Bangalore District Court
A. Ramakrishnappa vs ) Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2019.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.224/2010
CLAIMANT:
A. Ramakrishnappa
S/o late. Annaiahappa, 57 years,
Agriculturist, residing at Horamavu
Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluka,
(By Sri. R.B.P., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board, Bengaluru.
2) Bengaluru Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB), Office of
Chief Engineer (K), 5th floor,
Cavery Bhavana, K.G. Road,
Bengaluru 560 009.
(By Sri. PVC, Advocate for R-1)
(By Sri. KBJ, Advocate for R-2)
------
2 L.A.C. No.224/2010
JUDGMENT
This reference made by the respondent No.1/Special Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as S.L.A.O. for short), KIADB, Bengaluru, under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A.Act for short).
.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent has acquired the land belongs to the claimant/petitioner bearing Sy.No.55/1 measuring 29 guntas and Sy.No.55/2 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas (including 5 guntas of Kharab) situated at Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka, Bengaluru. It was acquired for the purpose of establishing BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants. The preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004, final notification was on 31.07.2006 and award passed on 12.11.2007.
.3. In the claim statement and reference, it is stated that the respondent No.1 has acquired the said lands and passed the award for a sum of Rs.12,72,177/- to the land measuring 29 guntas and Rs.53,08,054/- to the land measuring 3 acres 6 guntas. The claimant has received the 3 L.A.C. No.224/2010 compensation amount under protest. It is stated that, the claimant and his family members were formers, engaged in agricultural work for their livelihood. They were entirely depending upon the acquired lands. After acquisition of the said lands, the claimant and his family members are jobless. It is stated that, the acquired lands were very fertile, alluvial soil and crop yielding capacity. 59 coconut trees aged about 22 years were in the acquired land and the claimant was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. He also grew vegetable and earned income. There was a Well in the acquired land and constructed a big shed for pump house. Water using from the said Well for gardening the acquired land.
.4. It is stated that, the area around the acquired land is totally developed, even prior to the notification. Several commercial complex, hospital, ring roads, wide roads, various civil amenities available to the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. It is stated that the award passed by the respondent No.1 is unscientific, baseless and on lower side. The Government had auctioned a plat of the land in public auction for a sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/-. The award passed by the respondent No.1 is not in consonance with the public 4 L.A.C. No.224/2010 auction by the Government. Therefore, the claimant prayed for enhancement of award amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- per acre including future yield of the coconut plants and other benefits.
.5. After receipt of the reference from the respondent No.1, this court registered the case and issued notice to both the parties. The claimant has appeared through his counsel. The respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel. During pendency of the case, the respondent No.2 impleaded by way of filing application. But the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed objections to the main.
.6. To prove his case by the claimant's side, the claimant himself examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.68. For respondent No.2' side, the Asst. Executive Engineer examined as RW.1. Documents got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The respondent No.1 has not adduced oral evidence and got marked the documents.
.7. Heard the arguments.
.8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the reference u/s.18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent No.1/SLAO, is valid and in time?5 L.A.C. No.224/2010
2. Whether the Claimant proves that the market value of the property determined by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O. is not reasonable and adequate?
3. Whether the claimant is entitle for higher compensation to the acquired property? If so, at what rate?
4. What Order or Award?
.9. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.10. Point No.1:- So far as limitation relating to filing and maintaining of Section 18 of L.A. Act, the law is very clear and well settled. The petitioner/claimant has to file 18(1) application within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice upon him. Respondent has to refer the matter to the Civil Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of 18(1) application from the petitioner. If the respondent fails to make the reference, then the petitioner has to file this kind of 6 L.A.C. No.224/2010 petition within 3 years after expiry of said 90 days. In this context, I relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in ILR 1994 KARNATAKA 2337 (SC), 2005 (8) SCC 709 (State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman and AIR 1988 Kar. 11 (Asst. Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi Bai).
.11. As per records, the respondent No.1 has acquired the property belongs to the claimant/petitioner bearing Sy.No.55/1 measuring 29 guntas and Sy.No.55/2 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas (including 5 guntas of Kharab land) situated at Horamavu Agara village for the purpose of BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants. Preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004, final notification was on 31.07.2006 and award passed on 12.11.2007. As per the records, 12(2) notice (Ex.P.42) issued on 30.05.2009 and claimant received the compensation amount under protest on 26.08.2009. Thereafter on 09.06.2009, the claimant has submitted 18(1) application (Ex.P.41) before the respondent No1. As per the records, the claimant also submitted 18 application on 04.02.2009. Ex.P.44 is the said reference petition. In the cross- examination of PW.1, the respondents' side has not at all denied the same. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, the 7 L.A.C. No.224/2010 claimant has filed 18(1) application on 14.09.2009 and it is within 90 days from the date of payment of award amount. The respondent No.1 referred the case before this court on 20.11.2010. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act and reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
.12. Point No.2 and 3: These two points are inter- connected. For avoiding repetition of discussion, I have taken up these two points together for consideration.
.13. The claimant has contended that, the market value fixed by the respondent No.1 to the acquired property is not correct and not according to the prevailing market value. The acquired land is fertile land. The claimant having income from coconut trees and vegetable crops grew in the acquired land. The acquired land is well developed, having all civic amenities. Several commercial complex, hospital were existed as on the date of preliminary notification. Ring roads, wide roads various civil amenities were available in the area of acquired land. But the respondent No.1 has not considered the same. 8 L.A.C. No.224/2010 It is stated that Government sold the plat in public auction for a sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/-. This aspect also not considered by the respondent No.1. It is stated that acquired land was valued Rs.1,60,00,000/- per acre as on the date of preliminary notification.
.14. I have perused the above said contention of the claimant. 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 18 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 case on hand, the claimant has not produced documentary evidence to decide the case on expert opinion. It is true that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired property was an agricultural land. In the claim statement and PW.1 in his examination in chief stated that acquired land was very fertile and rich, he grew varieties of vegetables in the said land and earning income. 59 coconut trees at the age of 22 years were in the acquired land, claimant having income of 9 L.A.C. No.224/2010 Rs.2,00,000/- . I have perused the above said contention of the claimant. I am of the opinion that to consider this case, on the basis of capitalization method, the claimant has not produced any oral and documentary evidence. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that to prove that he was growing crops and existence of coconut trees in the acquired land, he has not produced any documentary evidence. He further stated that he has not produced documents issued by Horticulture Department to prove the value of crops as on the date of preliminary notification. He further stated that he has not produced documents to show that there was coconut, vegetable crops, open well, shed and pump house in the acquired land. To prove his case that acquired lands were garden lands, 59 coconut trees were in the said lands and they grown varieties of vegetables, the claimant has not produced iota of documentary evidence. He has produced only RTC extract. From careful perusal of RTC Extract (Ex.P.2 to 13 for the year 1994-95 to 2006-07 and particularly Ex.P.5 is the RTC extract for the period of notification mentioned that acquired lands were dry lands, depending on rain and growing only ragi crop. In the RTC extracts, it is not mentioned about coconut garden and growing of varieties of 10 L.A.C. No.224/2010 vegetables and other crops. It is well settled law that entries found in the RTC extracts have got its presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. I have carefully perused Ex.P.48 of award passed by the respondent No.1 in-respect of acquired land and other lands. It is no where mentioned about existence of coconut trees and vegetable crops in the acquired land. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that to consider this case on the basis of capitalization method, the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence. Hence, I come to the conclusion that in the absence of documentary evidence case of the claimant cannot be considered on the basis of capitalization method. As per the records, the claimant wanted to prove his case on the basis of statistical method. Let me see about the same.
.15. I have perused the documentary evidence produced by the claimant. Ex.P.1 to 14 are 14 RTC extracts in-respect of Sy.No.55/1 measuring 29 guntas of Horamavu Agara village. Ex.P.15 to 29 are 14 RTC extracts in-respect of Sy.No.55/2 measuring 3 acres 6 (including 5 guntas of Kharab land) guntas of Horamavu Agara village. All these RTC 11 L.A.C. No.224/2010 extracts are in the name of claimant as on the date of preliminary notification. Ex.P.30 endorsement issued by the office of the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru north that there is no violation in purchase of land bearing Sy.No.55/1 and 55/2 under Sections 79(A)(B) and 80 of Karnataka Reforms Act 1961. Ex.P.31 to 35 are the Encumbrance certificates in- respect of acquired lands. Ex.P.36, 37 and 39 are the certificates issued by Societies and bank that there is no loan on the acquired land. Ex.P.38 is the endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East that there is no filing of application under Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Ex.P.40 is the genealogical tree belongs to the family of claimant. Ex.P.43 is the notice dated 20.05.2009 issued by the respondent No.1 to the claimant to produce the documents for enquiry. Ex.P.44 is the letter by the claimant to the respondent No.1 dated 04.02.2009 and prayed for payment of compensation and enhancement of compensation. Ex.P.45 is the sale deed dated 17.09.1997 belongs to the claimant for purchase of land in Sy.No.52/1 and 52/2. Ex.P.45(a) is the certified copy of Ex.P.45.
12 L.A.C. No.224/2010
.16. Ex.P.54 is the mutation extract MR No.T1/2012-
13. It is mentioned that Khatha of the properties of acquired lands has been changed in the name of Chairman, BWSSB. Ex.P.55 to 63 are the RTC extracts for the year 2010-11 to 2011-12 in-respect of property in question are in the name of KIADB. Ex.P.64 to 68 are the RTC extracts for the year 2012- 13 to 2016-17 are in the name of BWSSB. From perusal of these documents, it is clear that the claimant was owner and in possession of the acquired property as on the date of acquisition. After acquisition and taking the possession of the lands, the name of KIADB and thereafter BWSSB entered in the revenue records.
.17. For enhancement of compensation to the acquired land, the claimant has produced several documents. Ex.P.46 is the letter dated 11.05.2007 issued under RTI Act by the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. It was permitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru for accepting public auction of lands subject to result of Public Interest Litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is mentioned in Ex.P.46 that, 13 L.A.C. No.224/2010 certain lands were sold in public auction by the Government. Sl.No.3 of the said document mentioned about the land bearing Sy.No.549 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas belongs to the Bidarahalli/Kalkere village. It was sold in public auction sale for Rs.1,82,00,000/-. I have perused the Ex.P.47 of the village map of Kalkere village. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that, acquired land is adjacent to the lands of Kalkere village and it is proved with Ex.P.47 of the village map. Therefore, he prayed for to be fixed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of Ex.P.46.
.18. I have carefully perused Ex.P.46 and found that the land is measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.549 of Bidarahalli/Kalkere village. In the public auction sale the said total extent of land sold for a sum of Rs.1,82,00,000/-. It means the said land sold @ Rs.3,500/- per guntas or Rs.1,40,00,000/- per acre. It is the General rule that the sale prices of comparable sales should be relied upon for calculating the market value will be applied when the sale transaction relied upon or auction sales. I am of the opinion that in public auction, generally the value of the properties 14 L.A.C. No.224/2010 bidding on competition to the higher than actual market value. From careful perusal of Ex.P.47 of the village map, Sy.No.549 of Kalkere village as mentioned in Ex.P.46 is not adjacent to the acquired lands. It is true that both Kalkere and Horamavu Agara village boundaries are adjacent to each other. But the lands mentioned in Ex.P.46 i.e., Sy.No.549 is not adjacent to the acquired land of this case. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly stated that there is ¾ km distance from Horamavu Agara to Kalkere village. As per Ex.P.47 of village map the boundary of Horamavu Agara village is existed after 2 survey numbers from Sy.No.549. As per Ex.P.53 of Horamavu village map is also clear that the lands in Ex.P.46 are far distance from lands in question. More over, in the present case preliminary notification issued in the year 2004 but Ex.P.46 is for the year 2007. Hence, I am of the opinion that on the basis of Ex.P.46 market value of the acquired land cannot be considered.
.19. The claimant/petitioner has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.03.2008 and got marked as Ex.P.49. This sale deed pertaining to site No.74, measuring 40 X 30 feet, being the portion of H.L. No.207/1, Horamavu 15 L.A.C. No.224/2010 Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka. Sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.23,00,000/-. Conversion the same into sq. feet, it comes to Rs.1,916.66 sq. feet or Rs.76,66,666/- per acre. Acquired land in question was agricultural land. But this property is the site property. Ex.P.49 is not relates to the date of preliminary notification of this case. This document is for the year 2008. In the present case preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ex.P.49 cannot be accepted for determination of market value as contended by the claimant.
.20. Ex.P.50 is certified copy of sale deed dated 03.08.2007 in-respect of 8 sites measuring 60 X 40 feet each situated at Meghalapalya Hamlet, Chelkere village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka. Total consideration to the 8 residential sites for Rs.86,94,000/-. It comes to Rs.450/- per sq. feet and Rs.1,96,02000/- per acre.
.21. The claimant contended that the acquired land is adjacent to the lands mentioned Ex.P.50. To prove the same, they have produced certified copy of village map of Chelkere village and got marked as Ex.P.51. I have carefully perused 16 L.A.C. No.224/2010 the said village map along with village map of Horamavu Agara village. I am of the opinion that, location of the acquired land and Chelkere village are not adjacent to each other. The acquired land is far distance from Chelkere village. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.50 also not pertaining to the period of preliminary notification of this case for the year 2004. This document is for the year 2007. Hence, I come to the conclusion that on the basis of Ex.P.50 also cannot determine the market value of the acquired land.
.22. Ex.P.52 is the sale deed dated 16.01.2008 in- respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.118 situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka. Consideration of the said sale deed mentioned as Rs.1,98,00,000/- , it comes to Rs.1,16,47,058/- per acre. Ex.P.53 is certified copy of the village map of Horamavu village. Ex.P.51 is certified copy of village map of Chalkere village and Ex.P.47 and 53 are the village maps of Kalkere and Horamavu village. From perusal of location of the acquired property and property mentioned in Ex.P.52 of the sale deed, I am of the opinion that Horamavu and Horamavu Agara village are different villages and located in 17 L.A.C. No.224/2010 different places. The boundaries of both villages are adjacent to the same. Further I am of the opinion that the property mentioned in Ex.P.52 is not adjacent to the acquired property in question.
.23. It is admitted fact that preliminary notification issued in this case on 03.08.2004. Ex.P.49, Ex.P.50 and Ex.P.52 sale deeds are dated 13.03.2008, 03.08.2007 and 16.01.2008 respectively. These sale deeds are not pertaining to the date of preliminary notification of this case. The said sale transactions took place after lapse of about 3 years from the date of preliminary notification of the present case. Section 23 (1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, matter to be considered in determination of compensation and market value of the land shall be taken into consideration at the time of publication of preliminary notification. As stated above the preliminary notification published in this case on 03.08.2004. Exs.P.49, 50 and 52 sale deeds are for the year 2007 and 2008. More over, as discussed above the properties of Exs.P.49, 50 and 52 are not situated adjacent to the acquired land in question. They are far away from the acquired land. Therefore, I am of 18 L.A.C. No.224/2010 the opinion that Ex.P.49, 50 and 52 cannot be considered in determining the compensation.
.24. I have perused the cross-examination of RW.1. He has admitted the suggestion put by the claimant's side that acquired lands were fertile lands, there was a open well and small shed (pump house) in the acquired land. He has denied that there were 59 coconut trees of 22 years old in the acquired land. He further stated that there were 10 to 20 coconut trees in the acquired land. He has denied that the claimant deriving more than 2 lakhs income from the coconut tree, whatever compensation awarded by the respondent No.1 is meager, as on the date of preliminary notification, the surrounding lands were fully developed, converted and forming layout and sites. It is noticed that PW.1 in his cross- examination stated that he has not produced documents to show that there were coconut trees, vegetable crops, open well, pump house were in the acquired land. He further stated that he has not produced documentary to show that as on the date of preliminary notification, market value of the acquired lands and surrounding lands were valued Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. I am of the opinion that in the 19 L.A.C. No.224/2010 absence of documentary evidence from the claimant's side, on the basis of alleged admission by the RW.1, it cannot be considered the case of the claimant. It is well settled law that the claimant has to prove his case for enhancement of compensation with cogent oral and documentary evidence.
.25. Preliminary notification issued in this case on 03.08.2004, I am of the opinion that to prove the market value of the property as on the date of preliminary notification, the claimant has not produced the sale deeds pertaining to the year of 2004 or prior to the same. There is no explanation from the claimant that why he has not produced sale deeds as on the date of preliminary notification or prior to the preliminary notification. PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he has not produced any sale deeds pertaining to the village of Horamanu Agara Village as on the date of preliminary notification. I am opinion that, to substantiate the potentiality of the land under acquisition, the claimant has not produced relevant documents.
.26. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.1 acquired the land bearing Sy.No. 40/1 20 L.A.C. No.224/2010 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and Sy.No.41/1 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Horamavu Agara village. The above said 2 lands and land in question are acquired on same notification and for the same purpose. The respondent No.1 has passed an award and fixed market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre. The owners of the above said lands have filed objections and matter referred to this court in L.A.C. No.46/2011. After hearing on both sides, this court enhanced the market value of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.10,17,000/-. He further submitted that, the land in question and the land involved in L.A.C. No.46/2011 are one and the same. Both are having same potentiality, acquired under same notification and same purpose. Hence, the respondent No.1 has no objection for fixing market value of the acquired land at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre as per judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011. RW.1 in his examination-in-chief deposed about judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011 and to be considered this case on the basis of said judgment and award. To prove the said fact, the respondent has produced certified copies of the judgment and award dated 04.07.2012 passed by this court in L.A.C. No.46/2011 and got marked as per Ex.R.1 and R.2. 21 L.A.C. No.224/2010 From careful perusal of the judgment and award with case on hand, it is admitted fact that both lands were acquired for the same purpose i.e., for purpose of BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants under same notification dated 03.08.2004. In both cases, the award amount passed at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre. After passing award by the respondent No.1, the land owners have filed objections before the respondent No.1 and matter referred to this court and numbered as L.A.C. No.46/2011. On 04.07.2012 this court passed judgment and award and enhanced the market value of the lands at Rs.25,00,000/- in- stead of Rs.10,17,000/- with all statutory benefits.
.27. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2, it is admitted fact that the land in question and lands in L.A.C. No.46/2011 are situated in the same village, both were acquired for the same purpose under same notification dated 03.08.2004. But in the said case, the claimant has not made an attempt and produced the documents for enhancement of compensation. They have not placed any documentary evidence for determination of compensation. In-spite of the same, this court passed the judgment and award and fixed the market 22 L.A.C. No.224/2010 value at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. In the case on hand, the claimant has placed sufficient materials (sale deeds) before this court for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, whatever the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011 cannot be considered and this court is to be considered on the basis of documentary evidence placed by the claimant. I have carefully perused the above said contention with judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011. It is true that in the said case the claimants have not placed the documents for enhancement of compensation on expert's opinion, statistical method and capitalization method. They have not produced any of the documents for enhancement of compensation. But on the basis of Ex.P.19 produced in the said case, this court determined the market value and fixed the compensation at Rs.25,00,000/-. Ex.P.19 is the resolution effected by the Price Advisory Committee headed by the jurisdictional District Commissioner. The said Committee held on 19.12.2006 and fixed the market value of the lands at Rs.25,00,000/- and which has been accepted by the respondent No.1. In the said case, this court held that the claimants have failed to prove their case for enhancement of compensation by producing 23 L.A.C. No.224/2010 documents. But taking into available documents on record as per Ex.P.19, this court passed the judgment and award and fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by their decision reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka 2336 (State of Karnataka by Special Land Acquisition Officer and others Vs.Mallappa and others), held that "the similar nature of the lands are adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose -held on facts-uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands which are similarly situated to the adjoining villages cannot be faulted, liable to be confirmed". The Hon'ble court clearly held that in the absence of documentary evidence, this court can consider the case on the basis of previous judgment and award. In this case, I taken up Ex.R.1 and R.2 as a piece of the evidence for determining the market value.
.28. I have carefully perused the award dated 12.11.2007 (Ex.P48) passed by the respondent No.1. In page No.4 of the said award, it is mentioned that Advisory Committee was held meeting on 19.12.2006 for fixation of market value of the lands acquired by the KIADB and decided 24 L.A.C. No.224/2010 to fix the market value with the consent of Government and land owners. It was decided and fixed market value at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre for agricultural lands and Rs.46,00,000/- per acre for converted lands. The said market value was accepted by the Board and steps taken for payment of compensation. In page 7 of the award, it is mentioned that after considering statistical method, the Government has fixed guidance value of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. In para 8, it is further mentioned that on 19.12.2006 the Price Advisory Committee was held in the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban and discussed and finally decided that the market value of the lands at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural lands and Rs.46,00,000/- per acre to the converted lands. It is further mentioned that notice issued to the land owners under Sections 9 and 10 of L.A. Act, but they have not filed any objections. It is mentioned that on 05.12.2003, the Advisory Committee has decided to pay the compensation at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural land, said rate was fixed as per agreement under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act 1966. It is noticed that in spite of rate fixed by the Price Advisory Committee, the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., has considered average price value of 3 years 25 L.A.C. No.224/2010 sale deeds prior to the preliminary notification and fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. As discussed above, the respondent No.1 himself accepted the market rate recommended by Price Advisory Committee at the rate of Rs.45,00,000/- per acre. It is noticed that in L.A.C. No.223/2010 (connected to this case) the claimants have produced Ex.P.7 is the notice dated 23.03.2007 issued by the respondent No.1 to the claimants and informed that they have acquired the lands for development of industries and board has been decided market value of the agricultural lands for Rs.45,00,000/- per acre as consent price. If they agreed to the same, they will produce documents within 15 days from the date of said notice. It is further informed that the claimant has not agreed the market value, they will pass an order under Section 11 of L.A. Act. From considering the Ex.P.7 it is clear that the respondent No.1 has accepted the recommendation of committee for fixing market value at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural lands as a consent award. But while passing an award he has not considered the same and fixed market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre, which is very lower than the rate fixed by the Price Advisory Committee. Therefore, I am of the 26 L.A.C. No.224/2010 opinion that, the award passed by the respondent No.1 and fixed the market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre to the acquired land is not correct as per L.A. Act 1894.
.29. It is noticed that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired land was an agricultural and dry land. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted the same. I am of the opinion that the claimant has not produced documents that as on the date of preliminary notification, acquired land was not within the jurisdiction of BMP or BBMP. It is noticed that distance between Mejestic (Bengaluru Center) and Horamavu Agara is more than 13 kms. RW-1 in his cross examination has admitted the suggestion put by the claimant side that after Banasvadi village, Horamavu village is situated, Banasvadi comes inside the ring road and Horamvamu village is adjacent to the ring road. He volunteers that acquired land is distance of more than 2 to 2 ½ kms from ring road. I am of the opinion that the claimant has lost his lands and livelihood. Hence, sufficient compensation to be awarded to them is required. Therefore, from looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the acquired property and guidance value fixed by the Price Advisory 27 L.A.C. No.224/2010 Committee, to be fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,00,000/- per acre is just and necessary. It would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. (respondent No.1) is in- adequate and meager and it is to be enhanced. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the claimant is entitle for enhanced compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.10,17,000/- per acre to the acquired lands with all statutory benefits. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 and 3 in partly affirmative.
.30. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Reference made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, is partly allowed.
The claimant is entitle for market value of his acquired property at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.10,17,000/- per acre, as awarded by the respondent No1.
Further, the claimant is entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1)A of Land Acquisition Act @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced market 28 L.A.C. No.224/2010 value from the date of preliminary notification till the date of taking possession or the date of award whichever is earlier.
Further, the claimant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. on the enhanced market value under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
Further, the claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of acquired land and further interest @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
The amount already paid by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., if any, shall be deducted in the enhancement of the market value now awarded.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2019) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : A. Ramakrishnappa 29 L.A.C. No.224/2010
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Exs.P.1-14 : Certified copies of RTCs bearing Sy.No.55/1 Exs.P.15-29 : Certified copies of RTCs bearing Sy.No.55/2 Ex.P.30 : Endorsement dated 16.04.2007 issued by Sub-registrar, Bengaluru North Ex.P.31 : E.C. for the year from 01.04.1980 to 31.05.1989 Ex.P.32 : E.C. for the year from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 Ex.P.33 : E.C. for the year from 01.04.2004 to 30.05.2009 Exs.P.34-35 : ECs in-respect of Sy.No.55/1 Ex.P.36 : Clearance certificate issued by Agricultural Seva Co-operative Bank, Horamavu Ex.P.37 : Clearance certificate issued by bank Ex.P.38 : Endorsement dated 28.04.2009 issued by Spl. Tahsildar Ex.P.39 :Certificate issued by Cauvery Kalpataru Grameena Bank Ex.P.40 : Family genealogical tree Ex.P.41 : Copy of 18 application dated 09.06.2009 Ex.P.42 :Award notice dated 30.05.2009 Ex.P.43 : Notice dated 04/20.05.2009 issued by S.L.A.O. Ex.P.44 : Notice dated 04.02.2009 Ex.P.45 : Copy of sale deed lamination dated 17.09.1987 Ex.P.45(a) : Certified copy of Ex.P.45 Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of letter dated 11.05.2007 issued by Government to the Prl.
Secretary, Revenue Department
30 L.A.C. No.224/2010
Ex.P.47 : Village map of Kalkere village
Ex.P.48 : Copy of judgment dated 12.11.2007
Ex.P.49 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
13.03.2008
Ex.P.50 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
03.08.2007
Ex.P.51 : Certified copy of Chelkere village map
Ex.P.52 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
16.01.2008
Ex.P.53 : Certified copy of Horamavu village map
Ex.P.54 :Mutation register copy
Exs.P.55-61: RTCs (7 in numbers)
Exs.P.62-68: RTCs (7 in numbers)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1: B.M. Nagendra Babu
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 and 2 : Certified copies of judgment and award in L.A.C. No.46/2011 (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
RACHENAHALLI Y DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF SHASHIDHARA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.09.24 11:15:45 IST 31 L.A.C. No.224/2010