Bangalore District Court
Chowda Reddy vs Spl. Lao Kiadb Bangalore on 16 August, 2025
1
L.A.C. No.71/2009
KABC010090212009
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri. Padma Prasad, B.A.Law.LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.71/2009
CLAIMANTS:
1) Chowda Reddy
Dead by LRs :
1(a) T.C. Santosh
S/o late. Chowda Reddy
Aged about 37 years
1(b) Sanjeev Kumar
S/o late. Chowda Reddy
Aged about 35 years
1(c) Smt. T.C. Savitha
W/o Logu Bhojan
D/o late. Chowda Reddy
42 years
1(d) Smt. Vijaya
W/o late. Chowda Reddy
65 years
All are residing at No. 67/A
2
L.A.C. No.71/2009
1st Cross, Muniramappa Garden
KEB layout, Sanjay Nagar
Bengaluru -560 094.
(Sri. RSH, Advocate for LRs of claimant)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB
Bengaluru.
2) The Managing Director,
Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
BMRC Complex, 3rd Floor
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(Sri. DBG, Advocate for R-1)
(Sri. NM, Advocate for R-2)
JUDGMENT
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bengaluru has sent this reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, for enhancement of compensation in view of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land .
3
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing property No. 49/2 measuring 21 square meters situated at Prakash Nagara layout, BBMP ward No. 23 has been acquired for Metro Rail Project. Preliminary notification was issued on 17.01.2006. Final notification was issued on 24.10.2007. The award has been passed on 25.11.2008. The possession has been taken on 22.12.2008. The L.A.O. has fixed the compensation of Rs. 15,32,752. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant had filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, and has sought for enhancement of compensation.
.3. In pursuance to the aforesaid application filed under Section 18 0f the L.A. Act dated 23-01-2009, the L.A.O. has sent the reference to this Court. After receipt of the reference, the court registered this case and the notice was sent to the parties. The paries appeared to the court in pursuance of the notice of the case.
.4. The claimant in the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claimed that he is an absolute owner of commercial / residential property bearing No. 1628, khatha No. 49/2 situated in MKK road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru measuring East to West 22 feet and North to South 4 L.A.C. No.71/2009 32 + 40/2 feet consisting of ground floor, two shops of built up area of about 4 squares in the front and a single bed room house in the back of built up area of about 3.75 squares, in the back side, constructed during the year 1988, first floor consisting of double bed room house measuring about 7.75 squares. It is stated that Hon'ble Authority without considering the claims made by the applicant, arbitrarily proceeded to fix the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant, firstly with regard to the vacant land taking the market value per Square Meter in a sum of Rs.38,191/- said to be as per P.S.S. Thomas Committee recommendation and with regard to the super structure loss of portion of the building by way of demolition this authority has incorrectly determined the compensation under various heads. It is stated that with regard to the land acquired and measurement of the area of land acquired, the authorities have determined the area of land as 21 square meters of the front side of applicant's property and as per the sketch prepared by the authorities and the alignment fixed the applicant is loosing portion of site land in an area of nearly 23 square meters. With regard to market value, the rate fixed by the Authority 5 L.A.C. No.71/2009 said to be relying on P.S.S. Thomas Committee Recommendation is not correct and not based on the statistics of the year 2006 and 2008 and the statistics relied upon is of the year 2003-04. It is further claimed that in- respect of property situated in 1st N block, Rajajinagara fetched Rs. 95,800/- per square meters in the year 2006 and nr another property in the same area in the year 2008 fetched Rs. 1,52,000/- per square meters and it clearly evidence within a period of 2 years market rate has been increased from Rs. 95,800/- to Rs. 1,52,000/- per square meters in the area nearby the property of the applicant. The property of applicant is situated in a better location to the main road namely MKK road. It is stated that based on determination of such market value towards loss of land, the applicant is entitled for proportionate statutory benefits as provided under LA Act. It is stated that the Authorities have determined the compensation amount towards loss of building taking the valuation abstract said to be given by Thimmaraj approved valuer the extent of acquisition of building, total building area of 39227 square meters in the front side of the building. The said measurement reported is incorrect and having regard to 6 L.A.C. No.71/2009 the structural construction of the building with columns and beams the building cannot be cut and demolished in between the columns. The actual loss of building which shall be nearly 1200 square feet as stated herein above. It is also stated that the Authority has committed error in adopting the depreciation value taking the age of the entire building as 18 years, in-spite of the fact that the 2 nd floor is constructed during the year 2001. It is stated that the basic rate per square feet of construction should be properly fixed for arriving at the market value of loss of building, the applicant claims Rs. 1,35,000/- per square. It is stated that having regard to partial demolition of the building which is of structural construction of columns and beams, the remaining portion of the building is likely to be damaged and weakened. It is stated that the Authority has not taken into consideration of income derived out of the property. Its by virtue of The entire building is let out and the applicant is getting monthly demolition of the building, the tenant in occupation has to be vacated and thereby, the applicant will incur loss of income by way of rent to the tune of Rs. 31,500/- per month which is required to be compensated till such time the applicant could 7 L.A.C. No.71/2009 able to complete the replacement of the remaining portion of the building. It is stated that by virtue of demolition of building, the applicant will loose such area of construction and by way of replacement of building the area of construction will be substantially reduced to the extent of 50% and compensation towards loss of income by way of rent in a sum of Rs. 15,750/- being the 50% of existing rent as loss of income permanently. The applicant is entitled for statutory benefits on such amount. The applicant is entitled for compensation towards shifting of debris, materials, leveling and replacement of building, incidental charges and expenses in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is stated that the preliminary notification is issued and gazette on 17.01.2006 and the award amount is paid under cheque dated 22.12.2008 and thereby the applicant should have been paid interest for 1069 days and the Authority has wrongly calculated for 712 days. The applicant is entitled for interest for the period of 357 days at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation granted under the award.
.5. The respondent No. 2 has filed objections stating that an area of 21 square meters of land belonging to the 8 L.A.C. No.71/2009 claimant in property No. 1628(49/2) in MKK road Bengaluru has been acquired. As per the practice adopted by BMRCL all the lands that are being acquired for Bengaluru project were valued by an expert Committee headed by Sri. P.S.S.Thomas, a retired IAS officer. The Committee after elaborate study has submitted its report in April 2007. It is stated that the land of the claimant has been valued by Thomas Committee and the market value of the land under question has been fixed at Rs. 20,611/- per sq. meters and BMRCL has sent compensation package adopting the market value and adding 30% solatium and 12% additional market value. The claimant vice his letter dated 25.09.2008 and 15.10.2008 has written to SLAO saying that not accepting the consent award. It is stated that the SLAO has accordingly framed normal award. However while fixing the market value of the land acquired the SLAO has taken the market value fixed by Thomas Committee. The SLAO while fixing the market value not considered the sales statistics and as not discussed the parameters for fixing the market value of Rs. 38,191/- per square meters. It is stated that the Thomas Committee has fixed Rs. 38,191/- per square meters as market value for property. The Thomas Committee 9 L.A.C. No.71/2009 has classified the land into three main categories based on 4 most important parameters which affect the value of the land parcel namely (a) usage; (b) area; (c) frontage and access and
(d) width and depth. The Committee has further sub categorized the land parcels. It is stated that claimant is categorized as C22 which means land parcel with width and depth is more than average. The land of the claimant has been valued at Rs. 38,191 based on various parameters like its location, frontage to the road and width and depth. It is stated that B.D.A. auction cannot be compared to the land of the claimant as the auctioned properties are more than 1.50 kilo meters away from the acquired property. Moreover, the auctioned properties are commercial corner sites and there is no comparison between the property of the claimant and the auctioned property. It is stated that the claimant has been got valued by Sri. Thimmaraj, a registered property valuer and the property has been valued as per CPWD rates and the compensation determined based on the replacement value and not on the depreciated value. The claimant has been paid compensation based on the current market value i.e., 17.01.2006. It is further stated that the acquired area is only 10 L.A.C. No.71/2009 2.5 X 6.23 meters which clearly indicates that only a small portion of the building is acquired and the building was demolished properly without affecting its stability any way. The claim of the claimant for Rs. 1,35,000/- per 100 square feet for the structure is not based on any facts and cannot be accepted. It is stated that there is no provision under LA Act to compensate for the loss of rental income. The BMRCL has adopted a rehabilitation benefits as per the rehabilitation policy norms. In this case also the claimant has been given Rs. 1,20,000/- as commercial rental income loss for which he was eligible as per the norms of the BMRCL. It is stated that the claimant is not justified on any ground and as such the award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB should be upheld as just and proper.
.6. In order to substantiate the case, claimant Chowda Reddy is examined as PW.1. LR of claimant - Santosh is examined as PW.2. The documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The SLAO has been examined as RW.1. The General Manager of the KIADB has been examined as RW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.1(a). 11
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .7. On the basis of the above, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether the reference is in time?
2) Whether the compensation awarded by the L.A.O., to the claimant is in-adequate?
3) What Order or Award?
.8. Heard the arguments, perused the material on record, on that basis my findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.9. Point No.1:- The claimant has approached this court with the claim that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the land for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Railway project. The claimant not being satisfied with the the compensation amount awarded to him filed the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and sought reference for enhancement of compensation claiming that the compensation awarded was too low as compared to the 12 L.A.C. No.71/2009 market value at the time of preliminary notification. The L.A.O has passed the award on 25.11.2008 and the said award has been approved by the Special District Commissioner of KIADB on 18.12.2008. The claimant has stated that he has received the award notice as on 19.12.2008 and also received the compensation through cheque under protest as on 22.12.2008. The claimant claimed that thereafter he has filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 23.01.2009 praying to refer the case to the competent civil court to determine the proper market value of the acquired property.
.10. It is clear from the records that the preliminary notification in this case bearing No. CI. 462 SPQ 2005 dated 17-01-2006 and the final notification is bearing No. CI. 692 SPQ 2007 dated 24-10-2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award as on 25-11-2008 and that has been approved as on 18-12-2008. Thereafter award notice has been issued to the claimant. The claimant claimed that he has received the award notice as on 19-12-2008. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said service of award notice to claimant as on 19-12-2008. As per the records the 13 L.A.C. No.71/2009 claimant received the cheque towards the compensation under protest as 22-12-2008. Thereafter the claimant filed the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as on 23-01-2009 as per the endorsement found in the said application. Therefore it is clear that an application has been filed within 90 days from the date award as well as from the receipt of award notice. Hence it can be held that the claimant has filed an application in time. The LAO has sent the reference to the court vide letter dated 14-08-2009 which is within 3 years 90 days from the date of receipt of the application and so, the reference sent by the LAO is in time. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
.11. Point No.2: The LAO, KIADB has acquired portion of the property of petitioner/ claimant bearing No.1628, khatha No.49/2 measuring 21 Square Meters under 28(4) notification No.692 SPQ 2007 dated 24.10.2007, published in the Karnataka Gazette notification dated 24.10.2007 for the purpose of formation of Metro Rail Project and paid compensation of Rs.15,32,752/- vide cheque No.899320 dated 22.12.2008 after deducting the tax. The petitioner / claimant claims that the said award is inadequate and market 14 L.A.C. No.71/2009 value of the acquired property is much more than the awarded amount. The specific claim of the claimant / petitioner is that the property situated in 1st 'N' Block, Rajajinagar, fetched Rs. 95,800/- per Square Meters in the year 2006 and in respect of another property in the same area in the year 2008 fetched Rs. 1,52,000/- per Square Meters, as such, the market rate has been increased from Rs.95,800/- to Rs. 1,52,000/- per Square Meter in the area wherein property of acquired property has been acquired. Accordingly claimed that he is entitled for more compensation probably in the range of Rs. 95,800/- to Rs.1,52,000/- per Square Meters. Further claimed that actual loss of land is not being 21 Square Meters and it is likely to be 23 Square Meters. Hence, the compensation has to be determined in the said rate. Apart from that the claimant / petitioner also claimed that valuation of the building is not properly assessed and also claimed that monthly rent for the building is Rs.31,500/- per month, and in that rate, the compensation has to be determined in respect of building and also claimed that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for shifting the debris, materials, leveling and replacement of building, 15 L.A.C. No.71/2009 incidental charges and expenses along with interest at 12% per annum, for the period of 2 years 11 months and 5 days, but the authority has calculated only 712 days interest and claimant is entitled for 12% interest for another 357 days. Accordingly on that basis, the claimant is entitled to receive the benefit of escalation and determine the market price.
.12. Before proceeding further in this case, it is just and necessary to note the particulars of the property acquired. As per Ex.P.9 location sketch produced and relied by the claimant, the total extent of property acquired in this case is 21 Square Meters. Out of which, 3,360 Square Meters are vacant land and 17.649 Square Meters of land consists of building. In the case on hand, the claimant is also claiming compensation in respect of the land as well as building and other expenses. Therefore, in the acquired land, the extent of vacant land is 3.360 Square Meters amounting to almost 36 Square feet and the extent of building area is 17.64 Square Meters amounting to almost 190 Square feet. Therefore, total extent of property acquired by the LAO if converted into feet, it will come to 226 Square feet.
16
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .13. The petitioner / claimant in support of his case examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14, Subsequently the original claimant died and his LRs are brought on record. Thereafter, the original claimant's son T.C. Santosh examined himself as PW.2 and got marked additional documents at Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.20. On the basis of these oral and documentary evidence the claimants prays for enhancement of compensation as prayed in the petition.
.14. It is well settled principle of law that the market value could be determined by following 4 methods i.e., (1) Capitalization of income method; (2) Sale Statistics method; (3) Opinion of experts and (4) following the judgments of the courts. In the present case, the claimant only relied on 2 sale deeds for enhancement of compensation. The claimant / petitioner not relied on the capitalization of income method or or opinion of experts or judgments in support of his case but only relied on two auction sale deeds.
.15. Undisputedly the LAO has passed the award and that has been received by the petitioner / claimant under protest. Subsequently the claimant / petitioner filed an 17 L.A.C. No.71/2009 application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to refer the case to the reference Court to determine proper and fair market value of the acquired property. Therefore, the very claim of the claimant / petitioner is that the LAO while passing the award not properly appreciated the market value. Hence, it is just and necessary to see how the LAO had calculated the award. In this case, the LAO while making the reference of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Court enclosed copy of award along with other documents. The claimant produced the copy of award and got marked at Ex.P.19. As per the award passed by the LAO on 25.11.2008 at page No.4 it is stated that "BMRCL formed a PSS Thomas Committee to determine the actual market value of the acquired properties vide order dated 14.01.2008 and 31.01.2008 and the said Committee formed three separate groups as A, B, C to determine the value of the acquired properties. The said Committee after receiving the guidance value as well as sale statistics of the properties registered in between 2003 to 2006, determined the market price of acquired properties. In the said award, last paragraph of page No.4 it is observed that in the year 2005 the property of Plaza 18 L.A.C. No.71/2009 Theater situates in M.G. Road has been sold at Rs.12,000/- per Square feet and considering various other aspects to determine the market price, the LAO fixed the market price/value of the property of petitioner / claimant at Rs.38,191 per Square Meter. The LAO considered the said recommendation and awarded the compensation on the basis of report of PSS Thomas Committee.
.16. In view of the aforesaid award, it is clear that the PSS Thomas committee after obtaining the sale statistics for the past 3 years from the date of Preliminary Notification and Final Notification and considering various aspects determined the market value. The claim of the petitioner / claimant is only on the basis of the sale of 2 sites in the auction by B.D.A. The said fact also considered by the LAO in his award that is evident from 2nd paragraph of the award, wherein, it is specifically observed that petitioner / claimant has produced auction sale deeds of 2 sites and the same sale deeds have been produced before the Court at Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 along with sale confirmation letter at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. As such, with these backgrounds the material placed before the Court has to be appreciated.
19
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .17. The claimant claims enhancement of compensation in respect of the total extent of acquired property measuring 21 Square Meters that includes vacant area as well as constructed area along with compensation regarding the loss of building, loss of rent due to demolition of part of building, incidental expenses as well as interest @ 12% for additional 357 days claiming that the LAO calculated the interest only for 712 days instead of 1069 days while depositing the awarded compensation. All these facts are totally denied by the respondents. Hence, the Court has to consider the aforesaid claim of the claimant.
.18. The claim of the claimant is that 21 Square Meters of land has been acquired by the LAO, for which, the LAO fixed the compensation @ Rs.38,191/- per Square Meters as per the aforesaid award. The claimant specifically claims that the said award or price is much lesser than the actual market value and claimed that nearby sites have been sold in the year 2006 @ Rs.95,800/- per Square Meters and two years later the market price has been increased to Rs.1,52,000/- per Square Meter in 1st 'N' Block, Rajajinagar. Accordingly claimant claims the said compensation.
20
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .19. It is relevant to note that in support of the aforesaid contention, the claimant produced 2 auction sale deeds at Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 as well as auction sale confirmation letters at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. It is true that as per Ex.P.2 auction confirmation letter and Ex.P.21 auction sale deed, a commercial corner site had been auctioned at price of Rs. 1,52,000/- per Square Meter as on 22.07.2008. Similarly Ex.P.3 auction confirmation letter and Ex.P.22 auction sale deed disclose the auction sale of another site at the rate of Rs. 95,800/- per Square Meter in the year 2006. As stated earlier, the claimant has not produced any documents other than the said two auction sale deeds in support of rate of the said prevailing market value of the acquired property either in the year 2006 or 2008.
.20. The counsel for the claimant on the basis of the Principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Executive Engineer, KHB Vs. LAO, Gadag reported in (2011) 2 SCC 246 and argued that when there is no normal sale deed is not available, then the Court can rely on the auction sale deed of nearby properties and the Court may deduct 20% of the auction price and enhance the compensation on the basis 21 L.A.C. No.71/2009 of the said auction sale deed. I have closely perused the said judgment. The property involved in the said case is an agricultural land and reference Court relied the auction sale deed and reduced 53% from the auction price that has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court modified the said compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on applying a cut off 40% of the auction sale price awarded the compensation. The facts of the said case is totally different from the facts of this case. Further in the said case, the LAO only decided the market value of the acquired land and that has been challenged and reference was made to the court to determine the market value. Per contra, in the case on hand, the LAO has not decided the market value independently but the award of the LAO based on the report of PSS Thomas Committee. The said PSS Thomas committee had been constituted to determine the fair market value and the Committee after thoroughly examination of various factors, sale statistics, CVC guidelines decided the market price. The LAO basing on the report of PSS Thomas Committee awarded the compensation. 22
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .21. It is also relevant to note the location of acquired property and the location of properties in two sale deeds relied by the claimant. Undisputedly the two auction sale deeds produced by the claimant is not abutting or nearby to the acquired property of claimant. According to the respondents, the properties stated in Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 auction sale deeds are at a distance of 1 ½ kilo meters from the acquired property. Per contra, the claimant claims that the acquired property is at a distance of ½ kilo meter from the properties stated in auction sale deeds. Whatever the admission of the parties or claim of parties, it is clear that the properties in two auction sale deeds produced by the claimant are not near to the acquired property and not any sketch or document to show the distance between acquired property and auctioned properties. Apart from that, the boundaries given to the property at Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 sale deeds also reveals that the said two sites are corner sites and acquired property is not a corner site. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the respondent No. 2 claimed that the property of claimant is not abutting to the main road but it is facing to leading to Navarang. Apart from that, it is also not the case of the 23 L.A.C. No.71/2009 claimant that the properties stated in the aforesaid 2 auction sale deeds also situates on the same road wherein property of claimant exists.
.22. It is also relevant to note that the property of the claimant is basically a residential building wherein he has put up two shops in the ground floor. Except that nothing is on record to show that entire property of claimant has been used for commercial purpose. However, final notification produced by the respondents published in the Karnataka Gazette notification described the property of claimant as ground floor, vacant site, one shop and 2 floor residential house. The issuance of said Gazette notification is also not in dispute. If the said notification is accepted, the claimant has only one shop premises in the property acquired by the LAO. Therefore, the nature of the building or property of claimant is more residential than commercial. When such is the case the rate or market price decided in the public auction for the commercial sites cannot be basis for fixing the market value of acquired property. Apart from that in the acquired property, the vacant area is only 3.36 Square Meters and constructed the area was only 17.649 Square Meters. Of 24 L.A.C. No.71/2009 course, the claimant produced the photographs but the property of claimant was not at all identified in the said photographs and such identity is required because the photographs shows many properties or buildings with different designs and size. Therefore there is no clarity regarding 2 shop premises claimed by the claimant.
.23. It is relevant to note that as per Ex.P.4 Gazette notification dated 17.04.2007, the guideline market price known as CVC guidelines bearing No. CVC/BUD/5/2006-07 dated 17.04.2007 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17.04.2007 at Ex.P.4. The said CVC guidelines discloses the guidance value at Rajajinagar 1 st 'N' Block is Rs.3,000/- per Square feet for residential site. Similarly the price for residential sites in between Malleshwaram to Navarang main road is Rs.4,000/- per Square feet. Therefore, the price of residential sites in the year 2006-07 at Malleshwaram or Rajajinagar or Malleshwaram to Navarang main road is almost ranging between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per Square feet. The LAO on the basis of PSS Thomas Committee report awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,548/- per square feet (If the amount of Rs.38,191/- per square meter is 25 L.A.C. No.71/2009 converted in to feet it will be Rs.3,548/- per square feet). Except the auction sale deeds, there is no material whatsoever on record to show that the price is more than CVC guidelines price or the price nearby to the price stated in the auction sale deeds.
.24. It is well settled principle of law that escalation of 10% of the market value can be made every year. If the said principle of 10% escalation is applied to the claim of claimant that there was a market value of Rs.95,800/- per Square Meter in the year 2006 as per auction sale of the year 2006, then the escalation at rate 10% every year is applied then the market value of the property in the year 2025 to be Rs.5,85,857/-. If the said amount is converted into Square feet then the price will be at Rs.54,427/- per Square feet. Similarly if the market value of the auction sale deed of the year 2008 at Rs. 1,52,000/- per Square Meter is calculated or escalated by applying 10% every year, then the market value will be at Rs. 7,68,340/- per Square Meter in the year 2025. If the said amount is converted in to Square feet then it will come to Rs.71,381/- per Square feet. Absolutely there is no material on record to show that the market value of the 26 L.A.C. No.71/2009 properties near the acquired property is either at Rs.54,427/- per Square feet or Rs. 71,381/- per Square feet in the year 2025. Even if there were no sale deeds available during the time of acquisition proceedings, the claimant would have produced any sale deeds prior to the acquisition or between the acquisition of property till this date that would have been considered by the Court to determine the market value by using the aforesaid escalation method of 10% escalation every year. Absolutely there is no material on record to believe that the market value of the property was there either at the time of acquisition proceedings or on this date which tallies the claim of claimant.
.25. As per Ex.P.9 location sketch, the total extent of property acquired in this case is 21 Square Meters. Out of which, 3.360 Square Meters are vacant land and 17.649 Square Meters of land consists of building. In the case on hand, the claimant is also claiming compensation in respect of the land as well as building and other expenses. Therefore, the acquired land consists of 3.360 Square Meters of vacant land amounting to almost 36 Square feet of property and building area of 17.64 Square Meters amounting to almost 27 L.A.C. No.71/2009 190 Square feet. Therefore, total extent of property acquired by the LAO if converted into feet it will come to 226 Square feet. This acquisition taken place in the year 2006 and award has been passed in the year 2008. Therefore, undisputedly the market value of the property to be considered of the year 2006 when the preliminary notification had been issued. Hence, it is for the claimant to show that market value of the property as on the year 2006 is as claimed by them in the claim petition. The claimant has caused legal notice to the Secretary Land Committee, Bengaluru Metro Rail Nigam Limited as per Ex.P.18, wherein, he claimed compensation @ Rs. 1,15,000/- per Square Meter. One Sq. Meter is almost equal to 10.76 Square feet. If it is accepted, the claimant is claiming more than 10,000/- per Square feet as on the date of preliminary notification and there is no basis for even this claim of the claimant. According to Ex.P.18 notice in the year 2006, the Government fixed guidance value at Rs. 2,100/- per Square feet in MKK Road and in the 1 st 'N' Block the Government fixed the guidance value at Rs.1,750/- per Square feet. Absolutely there is no material whatsoever on record to show that the market value of the property was 28 L.A.C. No.71/2009 more than the Government market value. However the LAO has fixed almost double of the government guidance value.
.26. It is relevant to note that if at all this claimant has produced his own sale deed, the Court would have applied escalation method to derive the market value of the property involved in this case. The claimant nowhere stated that what is the amount he has paid to purchase his property or how he has acquired the property. If the claim of claimant in Ex.P.18 is accepted, then if the escalation method is applied for determining the market value then that may reach almost 20 times of the market value claimed by the claimant. In view of settled principle of law, as the Court has to apply 10% escalation of market price every year, there is no material on record to show that the property price has been increased in the manner in which claimant claimed in this case. The claimant atleast would have produced recent sale deed entered between two individual or two parties so that the Court would have applied escalation method to determine proper market value or to accept the claim of claimant.
.27. As per material on record almost 190 Square Meters building constructed in the property of claimant has 29 L.A.C. No.71/2009 taken possession by the LAO for Metro Rail Project. The LAO considered the value of the land to the total extent of 21 Square Meters that includes built up area. It is not the case of the claimant that he has totally demolished the structure and reconstructed the building.
.28. Undisputedly the LAO fixed the market value of acquired property is at Rs.38,191/- per Square Meter and if the said amount is converted into Square feet, it comes to Rs. 3,548/- per Square feet. If the escalation method of market value at 10% of every year is applied and calculated, then it will comes to Rs. 2,33,288/- per Square Meter and it will be Rs.21,673/- per Square feet in the year 2025. There is no material whatsoever on record to show that as on this date, the market value of nearby properties to the acquired property is more than Rs. 21,673/- per Square feet.
.29. In this case, claimant also claiming compensation to the building. The claimant produced Ex.P.7 which is valuation extract of the acquired property. Valuation part A is regarding the valuation of building and the said report also enclosed with calculation sheet. As per the said calculation sheet, 10.715 Square Meter in the ground floor, 14.227 30 L.A.C. No.71/2009 Square Meter each in the 1st and 2nd floor of the building was acquired by the LAO. Therefore, total area of building acquired by the LAO is 39.169 Square Meter. As per the provision of L.A. Act, the compensation to be paid either the market value of the acquired property or the replacement value of the building. In the case on hand, the LAO already calculated, fixed and awarded the compensation to the entire extent of acquired land that consists of vacant land and built up area. Further only portion of the building has been acquired by the LAO. In the calculation sheet the LAO valued the replacement value of the building is at Rs. 3,85,707/- and that has been paid along with statutory benefits. It is not the case of claimant that after the portion of property has been acquired or cutting of portion of building, the claimant has totally demolished the building and reconstructed the building. The claimant has produced the estimate for proposed residential building at site No. 49/2, 11 th cross and as per the said document the total cost is Rs. 14,50,000/-. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.8 is the sketch regarding acquisition of ground floor, 1 st and 2nd floor. As per the said sketch, only front portion of the building to be demolished 31 L.A.C. No.71/2009 and reconstructed. Therefore, only front portion of the building to the total area 39.169 Square Meter constructed portion has been demolished and the said portion had been reconstructed. Ex.P.12 estimation nowhere disclose the total area of construction. If the aforesaid acquired area is accepted, then the claimant has to put up a construction or cover the non-demolished area of building by leaving the aforesaid acquired area. As such, how the claimant incurred the estimated cost and what is the area in which he has reconstructed the building has to be explained by him. If at all the claimant has totally demolished the building and reconstructed the building then he has to obtain the necessary permission for reconstruction of the building or renovation of the building. Such licence or permissions are not produced. Hence, it has to be accepted that the claimant has put up the required wall with windows/doors or other necessary accessories after the demolition of building to the extent of acquired area. In view of the said facts, certainly the estimate given at Ex.P.12 cannot be accepted without examining the person who has issued the said estimation. 32
L.A.C. No.71/2009 Further there is no material on record to show that the claimant has purchased the material stated in said Ex.P.12.
.30. In this case the claimant also claims loss of rental income. But there is no provision to grant such compensation under the provisions of L.A. Act. Similarly there is no material on record to show that the LAO has acquired more extent than 21 square meter. Hence the claim of claimant that the LAO had acquired 23 square meter property.
.31. In the case on hand, the claimant also claims he is entitled for interest from the date of Preliminary Notification till depositing of the amount as per Section 23 (1)(A) of the L.A. Act. Section 23 (1)(A) of the L.A. Act reads as "(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve percent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector, or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier."
As per the said provision the claimant is entitled for award amount with 12% interest p.a. from the date of 33 L.A.C. No.71/2009 preliminary notification till the date of award by the Collector/LAO or till the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly preliminary notification issued on 17.01.2006 and award has been passed on 25.11.2008. As per the aforesaid provision, the claimant is entitled for interest at 12% from the date of preliminary notification till the date of award of collector or date of possession of land whichever is earlier. The Advocate for respondent No.2 in the written arguments claims that possession has taken as on 30.12.2007. As per Ex.P.15 award notice the possession of the acquired property was taken as per the notification dated 24.10.2007. Therefore, in view of the unchallenged or undisputed specific contention of respondent No. 2 it has to be accepted that possession of the property taken as 30.12.2007. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation from 17.01.2006 to 30.12.2007 at the rate of 12% on the market value as per Section 23(1)(A) of L.A. Act which is earlier to the passing of award. The said duration is about 708 days. The LAO calculated such interest for a period of 712 days. Hence, the LAO has already paid interest in accordance with Section 23(1)(A) of L.A. Act. 34
L.A.C. No.71/2009 .32. Therefore, the aforesaid detailed discussions sufficiently shows that the PSS Thomas Committee has considered all the relevant facts in deciding / fixing the market value of the acquired property. The LAO on the basis of the said report awarded proper compensation as per the then existing market value at the time of preliminary notification. Therefore, question of enhancing the compensation does not arise and award passed by the LAO / respondent No. 1 to be confirmed. Accordingly, this court is of the humble opinion that the claimant failed to make out grounds to show that the award passed by the LAO is inadequate. Accordingly the above point is answered in the negative.
.33. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on the afore- mentioned points 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/ respondent under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the award passed by the LAO is hereby confirmed.35
L.A.C. No.71/2009 No order as to cost.
Draw award accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 16 th day of August, 2025.) (Padma Prasad), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : Chowda Reddy
P.W.2 : T.C. Santosh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 Endorsement
Ex.P.2 Auction site letter dated
Ex.P.3 Auction site letter dated
Ex.P.4 Gazette notification
Ex.P.5 Letter from Metro
Ex.P.6 Calculation
Ex.P.7 Valuation extract
Ex.P.8 Property sketch
Ex.P.9 Location sketch
Ex.P.10 Lease agreement
Ex.P.11 Maintenance agreement
Ex.P.12 Estimate
Ex.P.13 Photos (11 in numbers)
36
L.A.C. No.71/2009
Ex.P.14 CD
Ex.P.15 Award (12)2 notice dated 19/20-12-2008
Ex.P.16 Memorandum relating to deposit of title deed
dated 01.12.2008 executed by T.C. Santhosh and another in-favour of SBM Ex.P.17 Statement of account of Chowda Reddy in SBI Bhoopasandra Branch Ex.P.18 Letter dated 22.11.2006 by Chwda Reddy to the Secretary Land Committee, BMRCL Ex.P.19 Copy of award dated 25.11.2008 Ex.P.20 Copy of endorsement issued by KIADB dated 3/10.06.2009.
Ex.P.21 Public auction Sale deed dated 24.10.2008 Ex.P.22 Public auction sale deed dated 27.06.2006
3.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : V.K. Prasanna Kumar
RW.2 : Mohamood M
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 Gazette dated 24.10.2002
Ex.R.1(a) Relevant part
(Padma Prasad),
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
37
L.A.C. No.71/2009