq.
feet) of site including 83.25 sq. meters of building
situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.31 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimants for Rs.35,93,431/-.
.14. In L.A.C. No.45/2016, two properties were
acquired bearing CTS No.135, property PID No.66-1-
13
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
75/2-1 measuring 19.80 sq. meters (213 sq. feet) of site
including 19.80 sq. meters of building and CTS No.136
property PID No.66-1-75/2/1 measuring 22.75 sq.
meters (245 sq. feet) of site including 22.75 sq. meters of
building situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.10(1) and 10(2) in the award). Total award amount
paid to the claimant for Rs.15,22,580/- and
Rs.18,43,695/-.
.15. In L.A.C. No.46/2016, CTS No.217, property
PID No.66-2-8 measuring 27.51 sq. meters (296 sq. feet)
of site including 27.51 sq. meters of building situated at
Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of Koramangala and
ward No.172 of Madivala village. (Sl.No.29 in the award).
Total award amount paid to the claimant for
Rs.19,53,844/-.
.16. In L.A.C. No.47/2016, CTS No.134/135,
property PID No.66-1-76,125 measuring 104.25 sq.
meters (1122 sq. feet) of site including 270.25 sq. meters
14
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
of building situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of
Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.7 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimant for Rs.27,49,513/- + Rs.47,32,575/-
=Rs.74,82,088/-.
.17. In L.A.C. No.48/2016, CTS No.134, property
PID No.66-1-78/2 measuring 6.65 sq. meters (72 sq. feet)
of vacant site situated at Hosuru main road, ward No.151
of Koramangala and ward No.172 of Madivala village.
(Sl.No.2 in the award). Total award amount paid to the
claimant for Rs.3,50,923/-.
.18. In L.A.C. No.50/2016, CTS No.150, property
PID No.66-1-69/1 measuring 37 sq. meters (398 sq. feet)
of site including 74 sq. meters of building situated at
Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of Koramangala and
ward No.172 of Madivala village. (Sl.No.22 in the award).
Total award amount paid to the claimants for
Rs.32,09,390/-.
15
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.19. In L.A.C. No.51/2016, CTS No.138, property
PID No.66-1-73/1/1, 66-1-73/1-2, 66-1-73/1-3, 66-1-
73/1-4, 66-1-73/1-5 and 66-1-73/01 are totally
measuring 136.12 sq. meters (1465 sq. feet) of site
including 136.12 sq. meters of building situated at
Hosuru main road, ward No.151 of Koramangala and
ward No.172 of Madivala village. (Sl.No.14 in the award).
Total award amount paid to the claimant for
Rs.92,56,678/-. These properties are in the names of
D.R. Shankar Guptha, D.R. Chandra Mohan, J.G.
Vasantha Kumari, D.R. Nagendra Prasad, D.R. Rajendra
Guptha and Saraswathamma who are claimant No.1 to 6.
It is further mentioned in the award that 820 sq. feet is in
the name of Shankar Guptha (claimant No.1), 600 sq. feet
is in the name of D.R. Chandra Mohan (claimant No.5),
250 sq. feet is in the name of Smt. Vasantha Kumari
(claimant No.2), 600 sq. feet is in the name of D.R.
Nagendra Prasad (claimant No.6), 250 sq. feet is in the
name of D.R. Rajendra Guptha (claimant No.3) and 175
16
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
sq. feet is in the name of Smt. Saraswathamma (claimant
No.4).
.20. The claimant No.7-D.R. Rajendra S/o Ramaiah
Setty in same LAC No.51/2016. (Sl.No.23 of the award
belongs to claimant No.7). It is mentioned that CTS
No.150 property No:PID No.66-1-69 measuring 18.50 sq.
meters of site and RCC building was acquired by the
respondent. Total amount paid to the claimant No.7 for
Rs.14,81,197/-.
.21. After service of notice, all the claimants and the
respondent have appeared through their counsels. The
respondent has filed common objections in all L.A.C.
cases and stated as follows:
The applications filed by the claimants are false,
frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable. It is denied
that the acquired properties were valued more than Rs.1
crore each as on the date of preliminary notification. The
claimants are put to strict proof of the same. It is denied
that substantial portion of structure were to be acquired
17
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
the remaining portion of the building would likely to
collapse. It is stated that the compensation to be granted
in-respect of acquired portion. But not remaining portion.
It is stated that the respondent has passed the award in
accordance with the then prevailing market value. It is
denied that the award passed by the respondent is
meager, he has not considered the oral and documentary
evidence placed by the claimants. It is denied that as on
the date of preliminary notification the acquired
properties were valued more than Rs.20,000/- per sq.
feet and the buildings cost is more than Rs.1 crore each.
It is denied that the respondent has not considered the
sale statistics from the Office of Bommanahalli Sub
Registrar and erroneously passed an award. The
applications filed by the applicants under Section 18 of
L.A. Act does not arise. Therefore, the respondent prayed
for dismissal of all the references with exemplary cost.
.22. To prove their case, the claimants in all 13
cases, examined as PW.1 to 15, one more witness
18
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
examined as PW.16. Documents got marked Exs.P.1 to
Ex.P.42. The respondent has not adduced oral evidence.
But one document got marked as Ex.R.1 in the cross-
examination of PW.14 by way of confrontation.
.23. Heard the arguments on main by both side.
.24. The following point would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the references made by
the respondent/SLAO are valid
and in time?
2. Whether the claimants prove that
the market value fixed by the
respondent/SLAO to the acquired
properties is unjust and
inadequate?
3. Whether the claimants prove that
the compensation awarded by the
respondent/SLAO to the acquired
property is not in consonance with
the provisions of the New Act,
2013?
4. Whether the claimants are entitle
for the enhanced compensation of
its acquired properties? If so, at
what rate?
5. What Order or Award?
19
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.25. My findings to 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: In the partly affirmative,
Point No.5: As per the final order for the
following:-
R EAS O N S
.26. Point No.1:- Section 64 of the Right to Fair
Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (New L.A. Act,
2013) reads as under:
"64. Reference to Authority,-
(1) Any person interested who has not
accepted the award may, by written
application to the Collector, require that the
matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Authority, as the case
may be, whether his objection be to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the
compensation, the person to whom it is
payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or
the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested:
20
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
Provided that the Collector shall, within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of application, make a reference to the
Appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector
fails to make such reference within the
period so specified, the applicant may apply
to the Authority, as the case may be,
requesting it to direct the collector to make
the reference to it within a period of thirty
days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds
on which objection to the award is taken;
Provided that every such application shall
be made:-
(a) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the
time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the
Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 21, or within six
months from the date of the
Collector's award, whichever period
shall first expire;
Provided further that the Collector may
entertain an application after the expiry of
the said period, within a further period of
one year, if he is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within the
period specified in the first proviso"
21
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.27. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of preliminary
notification dated 16.07.2011, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of
final notification dated 03.11.2012. The respondent
passed an award on 10.10.2014. Ex.P.3 is award
particulars. Ex.P.38 is the letter dated 19.11.2018 issued
by the respondent to the counsel for the claimants and
furnished details for the date of filing 18 applications and
date of references to this court. It is mentioned that all
the claimants have filed 18 applications before the
respondent within 90 days from the date of award notice
and they referred the references to this court in time.
Exs.P.13, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 and
Ex.R.1 are 18 applications filed by the claimants in L.A.C.
Nos.38, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and
51/2016 respectively. I have carefully perused the said
records. As stated above the respondent has admitted
that the claimants have filed 18 references within the
time prescribed by law. From the above discussion, I
come to the conclusion that all the claimants have filed
22
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
objections/applications before the respondent to refer the
matters to this court for enhancement of compensation
are in time. Further I come to the conclusion that after
receipt of the said objections/applications by the
claimants, the respondent referred the matters before this
court are in time. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
.28. Points No.2 to 4: These three points are inter
connected. Hence for the purpose of avoiding repeated
discussion, I taken up all these points together for
consideration.
.29. It is the case of the claimants that the award
passed by the respondent is not correct and meager, he
has not fixed the market value in accordance with the
prevailing market value, he has not considered that all
the properties were using commercial purpose, the value
fixed for building is not correct. Therefore, they prayed for
enhancement of compensation as per the documentary
23
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
evidence produced by them. I have perused the
contention of both side with case on hand.
Sec.26 of the Right to Fair Compensation,
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Re-settlement Act, 2013 reads as follows:
1. " Sec.26. Determination of market value of
land by Collector:- (1) The Collector shall
adopt the following criteria in assessing the
determining the market value of the land,
namely:-
2. (a) the market value, if any, specified in the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the
registration of sale deeds or agreements to
sell, as the case may be, in the area, where
the land is situated; or
3. the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest
vicinity area; or
4. consented amount of compensation as agreed
upon under sub-section (2) of Section 2 in
case of acquisition of lands for private
24
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
companies or for public private partnership
projects,
5. Whichever is higher:-
6. Provided that the date for determination of
market value shall be the date on which the
notification has been issued under Section
11".
.30. As per the records, The respondent/BBMP has
acquired 47 properties in total measuring 17230.95 sq.
feet situated at ward No.121 of Koramangala and ward
No.172 of Madivala village. It was acquired for the
purpose of widening Hosuru road from Central Silk Board
Junction to Yanke factory. Preliminary notification was
issued on 16.07.2011, final notification was issued on
03.11.2012 and award passed on 10.10.2014 in
LAQ/CR/15/2009-10. The respondent has fixed the
market value at Rs.2,278/- per sq. feet with statutory
benefits. He has also fixed the value of the buildings
which were existed in the acquired properties. I have
perused the contention of both side with case on hand.
25
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
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 the reference while
determining the enhancement of compensation, 3
methods of valuation are generally adopted namely,
opinion of experts, sales statistics method and
capitalization method. In the present cases, the market
value of the properties to be determined under Section 26
of New Act, 2013. 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).
.31. In 18 applications, the claimants stated that
the acquired properties are used by them for commercial
purpose, the acquired properties are abutting to the
Hosuru main road. As on the date of preliminary
26
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
notification the said properties were valued more than
Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet. The respondent has not properly
fixed the value to the buildings. He has considered the
market value of the properties on the basis of sale
statistics from the Bommanahalli Sub Registrar office.
But the properties actually situated within the
jurisdiction of BTM Sub Registrar office. PW.1 to 15 have
deposed by way of filing affidavits and stated as per 18
applications. They further stated that the acquired
properties situated within 1 km from Silk board junction,
surrounded by IT and BT offices, nearby HSR layouts 6
and 7 Sector, surrounded by commercial residential area,
number of multi-storied apartments and commercial
establishments were existed, abutting to HSR layout,
Koramangala layout, KSRP office and quarters, State
Forensic Science Laboratory, Krupa Nidhi and other
colleges, St. John Medical college and Hospital, Madivala
Extension, BTM layout. The acquired properties are
valued at Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet. They further deposed
27
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
that as per circular issued by the State Government,
concerned Sub Registrar are directed to value of the
commercial property more than 40% of residential
property. Their properties are commercial properties,
hence, to be added 40% on the actual value is required. It
comes to Rs.21,000/- per sq.feet. Hence, they prayed for
granting compensation with interest and statutory
benefits under New Act, 2013. PWs.1 to 15 in their
examination-in-chief deposed as per claim petition.
.32. PWs.1 to 15 have cross-examined commonly
by the respondent's side. They have stated that
Koramangala 6th Block is within 1 km from acquired
properties, they have not produced documentary evidence
to show that the adjacent properties valued at
Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet. It was suggested that the
adjacent properties were not valued Rs.20,000/- per sq.
feet, for that reason, they have not produced sale deeds of
the said properties, the valuation report filed without
base, the award amount paid by the respondent is correct
28
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
and they have not entitle for enhancement of
compensation. But PWs.1 to 15 have denied the same.
.33. To prove the market value of the acquired
properties, the claimants have produced certified copy of
auction sale deed dated 03.03.2011 and got marked as
Ex.P.6. The recitals of the sale deed reveals that the
Bengaluru Development Authority executed the said sale
deed in favour of one Manjunath Dasappa for a
consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/- in-respect of site
No.95, totally measuring 68.75 sq. meters, situated at 6 th
Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. It was sold in the public
auction at the rate of Rs.14,864.34 per sq. feet. Relying
on this document and nature of development of the
properties in the said area, the claimants are prayed for
fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet. Per
contra, the respondent contended that Ex.P.6 is not
regular sale deed, it is an auction sale deed, distance of
the said property is far away from the acquired properties
and hence it cannot be considered for fixing the market
29
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
value. PWs.1 to 15 in their cross-examination stated that
distance between acquired properties and Koramangala
6th Block is 1 km. They further stated that they have not
produced documents to show that the properties situated
in and around the acquired properties were valued
Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet.
.34. I have carefully perused the Ex.P.6 of the
auction sale deed dated 03.03.2011. I am of the opinion
that, there is 1 km distance in between property of Ex.P.6
and properties of the present case. Moreover, Ex.P.6 is
auction sale deed in-respect of site formed by BDA.
Generally the property sold in the auction sale is more
than market value and Government guidance value. The
claimants in their cross-examination have admitted that
the sites sold in auction purchase are more value. I am of
the opinion that, in the case on hand, for determination
of compensation under Section 26 of New Act, 2013, the
claimants have not produced registered sale deeds,
agreement of sale and other documents which are
30
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
adjacent to the acquired properties as on the date of
preliminary notification. They have also not produced
guidance value fixed by the State Government. But only
on the basis of Ex.P.6- auction sale deed they are
claiming that acquired properties were valued
Rs.20,000/- per sq. feet. I am of the opinion that, the
claimants have not produced supported documents to
prove the market value after properties as on the date of
preliminary notification. Hence, in the absence of the
same, only on the basis of Ex.P.6 this court cannot fix the
market value of the acquired properties as prayed by the
claimants.
.35. To prove their case, on the basis of expert's
opinion, the claimants have examined one Shibasish
Mujumder as PW.16. He has deposed in his examination-
in-chief by way of filing evidence affidavit and stated that
he is a Chartered Engineer and Government Valuer by
profession since 1996. He is running his office in the
name and style as M/s. S.M. Engineers and Valuers. He
31
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
further deposed that the claimants have approached him
for valuation of their land and building which are subject
matter of these cases. He has inspected the spot and
prepared a detailed Valuation Report regarding
assessment of fair market value of the properties and
filed report. He has inspected the properties in the month
of November 2015 for assessment of Market value of the
property and prepared valuation report. After considering
the same, he has arrived at the market value for a sum of
Rs.19,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per sq. feet to all the
properties belong to the claimants. He has assessed the
market value of the land and building as on the date of
preliminary notification based on the sound and scientific
approach, potentiality of land and location. The acquired
properties are situated at well developed commercial
area. He further deposed that he has produced copy of
the sale deed dated 03.03.2011 in-respect of auction
residential land by BDA and it was sold at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per sq. feet (approximate). The acquired
32
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
properties are coming under commercial area. Hence, it
should be high value than residential land at 33% to
50%. Ultimately he has calculated the acquired property
from Rs.18,000/- per sq. feet to Rs.22,000/- per sq. feet.
.36. I have perused cross-examination of PW.16 by
the respondent's side. He has stated that there is no
documents with him to show that he is the Chartered
Engineer and Government Valuer. He has not produced
those documents before this court. He has stated that he
is ready to produce the said documents. But for best
known to him, he has not produced those documents
before this court. PW.16 has admitted that the market
value is higher than the Government guidance value,
generally people selling properties at the rate of market
value. He further admitted that he has not assessed the
value of the properties as per Government guidance
value. He has admitted that auction sale is different from
general sale. He has stated that the comparable sale
deeds were not available to him, hence he has considered
33
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
auction sale deed Ex.P.6 and valued the acquired
properties. He has denied that he has not inspected the
spot, without inspecting the spot, he filed report to help
the claimants to get higher compensation, he has not at
all assessed value of the property. Considering the same,
I am of the opinion that, Section 26 of New Act, 2013
saying about determination of market value of the land.
The date for determination of market value shall be the
date on which notification has been issued under Section
11 of New Act, 2013. On the basis of registration of sale
deeds the market value can be determined. But as
discussed above, PW.16 has not considered Government
guidance value of acquired properties as on the date of
preliminary notification, he has not relied upon any sale
deeds of the area prior to the preliminary notification and
fixed the market value. It is noticed that PW.16 in his
evidence stated he has relied upon Ex.P.6. But in the
valuation reports he has not stated that about he relied
on Ex.P.6. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that
34
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
without considering the Government guidance, sale deeds
of the area as on the date of preliminary notification,
whatever value suggested by the PW.16 to the acquired
properties cannot be accepted. On the basis of oral
evidence of PW.16 and his report, this court cannot
determining the market value.
.37. As per the above said discussion, I am of the
opinion that, the claimants have failed to produce the
proper documents for determination of market value. In
the absence of the same, it is noticed the previous
judgment and award passed by this court. On
03.09.2019 this court passed judgment and award in
L.A.C. No.43/2016 connected with L.A.C. No.31/2017.
After full pledged trial, this court passed an award and
fixed the market value at Rs.6,930/- per sq feet with
interest and statutory benefits. The said cases were
adjudicated under New Act, 2013. In the said cases, the
SLAO fixed the market value at Rs.2,278/- per sq. feet. It
is noticed that the properties in L.A.C. No.43/2016
35
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
connected with L.A.C. No.31/2017 and the present cases
were acquired under the same 4(1) notification and 6(1)
notification. The respondent has passed common award
in both cases on 10.10.2014. The property in L.A.C.
No.43/2016 connected with L.A.C.No.31/2017 is
mentioned in serial No.39 in the said award. Both
properties acquired for the purpose of widening of Hosuru
road and both properties are situated in same location.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that to be considered the
market value of the properties of the present cases on the
basis of judgment and award passed by this court in
L.A.C. No.43/2016 connected with L.A.C. No.31/2017 is
just and necessary. In the said cases, this court has
considered the guidance value issued by State
Government, added 40% on the residential site value and
fixed the market value of the acquired properties at
Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet with statutory benefits under New
Act, 2013. Therefore, I am of the opinion that to be
considered this case on the basis of previous judgment of
36
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
this court passed in L.A.C. No.43/2016 connected with
L.A.C. No.31/2017 is just and necessary. In this contest,
I relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka 2336 (State
of Karnataka by S.L.A.O. and others Vs. Mallappa
and others). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Court held
as follows:
"Land Acquisition Act-1894 (Central Act No.1
of 1894-Section 54(2) enhancement of
compensation made by 1st Appellate Court is
sought to be challenged by the State -
enhancement was made on the basis of
judgment and award made by the Court in
similar other cases-Wherein similar nature of
the lands are adjoining villages acquired under
same notification and for the same purpose-
Held as facts-Uniform rate of compensation for
all concerned lands which are similarly
situated to the adjoining villages cannot be
faulted, liable to be confirmed"
From the above discussion, I come to the conclusion
that to be fixed market value of the properties in question
37
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
at Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet with statutory benefits under
New Act, 2013 is just and necessary.
.38. Let me see about enhancement of the
compensation towards buildings which were existed in
the acquired properties. The claimants contended that
the award amount passed by the respondent in-respect of
buildings is not correct, it is meager and it is to be
enhanced. I have perused the award passed by the
respondent. In the said award, Sl.No.15 of the property
belongs to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 38/2016. It is
mentioned that RCC building is measuring 705.60 sq.
meters. The respondent has fixed the value of the said
building of Rs.29,53,152/-. In 18 application and PW.4 in
his examination-in-chief stated that the building was
existed in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. The
value of the said building would be more than Rs.1 crore
as on the date of preliminary notification. It is further
stated that their building consisting of basement, ground,
38
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
1st and terrace floor stair head room. Total 11,214 sq. feet
of building got demolished and he caused huge financial
loss. He has made expenses for construction and
reconstruction of remained portion of the building. It is
further stated that the details in-respect of building is
reflected in the valuation report submitted by Expert
Valuer and estimated total valuation of the building at
Rs.91,16,982/-. To prove the same, the claimant has
produced valuation report issued by PW.16 who is the
Chartered Engineer and Government Valuer and got
marked as Ex.P.12. In the said report, the expert made
valuation of building for a sum of Rs.91,16,982/-. PW.16
in his evidence deposed about value of the building as per
Ex.P.12. I have carefully perused Ex.P.12, oral evidence of
PW.4, PW.16 with records. It is mentioned in the award
that the respondent get the valuation report from the
Executive Engineer (Road) and fixed the market value. I
am of the opinion that, to prove the value of building,
cost of construction the claimant has not produced the
39
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
documents. He has not produced licence, sanctioned plan
and expenses incurred for construction of building. PW.4
in his cross-examination stated that he has not having
documents for payment towards cost of construction. He
further stated that they constructed the said building
about 30 years back. However, from looking into the facts
and circumstances of the case, nature of the building and
its measurement, I come to the conclusion that to be
fixed Rs.35,00,000/- to the building as against
Rs.29,53,157/- by the respondent is required.
.39. In the award, Sl.No.25 of the property belongs
to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 32/2016. It is mentioned
that RCC building is measuring 74 sq. meters. The
respondent has fixed the value of the said building of
Rs.7,47,638/-. In 18 application and PW.2 in his
examination-in-chief stated that the building was existed
in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To prove
the same, the claimant has produced valuation report
40
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
and got marked as Ex.P.9. In the said report, the expert
made valuation of building for a sum of Rs.5,58,054/-.
PW.16 in his evidence deposed about value of the
building as per Ex.P.9. I have perused Ex.P.9, oral
evidence of PW.2 and PW.16 with records. It is mentioned
in the award that the respondent get the valuation report
from the Executive Engineer (Road) and fixed the market
value. I am of the opinion that, to prove the value of
building, cost of construction the claimant has not
produced the documents. He has not produced licence,
sanctioned plan and expenses incurred for construction
of building. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that he
has not having documents for payment towards cost of
construction. He further stated that they constructed the
said building about 30 years back. As discussed above,
the respondent has fixed the market value of the building
at Rs.7,47,638/-. But in Ex.P.9, the valuation of the
building mentioned as Rs.5,58,054/-. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the oral evidence of PW.16 and his report
41
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
will not help the case of the claimant. From the above
discussion, I come to the conclusion that the value of the
building fixed by the respondent is correct. Further, I
come to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to
prove that the value of the building is liable to be
enhanced.
.40. In the award, Sl.No.30 of the property belongs
to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 40/2016. It is mentioned
that AC sheet building measuring 26.20 sq. meters. The
respondent has fixed the value of the said building of
Rs.3,35,488/-. In 18 application and PW.5 in his
examination-in-chief stated that the building was existed
in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimant has produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.14. In the
said report, the expert made valuation of building for a
sum of Rs.1,97,670/-. PW.16 in his evidence also
deposed about value of the building as per Ex.P.14. I have
42
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
perused Ex.P.14, oral evidence of PW.5 and PW.16 with
records. It is mentioned in the award that the respondent
get the valuation report from the Executive Engineer
(Road) and fixed the market value. I am of the opinion
that, the claimant has not produced licence, sanctioned
plan and expenses incurred for construction of building.
PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that he has not
having documents for payment towards cost of
construction. He further stated that they constructed the
said building about 30 years back. As discussed above,
the respondent fixed the market value of the building at
Rs.3,35,488/-. But in Ex.P.14, the valuation of the
building mentioned as Rs.1,97,760/-. I am of the opinion
that the oral evidence of PW.16 and his report will not
help the case of the claimant. Hence, I come to the
conclusion that the value of the building fixed by the
respondent is correct. Further, I come to the conclusion
that the claimant has failed to prove that the value of the
building is liable to be enhanced.
43
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.41. In the award, Sl.No.31 of the property belongs
to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 44/2016. It is mentioned
that RCC building measuring 83.25 sq. meters and the
respondent has fixed the value of the said building of
Rs.9,98,396/-. In 18 application and PW.8 in his
examination-in-chief stated that the building was existed
in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimant has produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.19. In the
said report, the expert made valuation of building for a
sum of Rs.9,47,635/-. PW.16 in his evidence deposed
about value of the building as per Ex.P.19. I have perused
Ex.P.19, oral evidence of PW.8 and PW.16 with records. It
is mentioned in the award that the respondent get the
valuation report from the Executive Engineer (Road) and
fixed the market value. I am of the opinion that, to prove
the value of building, the claimant has not produced
licence, sanctioned plan and expenses incurred for
44
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
construction of building. PW.8 in her cross-examination
stated that he has not having documents for payment
towards cost of construction. He further stated that they
constructed the said building about 30 years back. As
discussed above, the respondent fixed the market value of
the building at Rs.9,98,396/-. But in Ex.P.19, the
valuation of the building mentioned as Rs.9,47,635/-. I
am of the opinion that the oral evidence of PW.16 and his
report will not help the case of the claimant. Hence, I
come to the conclusion that the value of the building
fixed by the respondent is correct. The claimant has failed
to prove that the value of the building is liable to be
enhanced.
.42. In the award, Sl.No.10(1) and 10(2) of the
property belongs to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 45/2016. It
is mentioned that RCC buildings measuring 19.80 sq.
meters and 22.75 sq. meters. The respondent has fixed
total value of the said two buildings of Rs.2,26,418/- and
Rs.3,03,607/- respectively. In 18 application and PW.9 in
45
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
her examination-in-chief stated that the building was
existed in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimant has produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.21. In the
said report, the expert fixed valuation of buildings for a
sum of Rs.10,07,500/-. PW.16 in his evidence also
deposed about value of the building as per Ex.P.21. I have
perused Ex.P.21, oral evidence of PW.9 and PW.16 with
records. It is mentioned in the award that the respondent
get the valuation report from the Executive Engineer
(Road) and fixed the market value. I am of the opinion
that, to prove the value of building, the claimant has not
produced the licence, sanctioned plan and expenses
incurred for construction of building. PW.9 in his cross-
examination stated that he has not having documents for
payment towards cost of construction. He further stated
that they constructed the said building about 30 years
back. As discussed above, the respondent fixed the
46
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
market value of the building at Rs.2,26,418/- and
Rs.3,03,607/-. But in Ex.P.21, the valuation of the
building mentioned as Rs.10,07,500/-. I am of the
opinion that the oral evidence of PW.16 and his report
will not help the case of the claimant. Hence, I come to
the conclusion that the value of the building fixed by the
respondent is correct. The claimant has failed to prove
that the value of the building is liable to be enhanced.
.43. In the award, Sl.No.29 of the property belongs
to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 46/2016. It is mentioned
that RCC building measuring 27.51 sq. meters. The
respondent has fixed the value of the said building of
Rs.2,38,911/-. In 18 application and PW.10 in his
examination-in-chief stated that the building was existed
in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimant has produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.23. In the
said report, the expert made valuation of building for a
47
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
sum of Rs.1,43,889/-. PW.16 in his evidence also
deposed about value of the building as per Ex.P.23. I have
perused Ex.P.23, oral evidence of PW.10 and PW.16 with
records. It is mentioned in the award that the respondent
get the valuation report from the Executive Engineer
(Road) and fixed the market value. I am of the opinion
that, to prove the value of building, cost of construction
the claimant has not produced the licence, sanctioned
plan and expenses incurred for construction of building.
PW.10 in his cross-examination stated that he has not
having documents for payment towards cost of
construction. He further stated that they constructed the
said building about 30 years back. As discussed above,
the respondent fixed the market value of the building at
Rs.2,38,911/-. But in Ex.P.23, the valuation of the
building mentioned as Rs.1,43,889/-. I am of the opinion
that the oral evidence of PW.16 and his report will not
help the case of the claimant. Hence, I come to the
conclusion that the value of the building fixed by the
48
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
respondent is correct. The claimant has failed to prove
that the value of the building is liable to be enhanced.
.44. In the award, Sl.No.7 of the property belongs to
the claimant in L.A.C. No. 47/2016. It is mentioned that
RCC building measuring 1,122 sq. feet. The respondent
has fixed the value of the said building of Rs.3,35,488/-.
In 18 application and PW.14 in his examination-in-chief
stated that the building was existed in the acquired
property was commercial building, abutting to the
Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To prove the same,
the claimant has produced valuation report issued by
PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.31. In the said report, it is
mentioned that the built up area of the said building is
very neglizable, hence the valuation not considered.
PW.16 in his evidence also deposed about value of the
building as per Ex.P.31. I have perused Ex.P.31, oral
evidence of PW.14 and PW.16 with records. It is
mentioned in the award that the respondent get the
valuation report from the Executive Engineer (Road) and
49
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
fixed the market value. I am of the opinion that, to prove
the value of building, the claimant has not produced the
licence, sanctioned plan and expenses incurred for
construction of building. PW.14 in his cross-examination
stated that he has not having documents for payment
towards cost of construction. He further stated that they
constructed the said building about 30 years back. As
discussed above, the respondent fixed the market value of
the building at Rs.9,41,105/-. But in Ex.P.31, PW.16 not
considered and fixed the valuation of the building. Hence,
I come to the conclusion that the value of the building
fixed by the respondent is correct. The claimant has failed
to prove that the value of the building is liable to be
enhanced.
.45. In the award, Sl.No.26 of the property belongs
to the claimant in L.A.C. No. 50/2016. It is mentioned
that RCC building measuring 74 sq. meters. The
respondent has fixed the value of the said building of
Rs.5,93,379/-. In 18 application and PW.12 in his
50
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
examination-in-chief stated that the building was existed
in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimant has produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.26. In the
said report, the expert made valuation of building for a
sum of Rs.7,41,650/-. PW.16 in his evidence also
deposed about value of the building as per Ex.P.26. I have
perused Ex.P.26, oral evidence of PW.12 and PW.16 with
records. It is mentioned in the award that the respondent
get the valuation report from the Executive Engineer
(Road) and fixed the market value. I am of the opinion
that, to prove the value of building, the claimant has not
produced the licence, sanctioned plan and expenses
incurred for construction of building. PW.12 in his cross-
examination stated that he has not having documents for
payment towards cost of construction. He further stated
that they constructed the said building about 30 years
back. As discussed above, the respondent fixed the
51
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
market value of the building at Rs.5,93,379/-. But in
Ex.P.26, the valuation of the building mentioned as
Rs.7,41,650/-. However, from looking into the facts and
circumstance of the case, nature of the building and
locality, I come to the conclusion that the claimant is
entitle for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- towards
building.
.46. In the award, Sl.No.14 and 23 of the properties
belongs to the claimants in L.A.C. No. 51/2016. It is
mentioned that RCC building measuring 136.12 sq.
meters and 18.50 sq. meters. The respondent has fixed
the value of the said building of Rs.9,89,169/- and
Rs.2,38,968/- respectively. In 18 application and PW.13
in his examination-in-chief stated that the building was
existed in the acquired property was commercial building,
abutting to the Hosuru main road, NH-7, Madivala. To
prove the same, the claimants have produced valuation
report issued by PW.16 and got marked as Ex.P.28. In the
said report, the expert made valuation of building for a
52
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
sum of Rs.5,45,970/-. PW.16 in his evidence also
deposed about value of the building as per Ex.P.28. I have
perused Ex.P.28, oral evidence of PW.13 and PW.16 with
records. It is mentioned in the award that the respondent
get the valuation report from the Executive Engineer
(Road) and fixed the market value. I am of the opinion
that, to prove the value of building, the claimants have
not produced the licence, sanctioned plan and expenses
incurred for construction of building. PW.13 in his cross-
examination stated that they have not having documents
for payment towards cost of construction. He further
stated that they constructed the said building about 30
years back. As discussed above, the respondent fixed the
market value of the building at Rs.9,89,169/- and
Rs.2,38,968/- respectively. But in Ex.P.28, the valuation
of the building mentioned as Rs.5,45,970/-. Hence, I
come to the conclusion that the value of the building
fixed by the respondent is correct. The claimants have
53
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
failed to prove that the value of the building is liable to be
enhanced.
.47. The Section 30 of Act 2013, reads as under :
" Sec.30. Award of solatium:- (1) The Collector
having determined the total compensation to
be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award,
impose a "Solatium" amount equivalent to one
hundred per cent of the compensation
amount.
Explanation.:- For the removal of doubts it is
hereby declared that solatium amount shall be
in addition to the compensation payable to any
person whose land has been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards
detailing the particular of compensation
payable and the details of payment of the
compensation as specified in the First
Schedule.
.48. As per the provisions contemplated u/s. 30 of
the Act, 2013, all the claimants are entitle 100%
compensation as contemplated u/s. 30(1) and (2) of the
Act, 2013 First schedule appended to Act 2013 as the
claimants are the owners of the acquired properties,
which are on the market value of the acquired land. As
54
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
per Section 26(2) r/w aforesaid Schedule First appended,
to New L.A. Act, 2013, the factor which the market value
is to be multiplied in the case of acquired properties in
this reference existed in Bengaluru city is one (1).
Therefore, the claimants are entitle for 100% solatium on
the compensation fixed by this court, as per the
provisions contemplated u/s. 26(2) of New L.A. Act, 2013.
As per Section 69(2) of the New L.A. Act, 2013, the
claimants are entitle 12% interest on the compensation of
market value from the date of publication of notification,
until passing of award or taking the possession of
acquired properties which ever is earlier. As per Section
72 and 80 of New L.A. Act, 2013 the claimants are entitle
for interest @ Rs.9% p.a., on the execs amount from the
date of taking over possession of acquired property for the
1st year and interest @ Rs.15% p.a., for subsequent year
till deposit of entire amount. From the above discussion,
I come to the conclusion that all the claimants of these
cases are entitle for compensation at the rate of
55
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet along with all statutory benefits as
stated above. Further, I come to the conclusion that the
claimants have proved that the market value fixed by the
SLAO/respondent to the acquired properties is
inadequate and in-just and it is not consonance with the
provisions of New L.A. Act, 2013. The claimant in L.A.C.
No.38/2016 is entitle for the compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/- in-respect of building as against
Rs.29,53,152/- awarded by the respondent. The claimant
in L.A.C. No.50/2016 is entitle for the compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- in-respect of building as against
Rs.5,93,379/- awarded by the respondent. The claimants
in L.A.C. No.32/2016, 40/2016, 42/2016, 44/2016,
45/2016, 46/2016, 47/2016 and 51/2016 are not entitle
for enhancement of compensation in-respect of buildings.
Therefore, I come to the conclusion that all these
references are liable to be partly allowed. Hence, I answer
the points No.2 to 4 in the partly affirmative.
56
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40,
41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
.49. Point No.5: In view of my findings on points
No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
All the references (L.A.C. No.38/2016 clubbed with L.A.C. No.32/2016, 33/2016, 40/2016, 41/2016, 42/2016, 44/2016, 45/2016, 46/2016, 47/2016, 48/2016, 50/2016 and 51/2016) made by the SLAO /respondent under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are partly allowed.
The claimants are entitle for the market value of their acquired properties at the rate of Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet, instead of Rs.2,278/- per Sq. feet, as awarded by the SLAO/respondent.
The claimant in L.A.C. No.38/2016 is entitle for the compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- in-respect of building as against Rs.29,53,152/- awarded by the respondent.
The claimant in L.A.C. No.50/2016 is entitle for the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-
57LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
in-respect of building as against Rs.5,93,379/- awarded by the respondent.
The market value is to be multiplied in this case with factor 'one' (1) as per section 26
(c) and as contemplated in First schedule appended to the New L.A. Act, 2013.
As per Section 30 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, the claimants are entitle 100% solatium of total compensation, including the market value.
As per Section 69(2) of New L.A. Act, 2013, the claimants are entitle 12% p.a., compensation on the market value from the date of publication of notification, until passing of award or taking of possession of acquired property, which-ever is earlier.
As per Sections 72 and 80 of New L.A. Act, 2013 the claimants are entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the excess amount from the date of taking over possession of acquired properties i.e., from 27-02-2016 for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire amount.
58LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
The claimants in L.A.C. No.32/2016, 40/2016, 42/2016, 44/2016, 45/2016, 46/2016, 47/2016 and 51/2016 are not entitle for enhancement of compensation in-respect of buildings.
The amount already paid by the SLAO/respondent shall be deducted in the excess compensation now awarded to the acquired property.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
The parties are directed to bear their own cost in these cases.
Draw award accordingly.
It is directed the office to keep the original judgment in L.A.C. No.38/2016 and copies of the same in other connected L.A.C. cases.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this day of 18 th of June 2020) (R.Y. Shashidhara) II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
59LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS IN ALL CASES:
P.W.1 : D.R. Nagendra Prasad P.W.2 : P. Anand P.W.3 : Pillappa P.W.4 : Gopal Reddy P.W.5 : Vijaya Kumar P.W.6 : Manjunath K. P.W.7 : Ashok Kumar P.W.8 : Jayanthi P.W.9 : Rajamma P.W.10 : I.D. Velan P.W.11 : I. Ramakrishna P.W.12 : Anand Kumar P.W.13 : D.R. Rajendra P.W.14 : Shankar Ganesh P.W.15 : Rajesh D.S. P.W.16 : Shibasish Mujumder
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS IN ALL CASES:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of preliminary notification published in Karnataka State Gazette 60 LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of final notification published in Karnataka State Gazette Ex.P.3 Certified copy of details of compensation amount arrived at by the L.A.O. Ex.P.4 Certified copy of details of taking possession of acquired land Ex.P.5 Certified copy of relevant portion of plan of Koramangal Layout formed by BDA Ex.P.6 Certified copy of sale deed of auction sale dated 03.03.2011 Ex.P.7 Valuation report Ex.P.8 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.9 Valuation report Ex.P.10 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.11 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act, Ex.P.12 Valuation report Ex.P.13 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.14 Valuation report Ex.P.15 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.16 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.17 Valuation report Ex.P.18 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.19 Valuation report Ex.P.20 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.21 Valuation report Ex.P.22 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.23 Valuation report Ex.P.24 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.25 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.26 Valuation report Ex.P.27 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.28 Valuation report Ex.P.29 Application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.30 GPA Ex.P.31 Valuation report of land and building Ex.P.32 GPA Ex.P.33 Application (protest petition) filed under 61 LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
Section 18 of L.A. Act by D.R. Rajendra Gupta Ex.P.34 Application (protest petition) filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act by D.R. Shankara Gupta Ex.P.35 Application (protest petition) filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act by D.R. Chandra Mohan Gupta Ex.P.36 Application (protest petition) filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act by Smt. J.G. Vasantha Kumari Ex.P.37 Application (protest petition) filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act by Smt. Saraswathamma Ex.P.38 Letter dated 19.11.2018 Ex.P.39 Form 'C' Ex.P.40 Commercial Institution register Ex.P.41 Receipt issued by District Registrar, Jayanagara Ex.P.42 Death certificate of Shankar Guptha
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Application under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
(R.Y. Shashidhara) II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.62
LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
ORDER All the references (L.A.C. No.38/2016 clubbed with L.A.C. No.32/2016, 33/2016, 40/2016, 41/2016, 42/2016, 44/2016, 45/2016, 46/2016, 47/2016, 48/2016, 50/2016 and 51/2016) made by the SLAO /respondent under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 63 LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are partly allowed.
The claimants are entitle for the market value of their acquired properties at the rate of Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet, instead of Rs.2,278/- per Sq.
feet, as awarded by the
SLAO/respondent.
The claimant in L.A.C.
No.38/2016 is entitle for the
compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- in- respect of building as against Rs.29,53,152/- awarded by the respondent.
The claimant in L.A.C. No.50/2016 is entitle for the
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- in- respect of building as against Rs.5,93,379/- awarded by the respondent.
The market value is to be multiplied in this case with factor 'one' (1) as per section 26 (c) and as contemplated in First schedule appended to the New L.A. Act, 2013.
As per Section 30 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, the claimants are entitle 100% solatium of total compensation, including the market value.
As per Section 69(2) of New L.A. Act, 2013, the claimants are entitle 12% p.a., compensation on the market value from the date of publication of notification, until passing of award or 64 LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
taking of possession of acquired property, which-ever is earlier.
As per Sections 72 and 80 of New L.A. Act, 2013 the claimants are entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the excess amount from the date of taking over possession of acquired properties i.e., from 27-02-2016 for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire amount.
The claimants in L.A.C. No.32/2016, 40/2016, 42/2016, 44/2016, 45/2016, 46/2016,
47/2016 and 51/2016 are not entitle for enhancement of compensation in- respect of buildings.
The amount already paid by the SLAO/respondent shall be deducted in the excess compensation now awarded to the acquired property.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
The parties are directed to bear their own cost in these cases.
Draw award accordingly.
It is directed the office to keep the original judgment in L.A.C. No.38/2016 and copies of the same in other connected L.A.C. cases.
(vide separate judgment) 65 LAC.No.38/2016 C/w LAC.No.32, 33, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51/2016.
(R.Y. Shashidhara) II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.