Bangalore District Court
Claimant vs Unknown on 29 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. Bidari, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.33/2017 :
PETITIONER/
CLAIMANT :
S.V. Global Mill Limited, a Company
incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956, and having
its registered office at, No.106,
Armenian street, Chennai, represented
by its Authorized Signatory & Manager,
Mr. K. Johnson.
(By Sri. JSM Law Partners, Advocates)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT :
The Deputy Commissioner and Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Vishweswaraiah
Towers, 3rd Floor, Podium Block,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned DGP)
-0-
Cont'd..
-2- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
: JUDGMENT :
This is a reference u/s. 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (here-in-after referred as Act 2013). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as S.L.A.O.), Bengaluru in the reference letter addressed to the court stated as this is a reference u/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act), despite that this reference is considered and taken for disposal as a reference u/s. 64(1) of L.A. Act. As per the notification No.KE-05 REH 2014 (P-3) dated 13.07.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka, P.O. of this II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru City is appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Authority contemplated u/s. 64 of Act 2013.
.2. The S.L.A.O. has acquired the land measuring 3 acres 16 guntas bearing property No.59/1, ward Cont'd..
-3- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 : No.29, within the limits of Bruhath Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (here-in-after referred as BBMP), out of the larger extent of 23.44 acres, belongs to the petitioner, situated on Binny Mill road, Bengaluru North Taluka (here-in-after referred as acquired property) for public purpose i.e., Bengaluru City yard extension.
.3. During acquisition proceedings, invoking the emergent Clauses contemplated u/ss. 17(2) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act). The preliminary notification u/s. 4(1) of the L.A. Act, in No.LAQ/CR/51/2012-13 dated 07.02.2013 has been published in the Karnataka State Gazette dated 14.02.2013. The final notification u/s. 6(1) of L.A. Act in No.RD/68/AQB/2012 dated 30.11.2013 is being published in the Karnataka State Gazette dated 12.12.2013. The public notice of preliminary notification u/s. 4 of L.A. Act has been issued on 25.06.2013. The L.A.O., resorting to the provisions of L.A. Act and Act 2013, through award dated 08.10.2014 and pronounced Cont'd..
-4- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
on 20.10.2014, in case No.LAQ/CR/3/2013-14, has acquired the aforesaid property to the extent of 3 acres 16 guntas of the petitioner. The S.L.A.O. fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4620/- per sq. feet and on that basis through the aforesaid award quantified the compensation amount of the acquired land at Rs.1,42,56,24,414/-. The S.L.A.O. issued an award notice dated 13.03.2015, which has been served on the petitioner on 21.03.2015 (as per the reference, the award notice is served on 13.03.2015). The award copy with covering letter of S.L.A.O. dated 16.05.2015 has been served on the petitioner on 20.05.2015. The petitioner has received the compensation amount quantified by the S.L.A.O., awarded in his award, under protest, on different dates, mentioned in an application filed u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013. The petitioner being not satisfied with the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. in- respect of the acquired land and also dissatisfied with the manner, method and mode of computing the compensation amount of the acquired land, which is Cont'd..
-5- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
contrary to the provisions, contemplated Act 2013 did file the protest petition (application) dated 29.04.2015, (received in the office of S.L.A.O., on 30.04.2015), requested the S.L.A.O., to make a reference to the authority, contemplated u/s. 64 of Act 2013 for determination of market value of the acquired land. The S.L.A.O., on receipt of the application (protest petition), have made this reference u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013. This court, on receipt of the reference u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013, from the S.L.A.O., registered the same in case L.A.C. No.33/2017 on the file of this court and issued notice to both petitioner and the respondent.
.4. The petitioner and the respondent, pursuant to the service of notice, have appeared through their respective counsel.
.5. The petitioner has filed the claim statement. The petitioner in the claim statement, as well, in the application (protest petition) u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013, is Cont'd..
-6- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
contending that the acquisition of the acquired land has not been made in compliance with the provisions of Act 2013. The S.L.A.O. has passed an award in utter disregard to the provisions of Act 2013, which aims to achieve a humane process of land acquisition and to provide just and fair compensation to the persons whose lands have been acquired. The award notice was served on the petitioner without a copy of award. The award copy has been supplied to the petitioner after multiple requests, much subsequent to the date of taking over the possession of acquired land. The respondent has not taken into consideration the prime locality of the acquired land, despite the fact that the revised master plan has classified the property as sub- center for business area or commercial Zone and that it is located at strategic point having immense scope for commercial development, marketability and value. This apart, the acquired land has two access roads and it is a prime property in the city of Bengaluru. The documents furnished by the petitioner for determination Cont'd..
-7- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
of market value of the acquired land has not been taken into account, while passing an award. The market value of the acquired property fixed at Rs.4620/- per sq. feet, is highly erroneous, incorrect and contrary to records. The market value of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, the revised guidelines value issued by the jurisdictional Sub- registrar during 2013 was in between Rs.8000/- and Rs.9000/- per sq. feet. Thus, the market value fixed in the award in-respect of the acquired property is arbitrary and vague. It is obligatory on the part of S.L.A.O./ District Collector to make an enquiry, adopting different methods envisaged under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 26(1) of the Act, 2013, to fix the market value at the rate, whichever is found higher in the enquiy. The market value of the acquired property as contemplated u/s. 26 of Act 2013, ought to have been assessed on the basis of the highest amongst (1) market value specified in the Indian Stamps Act 1899 and /or Karnataka Stamp Act as the case may be, for Cont'd..
-8- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
registration of sale deeds in the area where land is situated; (2) average sale price of similar property in the vicinity and (3) consented amount of compensation awarded for land acquired for public private partnership projects. The market value fixed to the acquired land in this case is lower than all the three methods of prescribed under the Act 2013. That in view of incorrect computation of the compensation, the solatium amount payable to the petitioner u/s. 30 of Act 2013 being 100% of the compensation shall have to be re-computed. The S.L.A.O. has not properly assessed the payment of interest on the compensation as contemplated u/s. 80 of Act, 2013. The respondent/S.L.A.O. failed to comply with mandates following an acquisition under an emergent provision as detailed under section 40 of Act 2013. The determination of market value of the acquired property, the grant of compensation, solatium and interest, is not justifiable and sustainable in law. The reference application u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013 and setting the Cont'd..
-9- : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
instant proceeding filed on such application is well within the limitation. These main grounds among others, urged in the claim statement, as well, in the application u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013, prayer of the petitioner is to fix Rs.8,624/- per sq. feet as the market value of the acquired land, accordingly, the compensation be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Act 2013. The quantum of compensation, solatium be recomputed and reassessed in accordance with the market value of the acquired property, as per provisions of Act 2013 and thereby, direct the respondent to disburse the actual compensation and solatium less the amount paid by the respondent, in- favour of petitioner and also to direct the respondent/S.L.A.O. to pay the interest on the compensation at the rate of 12% on principal amount from the date of taking over possession of the acquired property, less the interest already paid by the respondent. The prayer also to direct the respondent to pay 75% of the compensation u/s. 40(5) of the Act, Cont'd..
- 10 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
2013 and also to pass such further relief as deem fit by the court and also direct to pay the cost of the proceedings.
.6. The petitioner to substantiate its claim, has examined its Manager K. Johnson as PW1. The documents at Ex.P1 to P34 are marked for the petitioner. The respondent has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
.7. I have heard Smt. M.P., learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument of respondent taken as heard. The written arguments are filed on behalf of petitioner. Perused the records and the written arguments.
.8. The points that would arise for consideration of this court are:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O./Respondent in respect of acquired property is unjust and inadequate?
Cont'd..
- 11 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
2) Whether the petitioner proves that
the compensation awarded by the
S.L.A.O./respondent in respect of
acquired property is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act 2013?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation of it's acquired property? If so, at what rate?
4) What order or award?
.9. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3 : Yes, to the extent as shown in final order, Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .10. POINTS 1 to 3: These points are inter-related, hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to avoid repetition of facts. The acquisition proceedings in this reference were initiated under the provisions of Land Cont'd..
- 12 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Acquisition Act 1894, but Act 2013 came into force from 01.01.2014, wherein as per sec.114 of Act 2013 the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been repealed. Therefore, though the acquisition proceedings were initiated under LA Act 1894, the S.L.A.O./respondent has rightly passed the award under the provisions of Act 2013, since as per provisions contemplated under section 24(1)(a) of Act 2013, as the provisions of Act 2013, are made applicable to the acquisition proceedings with regard to acquisition of the acquired property. The relevant portion of sec.24(1)(a) of Act 2013 reads as under:
"(a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply".
.11. The petitioner in claim statement and in application filed under section 64(1)of Act 2013, in many words urged and contended that S.L.A.O., has awarded compensation to the acquired land contrary to the provisions of Act 2013 and compensation awarded to the acquired land is dis-proportionate, much less, discussed above in the body Cont'd..
- 13 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
of the judgment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this court to consider as to whether the S.L.A.O./respondent has awarded compensation in respect of acquired land of the petitioner as provided under the provisions of Act 2013 and particularly as set out under sections 26 to 30 and under chapter V of Act 2013. Therefore, this authority shall have to consider the factors contemplated under section 69 of Act 2013. The section 69 of Act 2013 reads as under:
"Sec.69. Determination of award by Authority:- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired including the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements, the Authority shall take into consideration whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 and the provisions under Chapter V of this Act.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on the from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11 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.
Explanation:- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on Cont'd..
- 14 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of one hundred per cent over the total compensation amount".
.12. The PW1 K. Johnson S/o. Mr. K.T. Abraham, Manager of petitioner - SV Global Mill Limited and power of attorney holder of petitioner has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating most of the claim statement averments of the petitioner. The documents at Ex.P1 to P34 are marked during the evidence of PW1. The PW1 in many words has stated in his evidence that market value fixed by the S.L.A.O., to the acquired property at the rate of Rs.4620/- per sq. ft. is on lower side and further stated that the acquired property is in the heart of the Bengaluru city and revised master plan 2015 has classified the acquired property and also remaining portion of larger extent of the property as sub centre for business area or commercial zone, as such, market value of the acquired property as on the date of preliminary notification was Cont'd..
- 15 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
not less than Rs.9,000/- per Sq. Ft. The petitioner in the correspondence made with the respondent while receiving compensation award by the respondent on different dates received said compensation amount under protest and also contended that the marked value of the acquired land as on preliminary notification was not less than Rs.12,000/-per sq. ft., hence contends that the market value fixed by the respondent to the acquired property is inadequate and also compensation award is not in accordance with provisions of Act 2013, as such, the compensation in- respect of acquired property required to be recomputed. Therefore in the instant reference the petitioner having taken such contention with regard to compensation awarded to the acquired land by the respondent, who is standing in the position of plaintiff and the reference under section 64(1) of the Act 2013 being analogous to the plaint in the suit shall have to prove the said contention, adducing cogent evidence, as burden of proving the same is casted on the plaintiff.
Cont'd..
- 16 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
.13. The materials and the reference and the statements furnished by the S.L.A.O./respondent, in this reference are analogous to the written statement in the suit and the respondent is in the position of defendant in this proceeding. The Ex.P1 is a certified copy of the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble of High Court of Judicator at Madras in Company petitions No.66, 67 and 68 of 2010 with regard to scheme of merger in the matter of companies Act 1956 and in the matter of scheme of arrangement amongst M/s. Binny Limited (Demergerd Company) and M/s. S.V. Global Mill Limited (resulting company-I) and M/s. Binny Mill Limited (resulting company - II) their respective share-holders and the creditors, wherein in the said order the petitioner company has became the owner of the land to the extent of 23.44 acres in new property No.59, 59/1, 59/2, Mill Road, Bengaluru situated within boundaries mentioned thereunder in the said order of scheme of arrangement. The Ex.P25 is Cont'd..
- 17 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
the certified copy of the Karnataka State Gazette Notification wherein the preliminary notification in No.LAQ CR 51/12-13 dated 07.02.2013 issued under section 4(1) of LA Act, invoking the provisions of section 17(2) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, is published in the said gazette dated 14.02.2013 with regard to acquisition of acquired property measuring 3 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.59/1 CTS No.(3542) of Bengaluru city of the petitioner for Bengaluru city yard extension. The Ex.P3 is a public notice of preliminary notification under section 4 of L.A. Act, in No.LA CR 51/2012-13 dated 07.07.2013 issued and published with regard to the aforesaid acquired land, in Kannada Daily News paper, Vijaya Karnataka dated 25.06.2013. The Ex.P4 is public notice issued under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act of preliminary notification dated 25.06.2013, with regard to acquisition of the afore said acquired land of the petitioner. The Ex.P26 is the certified copy of the Karnataka State gazette notification dated 12.12.2013 whereunder final notice under section 6(1) of LA Act in Cont'd..
- 18 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
No.RD 68 AQB 12 dated 30.11.2013 is being issued with regard to acquisition of the acquired land. The PW1 who is a Manager of the petitioner company in chief examination in many words has stated that the petitioner company is the owner of the land measuring 23.44 acres in Sy.No.59, 59/1, 59/2 Mill Road, Bengaluru by virtue of the order passed under Ex.P1 scheme of arrangement and the acquired property is a portion of the said larger property measuring 23.44 acres. The oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence marked at Ex.P1 proves that the petitioner company was the owner of property measuring 23.44 acres in property comprising in Nos.59, 59/1, 59/2, Mill Road, Bengaluru and the acquired property is a part of the said property and there is no dispute that the suit property is the acquired property of the petitioner and the petitioner company was the absolute owner in actual possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of preliminary notification and public notice of preliminary notification. The Ex.P23 is the Cont'd..
- 19 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 : letter dated 16.05.2015 whereunder the S.L.A.O.,
transmitted the copy of the award alongwith the said letter to the petitioner company in reply to the letter dated 08.05.2015 of the petitioner company. The Ex.P24 is a certified copy of the award dated 08.10.2014 pronounced on 24.10.2014, by the S.L.A.O., where under the property in No.59/1 and part of property No.59 CTS No.354 of Bengaluru to the extent of 3 acres 16 guntas of petitioner in the aforesaid larger extent of 33.44 acres mentioned in Ex.P1, has been acquired for Bengaluru City yard extention. The Ex.P5 is a letter dated 13.01.2014 addressed to the S.L.A.O., by the petitioner company, informing that the acquired land belongs to it, is classified as sub centre for business area/commercial zone as per the revised Master plan 2015 issued by BDA and as per the survey for guideline value issued by the Department of Registration of Stamps through letter dated 21.08.2013 also confirms the same and market value of the acquired land mentioned therein is at Rs.8,624/-. The Cont'd..
- 20 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
petitioner company in the said letter also informed about not granting of 100% solatium and also stating that the compensation awarded to the acquired land by the S.L.A.O. is inadequate and not in accordance with the provisions of Act 2013 and contended that the marked value of the acquired land is Rs.12,000/- per sq. ft.,. The Ex.P7 is the notice dated 22.04.2014, wherein the S.L.A.O. informed the petitioner company about compensation award to the acquired property and to produce the documents mentioned thereunder, to receive Rs.70,13,24,574/- towards part payment of the compensation. The Ex.P8 is a letter dated 23.04.2004 as a reply to the letter marked at Ex.P7 by the petitioner company to the S.L.A.O., stating that the compensation amount awarded by the S.L.A.O. to the acquired land is not in accordance with the provisions of Act. 2013 and the petitioner company received the amount mentioned in Ex.P7 i.e. Rs.70,13,24,574/- as part of compensation and received the said compensation under protest and also reiterating that Cont'd..
- 21 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
the market value of acquired land was Rs.12,000/- per sq. ft.,. The Ex.P9 is an endorsement dated 17.08.2015 wherein the S.L.A.O., informed the petitioner that the matter is referred to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department on 17.08.2015 under section 18 of LA Act. The Ex.P10 is the letter dated 08.04.2015 wherein the petitioner informed the S.L.A.O. that the petitioner has been informed to receive Rs.17,23,99,482/- as against Rs.72,42,99,844/- informed to it, to receive towards part payment of compensation, in its earlier letter mentioned therein and requesting the S.L.A.O., to pay balance of Rs.19,00,858/- as same has been reduced without any reasons and also praying to pay the interest. The Ex.P11 is a letter dated 28.07.2015 addressed to the S.L.A.O., by the petitioner company informing that the award dated 24.10.2014 passed by the S.L.A.O., in case No.LAQ SR 03 of 2013-14 is being received in its company on 20.05.2015 and also stating that the compensation amount award to the acquired property is on lower side and not in accordance of Cont'd..
- 22 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
provisions of Act 2013. The Ex.P12 is a letter dated 05.10.2015 addressed to the S.L.A.O., by the petitioner requesting to pay the balance compensation amount of Rs.19,00,358/-. Ex.P13 is a letter dated 13.11.2015 addressed to the S.L.A.O. by the petitioner company praying to pay the balance compensation amount of Rs.19,00,358 and interest. Ex.P14 is a letter dated 25.01.2016 addressed to the S.L.A.O., by the petitioner company, informing receipt of Rs.11,03,38,934/- from the respondent and also requesting to pay the interest, as stated therein. The Ex.P.15 is a letter dated 12.02.2016 addressed to the petitioner from the S.L.A.O. sating that the amount of interest was Rs.12,25,98,815/- and out of it deducted TDS (income Tax) of Rs.1,22,59,881/- and a sum of Rs.11,03,38,934/- has been paid to the petitioner. The Ex.P16 is a letter dated 20.06.2016 addressed to the S.L.A.O., by the petitioner company requesting to provide Form-16A towards the deduction of TDS of Rs.1,22,59,881/-. The Ex.P17 is a form No.16A with Cont'd..
- 23 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
regard to remittance of Rs.1,22,59,881 to the Income Tax Department deducted as TDS out of interest payable to the petitioner. These documentary evidence and the correspondence took place between the petitioner and the respondent evidences that the amount of compensation awarded by the respondent/S.L.A.O., to the acquired land has been paid to the petitioner, on different dates as discussed above and the some part of interest thereon also been paid. As rightly submitted by Smt.M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner the above discussed documentary evidence and the oral evidence of the PW1, evidences that out of compensation amount awarded by the respondent, to the acquired land of the petitioner, the following amount has been received by the petitioner from the respondent. The details of the same are as under:
Sl. Description Date Amount
No.
1. 1st payment 30.04.2014 70,13,24,574/-
Cont'd..
- 24 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
2. 2nd payment 24.03.2015 72,23,99,482/-
3. 3rd payment 16.11.2015 19,00,358/-
4. Interest after 23.12.2015 11,03,38,934
deducting TDS
(Towards income tax)
Total 153,59,63,348/-
.14. The oral evidence of the PW1 and his version remained unchallenged, since respondent has not cross- examined the PW1. The oral evidence of the PW1 and the above discussed documentary evidence proves that the petitioner has received the afore mentioned amount on different dates under protest towards compensation amount of the acquired property awarded by the respondent and also part of interest. The Ex.P24 copy of the award dated 24.10.2014 passed by the respondent, evidences that the respondent/S.L.A.O. has taken the possession of the acquired property of the petitioner on 16.01.2014 and the documentary evidence on record proves the same. This apart there is no dispute that the respondent has taken possession Cont'd..
- 25 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
of the acquired land of the petitioner on 16.01.2014 which is much earlier to the passing of the award dated 20.10.2014 copy of which is marked at Ex.P24. The statements and particulars furnished by the respondent with reference evidences that the award notice has been served on the petitioner on 13.03.2015 but the PW1 states that it has been served on the petitioner on 21.03.2015 The Ex.P11, Ex.P23, and Ex.P24 and other materials on record and also oral evidence of the PW1, evidences that the respondent through endorsement dated 16.05.2015 sent the award copy to the petitioner on 16.05.2015 and the same is received by the petitioner on 21.05.2015. The records evidences that the petitioner being felt aggrieved by the notice dated 13.03.2015 and also being felt that the compensation award by the S.L.A.O., to the acquired property is inadequate and contrary to the provisions of Act 2013 has filed the application under section 64(1) of Act 2013 dated 29.04.2015 which is being received by the S.L.A.O., office on 30.04.2015, on the basis of which, the instant reference is made by the S.L.A.O./respondent, is valid and in time.
Cont'd..
- 26 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
.15. Smt.M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence on record proves that the acquired property is non-agricultural commercial property and recognized as sub-centre for business area/commercial zone as per the RMP plan 2015 which reflected through other documentary evidence evidences that the respondent has awarded meager compensation amount to the acquired property. The learned counsel next to submit that the respondent/S.L.A.O., considered sale instances form 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2013 which are 3 years prior to the date of award dated 20.10.2014, arrived at market value of the acquired property at Rs.4,620/- per sq. ft, but the said sale instances are not similar to the nature of acquired property and even the S.L.A.O., has taken the guideline value of the property which were fixed on 21.09.2011, in-spite of taking guidelines value of the properties, which came into effect form 07.08.2013, since the publication of the preliminary notification has been published on 25.06.2013. The learned counsel further submits that in-fact market value fixed by the Cont'd..
- 27 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 : central valuation committee on 26.06.2013, has been
published through notification dated 17.07.2013 copy of which is marked as Ex.P30 which evidences that the respondent, without proper application of mind, to the provisions of Act 2013, fixed the market value, on the basis of the guide-line value of 21.09.2011 in-stead of guide-line value fixed under Ex.P30 i.e. notification dated 17.07.2013. Smt. M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent should have fixed the market value of the acquired land as per the provisions contemplated under section 26 of the Act 2013. The learned counsel drawn the attention of the court to the relevant portion of the sec.26 of the Act 2013, which reads as under:
"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:-
(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, Cont'd..
- 28 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, Whichever is higher:-
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11".
16. As rightly submitted the Smt.M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner Ex.P24 copy of the award dated 20.10.2014 marked at Ex.P14 evidences that the respondent while fixing the market value of the acquired land has placed reliance on the sale instances for the period from 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2013 of the properties in the vicinity of the acquired property, which are 18 sale instances, pertaining to 3 years prior to the Cont'd..
- 29 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
notification and an extent of properties sold thereunder are varying between 138 sq. ft to 381 sq. ft in respect of residential and commercial properties. The S.L.A.O., out of 18 sale instances, taken into consideration mentioned in, 9 sale deeds and considered an average of market value in said 9 sale deeds, which comes to Rs.4,276/-
per sq. ft. The Ex.P24 also evidences that the S.L.A.O. considering the land value of properties which come into effect on 21.09.2011 at Rs.3,000/- per sq. ft at Binny Mill Road, added 40% of which to the acquired land, holding that the acquired land is commercial land and further added 10% acquired land as it is a corner commercial property, accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,620/- per sq. ft. The Ex.P24 evidences that the respondent observes that the revised guidelines value of the properties published in the gazette notification dated 17.07.2013, has come into effect from 07.08.2013, where in the acquired land value is fixed at Rs.7,840/-, hence, on technical grounds taken his view that the said guidelines value published is not applicable to the acquired land, much less, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereby fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4620/- per sq. ft.,. As rightly submitted Cont'd..
- 30 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
by the learned counsel for the petitioner the nature of properties and extent of properties in said 18 sale instances relied upon by the S.L.A.O., in awarding market value in Ex.P24 are not similar in nature as that of the acquired land and also extent of property covered under said instances are varying between 128 sq. ft. 3.381 sq. ft.,. Smt. M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Ex.P24 and other documentary evidence on record submits that if the properties under comparable sale to be taken by the court as furnishing "price basis" for determination of market value of the acquired land and to arrive at average value of sale consideration mentioned therein, to fix the market value of the acquired land, such comparable sale instances must firstly to be genuine, secondly its sale must have taken place at a time proximate to the date of publication to the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of L.A. Act, thirdly land sold under sale must be similar to the acquired land and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. Learned counsel in support of the arguments placed reliance on the rulings reported in:
(1) 1994 SCC (2) 133 PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. Vs SAIYADAN Hon'ble Supreme Court, laid down that: "Evidence Cont'd..
- 31 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
of prices fetched by sale of lands similar to the acquired land will be taken by the Court to be the price which a willing purchaser would have paid for the acquired land, if the same had been sold to him in the open market. However, if the price under comparable sale is to be taken by the Court, as furnishing the 'price basis' for determination of the market value of the acquired land, the comparable sale must, firstly be genuine, secondly it must have taken place at a time proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, thirdly the land sold under the sale must be similar to the acquired land, and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. It has, therefore, to be noted that the location, size, shape, tenure, user or potentiality of land under comparable sale, if do not compare favorably with the acquired land, price fetched in comparable sale cannot furnish the 'price basis' for determining, the market value of the acquired land."
Cont'd..
- 32 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
(2) Mehrawal khewaji trust
(Registered), Faridkot v/s State of
Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432;
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that' "when there are several exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bonafide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away, from the person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest... It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.' It is also trite that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
As such, the Award passed by the
Cont'd..
- 33 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Respondents is fundamentally flawed as regards fixing the market value of the Schedule Property".
.17. The Ex.P19 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.02.2012 whereunder the property measuring 7700 sq. ft, described therein situated at Cotton Pet Main Road has been sold. The Ex.P20 is a certified copy of absolute sale deed dated 17.10.2013 wherein the property measuring 23,550/0 sq. ft situated in Bashyam Road, Cotton Pet, described thereunder has been sold. The Ex.P22 is a certified copy of the order dated 05.01.2013, wherein the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., has fixed the compensation of the acquired land mentioned therein, situated at Okali Puram within BBMP limits, acquired in the year 2011-12. The average market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. for he acquired property in this case is even lower than the rate fixed in these Ex.P19, 20 and
22. The appreciation of oral evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence on record discussed above evidences that the nature of properties, extent of properties Cont'd..
- 34 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
covered under sale instances considered by the S.L.A.O., under Ex.P24 are different and not similar to the nature and extent of the acquired land, on the basis of which sale instances the S.L.A.O., has arrived at the average market value to fix the market value of the acquired land, under the circumstances in view of the ratio and the principles laid down by their Lord-ships in the rulings cited supra, the sale instances considered by the S.L.A.O., to arrive at the market value of the acquired land is not proper and correct.
.18. Smt. M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the duty is casted on the Deputy Commissioner to survey land, the vicinity, gather information from the Department of Stamps, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and update himself on the prevailing market value at the time of preliminary notification and thereafter to fix the market value of the acquired land under the provisions of Act 2013. The learned counsel in this connection drawn the attention of Cont'd..
- 35 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
the court to the proviso to sec.26(3) of Act 2013, the relevant portion which reads as under:
Sec.26 (3):- Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that.:-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in the clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, The State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided ---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ Provided further that ----------------------------- Provided also that collector ------ in that area provide ------"
Smt. M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the public notice of preliminary notification Cont'd..
- 36 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
has been issued on 25.06.2013 where as the Gazette dated 17.07.2013 marked at Ex.P30, where-in the market value of the properties revised therein is on the basis of the average rates of lands and properties during the calendar year 2012, for the calendar year 2013. The learned counsel submits that the guideline value of the properties under Ex.P30 are fixed on the basis of the minutes of meetings of the Central Valuation Committee held on 26.06.2013 and the said guidelines value is fixed by the "Karnataka Stamp (Constitution Central Valuation Committee for Estimation, Publication and Revision of Market Value Guidelines of Properties) rules 2003" (herein after referred as market value guidelines rules) which is in exercise of powers conferred by sec.45 (2) read with sec.68 (1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The learned counsel submits that the entire process of determination/revision of Market value of land /properties begins during the first week of October of every calendar year and the same is finalized by the first week of January of the next calendar year as per the provisions contemplated under rule 5 of market value Cont'd..
- 37 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
guidelines rules, hence submits that the 2003 market value guideline mentioned in Ex.P18 are applicable to the case on hand, as per which, the marked value of the acquired land comes to Rs.8624/-.
.19. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn attention of the court to the Rule 5 of the Market Value Guide Lines Rules which reads as under:
THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT,1957 Sec.5. Estimation of market value guidelines:- (1) The Central Valuation Committee shall as far as possible in the first week of October of every calendar year, send instructions along with general policy guidelines to all the Sub-committees in the State of estimation of market value guidelines of properties for the next calendar year. Such instruction may be sent to any sub-committee, at any time of the calendar year for the revision of the rates, if required.
(2) The Sub-committee shall on receipt of the instruction publish the intention of such estimation or revision, as the case may be, in the local newspapers and also on the Cont'd..
- 38 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
notice board of important offices. A period of 15 days may be allowed for receipt of objections and suggestions from the public and all such suggestion and objection so received, shall be processed by the Secretary and placed before the Sub-committee for discussion. The Sub-committee shall meet as often as required to discuss and decide on the estimation of market value rates for the guidelines and prepare a statement showing the average rate of agricultural lands, residential, commercial and industrial sites in village and municipal or any other local body area in its jurisdiction as specified in these rules. That data shall be arranged village and local body wise and the statement shall be prepared and signed by the Secretary and Chairman of the Sub-
committee in such form as may be specified by the Committee from time to time. The data so prepared shall be both in paper copy and a soft copy (floppy) in Microsoft Access shall be sent to the Registrar of the concerned district, in the last week of December of every calendar year. The hard copy of the data shall be in a booklet form and the Committee may also record its views Cont'd..
- 39 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
on the suggestions and objections received from the public in the appropriate column.
(3) The Registrar shall on receipt of the statement received under sub-rule (2), shall verify and if he finds any discrepancy or omission may remit it back to the Sub-
committee immediately for rectification or supply of the omission. Such references shall be attended by the Sub-committee and the statement be resubmitted to the Registrar within 15 days from the date of reference. The Registrar shall finally examine the data and record his views in the appropriate column for any improvement or change and send the booklets and soft copies of the same, separately for each sub-district to the Secretary of the Central Valuation Committee in the first week of January of the next calendar year".
.20. Ex.P27 is an application filed by the PW1 before the RTI officer seeking for certified copy of the gazette notification dated 17.07.2013. The Ex.P30 is the certified copy Karnataka State Gazettee Notification dated 17.07.2013 wherein the guidelines value of the properties Cont'd..
- 40 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
for the calendar year 2013, has been published. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ex.P30 there is a mention about the minutes of the Central Valuation committee held on 26.06.2013 and based on that the market value of the properties for the calendar year 2013 has been published. The relevant portion in said Ex.P30 reads as under:
"PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ¸À«Äw ¸À¨ÀsÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀª½À PÉ ¸ÀASÉå CVC-24/2013-14 ¢£ÁAPÀB 26.06.2013"
.21. The Ex.P31 is an endorsement by the RTI Officer with regard to furnishing of the copies of the documents sought therein by the PW1. Ex.P33 is a copy of the Central Valuation Committee held on 06.08.2013 for fixing the guideline value of the lands and properties for the calendar year 2013. The appreciation of Ex.P27, Ex.P30, Ex.P33 evidences that the procedure for revising guideline market value was undertaken 4 months earlier to publishing Ex.P30 gazette notification dated 17.07.2013 and all the officials concerned were doing constant endeavor Cont'd..
- 41 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
inspecting properties, discussing with public, analyzing developments, at each area and thereafter conclusion was arrived at on 06.08.2013, the revised guidelines 2013 was published. Therefore it is made clear that the process to revise the guidelines was undertaken during the May 2013, prior to publication of preliminary notification dated 25.06.2013. Therefore it is evident that the market value fixed from 07.08.2013 for registration purpose ought to have been considered by the respondent to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. Admittedly the value of the sale instances taken into consideration by the respondent to fix the market value of the acquired land in this reference are not similar and the sale instances produced during the evidence of PW1 at Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 and even the nature, extent of properties covered under Ex.P19, 20 and 22 and the nature and extent of the acquired land in this reference are not similar. Therefore it is not proper to place reliance on the said documents, to arrive at the market value of the acquired land in this reference.
Cont'd..
- 42 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
.22. Ex.P2 is a letter dated 23.09.2010 issued by the BDA evidences that the revised master plant 2015 issued by the BDA, has classified the property of the petitioner covered under Ex.P1, as sub-centre for business area/commercial zone. Ex.P18 is the letter dated 12.08.2013 issued by the Senior Sub-registrar, Gandhi Nagar, i.e. Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar of the property marked at Ex.P1, wherein it is informed to the petitioner that as per the Government Guideline Value, the acquired property being a commercial corner property, its guideline value is Rs.8625/- per sq. ft.,.
.23. Ex.P34 is a copy of communication by the Stamp and Registration Department addressed to the petitioner informing, the fixing of the guidelines market value of the properties as mentioned in Ex.P30. The provisions of sec.26(a) of the Act 2013, specifically mandates to arrive at market value of the acquired land, under the said Act, as specified in the Indian Stamp Act.
Cont'd..
- 43 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Under the circumstances in the instant reference the value, nature and extent of land mentioned in the sale instances taken into consideration by the S.L.A.O., to fix the market value of the acquired land in his award as also nature and extent of properties mentioned in Ex.P19, 20 and 22 are not similar with the nature and extent of the acquired land under the circumstances same will be of no help to arrive at the market value of the acquired land in this reference. On the other hand as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the market value fixed for the lands and properties for the calendar year 2013 marked at Ex.P30 notification shall be considered to arrive at the market value of the acquired properties in this case for the reason that the public notice of preliminary notification has been issued for acquiring acquired property in the reference, on 25.06.2013 and the guideline market value of the properties as indicated in Ex.P30 notification has been arrived at on the basis of the minutes of the proceedings of the Central Valuation Committee held on 26.06.2013 under the circumstances there is no Cont'd..
- 44 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
hesitation to hold that the market value of the acquired land arrived at by the respondent S.L.A.O. on the basis of the guideline value of properties which were come into effect on 21.09.2011 is not justifiable and not in accordance with the provisions contemplated in Act 2013. The evidence on record particularly Ex.P2, Ex.P24 copy of the award dated 20.10.2014 and unchallenged version of the PW1 and his oral evidence that the acquired property in this reference being part of larger property measuring 23 acres 44 guntas mentioned in Ex.P1 is a sub centre for business area situated on Binny Mill Road, Commercial property and also a corner commercial property. The petitioner through Ex.P8 informed to the respondent that the acquired property is comprised in property No.59/1 and part of property No.59 in CTS No.3542 of Bengaluru City, which is a part of larger extent of property mentioned in Ex.P1. There is no dispute in this regard since the respondent in Ex.P23 has clearly admitted the said fact.
Cont'd..
- 45 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
.24. As evidence through Ex.P30 certified copy of the gazette notification dated 17.07.2013 at serial No.165 the property on Binny Mill Road, value is fixed at Rs.5,600/- for converted residential sites within BBMP limits said fact is also mentioned in Ex.P18. The Ex.P2 letter issued by the BDA which is prior to the preliminary notification in this case evidences that the property covered under under Ex.P1 is classified as sub centre for business area which is fit for use of commercial purpose. There is no dispute that the acquired property in this reference was being used for commercial purpose and corner commercial property under the circumstances as per Ex.P30, P.18 the 40% of the residential rate is added to the guideline value of the residential site of Rs.5,600/- sq. ft and 10% is added being a commercial corner site thereby as per the guideline value fixed to the acquired property comes to Rs.8,624/- per sq. ft. The respondent/S.L.A.O. has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disprove this fact. Therefore this court for the aforesaid reasons inclined to fix the market value of the Cont'd..
- 46 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
acquired property at Rs.8,624/- per sq. ft. instead of Rs.4,620/- per sq. ft. as fixed by the S.L.A.O./respondent. Accordingly, market value of acquired property is fixed at Rs.8624/- per sq.feet.
.25. The S.L.A.O., has awarded an amount of Rs.55,33,400/- in-respect of roof, compound wall etc., which were existing on the acquired property. The petitioner at this stage, has not produced and adduced the cogent evidence to prove that the compensation awarded to the roof, compound wall etc., are more than what is being awarded by the S.L.A.O. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. to the roof and compound wall etc., existed on the suit property is proper. Therefore, the petitioner is entitle to receive the compensation in this regard at the rate of Rs.55,33,400/-. As rightly submitted by Smt. M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, the S.L.A.O., under award, copy of which is marked at Ex.P.24, has not awarded 100% solatium on the compensation Cont'd..
- 47 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
contemplated u/s. 30 of Act 2013. 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.
(3) ---------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------"
.26. As per the provisions contemplated u/s. 30 of the Act, 2013, the petitioner is entitle 100% compensation as contemplated u/s. 30(1) and (2) of the Act, 2013 First schedule appended to Act 2013 as the petitioner is an owner of the acquired land, which is on the market value of the acquired land and also the compensation awarded to the roof and compound wall ete., existed on the acquired Cont'd..
- 48 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
property. As per section 26(2) r/w aforesaid Schedule First appended, to Act 2013, the factor which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of acquired property in this reference existed in Bengaluru city is one (1). Therefore, the petitioner is entitle for 100% solatium on the compensation as discussed above, as per the provisions contemplated u/s. 26(2) of Act 2013. The evidence on record particularly the Ex.P.24 copy of award and the oral evidence of PW.1 and also other documents discussed above, proves that the respondent has acquired the property of the petitioner in question, by invoking the urgency clause contemplated u/s. 40(5) of Act 2013, which is equivalent to section 17(2) and (4) of L.A. Act, but the S.L.A.O. has not awarded additional compensation of 75% on the total compensation determined u/s. 27 of Act 2013 contemplated u/s. 40(5) of Act 2013.
.27. Smt. M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the correspondence made between petitioner company and the respondent, particularly the Exs.P.10 to Cont'd..
- 49 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
17, submits that though the respondent has taken possession of the acquired land on 16.01.2014 had not passed an award as on 16.01.2014 and the award has been passed on 20.10.2014. More-over, though urgency clause has been invoked 80% of compensation has not been paid. The learned counsel further submits that this apart, the respondent has paid an amount in installments and not paid the interest as contemplated u/ss. 72 and 80 of Act 2013. The learned counsel submits that the respondent has also not awarded 12% p.a., market value as contemplated u/s. 69(2) of Act 2013, with-regard to the payment of 12% market value and interest. The learned counsel in this regard drawn attention of the court the sections 69, 72 and 80 of Act 2013. Therefore, it is worth to quote the sections 69, 72 and 80 of Act 2013, which reads as under"
"Sec.69. Determination of award by Authority:- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired including the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements, the Authority shall take into consideration whether the Collector has followed the Cont'd..
- 50 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 and the provisions under Chapter V of this Act.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on the from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11 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.
Explanation:- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of one hundred per cent over the total compensation amount.
"Sec.72. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation:- If the sum, which in the opinion of the Authority concerned, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Authority concerned may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Authority:
Provided that the award of the Authority concerned may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid to the Authority after the date or expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one Cont'd..
- 51 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Authority before the date of such expiry".
"Section 80 Payment of interest: When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited;
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof, which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry."
.28. Admittedly, the S.L.A.O./respondent has not awarded the compensation to the acquired land as contemplated u/s. 69 of Act 2013, in his award. Thus, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitle for 12% p.a., of market value of the property from the date of publication of notification till passing of award or taking of possession, which-ever is earlier, as contemplated u/s. 69(2) of Act 2013. The Exs.P.9 to 15 correspondence exchange between petitioner and the respondent and also the Exs.P.16 and 17 as well Ex.P.24 and oral evidence of Cont'd..
- 52 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 : PW.1 evidences that the respondent has paid
Rs.11,03,38,934/- deducting 1,22,59,881/- towards TDS (income tax) out of interest alleged to have been paid by the respondent towards interest of Rs.12,25,98,815/- for the period from 16.01.2014 to 15.12.2015, which is particularly evidenced through Ex.P.15. This fact evidences that the respondent has not paid the interest as contemplated u/ss. 72 and 80 of Act 2013, as the interest amount paid to the petitioner by the respondent towards interest as discussed above, will fall short. Therefore, the petitioner is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the excess amount from the date of taking over possession of the acquired property i.e., 16.01.2014 for the first year and the interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years till deposit of entire amount. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence let-in by the parties discussed above, evidences that the petitioner has proved that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O./respondent in-respect of the acquired land is inadequate and unjust and the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O./respondent in-
Cont'd..
- 53 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
respect of the acquired land of the petitioner is not inconsonance with the provisions of Act 2013. At the same time the evidence on record proves that the petitioner is entitle for enhanced compensation of his acquired property at the rate of Rs.8,624/- per sq. feet as discussed above. .29. Smt. M.P. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not quantified the compensation in-respect of the acquired property in accordance with the provisions of Act 2013 and even not paid the compensation amount quantified by him in accordance with law from the date of taking possession of the acquired land, as such, prayer to award damage caused to the petitioner, because of not paying interest on late payment, hence, prayer to award compensation in the form of damage in that regard. This court on going through the provisions of Act 2013 and also considering the scope of this reference u/s. 64(1) of Act 2013, is declined to award compensation towards damage, much less as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Cont'd..
- 54 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
and the petitioner if at all can seek the relief in this regard before the appropriate Form if permissible under law. Thus, for the above discussed reasons, the points 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative for consideration and point No.3 is answered accordingly for consideration.
.30. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on the afore- mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the S.L.A.O./respondent under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, is allowed.
The petitioner/claimant is entitle for the market value of its acquired property measuring 3 acres 16 guntas, bearing property No.59/1 and part of property No.50, ward No.29, being portion of the larger extent of 23.44 acres, situated on Binny Mill road, Bengaluru North Taluka, within BBMP limits, at the rate of Rs.8,624/- per sq. feet, instead of Rs.4,620/- per sq. feet, awarded by the S.L.A.O./respondent.
The petitioner u/s. 29 of Act 2013, is entitle for compensation of Rs.
Cont'd..
- 55 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 : 55,33,400/- as determined by the
S.L.A.O./respondent for the building and things attached to the acquired property such as compound wall etc. 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 Act 2013.
The petitioner is entitle for additional compensation of 75% of total compensation as determined u/s.27 of the Act 2013.
The petitioner as per section 30 of the Act 2013, is entitle 100% solatium of total compensation, including the market value.
The petitioner as per section 69(2) of Act 2013, is 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.
The petitioner u/ss. 72 and 80 of Act 2013 is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the excess amount from the date of taking over possession of acquired property i.e., from 16.01.2014, for the first year and interest at the rate of 15%p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire amount.
The amount already paid by the S.L.A.O./respondent shall be deducted in the excess compensation now awarded to the acquired property.
Cont'd..
- 56 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
The parties to bear their own cost in this case.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writers, transcribed by them, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of October, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari) II Additional C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM FEERASAB BIDARI DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN BIDARI Date: 2018.11.01 10:07:11 IST Cont'd..
- 57 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : K. Johnson
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 Order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicator, Madras, in Company Petition Nos. 66, 67 and 69/2010, Ex.P.2 Letter issued by the BDA dated 23.09.2010 Ex.P.3 The paper publication in "Vijaya Karnataka" Kannada daily newspaper dated 25.06.2013, Ex.P.4 Public notice issued by the Lpl. L.A.O., Ex.P.5 Letter dated 13.01.2014 addressed to the S.L.A.O. Ex.P.6 Statement of particulars of acquired Ex.P.11 certified land issuedcopy by theofS.L.A.O. the letter dated Ex.P.7 28.07.2015 Notice datedaddressed 22.04.2014 to the S.L.A.O. Ex.P.12 Ex.P.8 certified certified copy copy of of letter letter dated dated 05.10.2015 23.04.2014 addressed to the S.L.A.O. addressed to the S.L.A.O. Ex.P.13 Ex.P.9 certified copy of letter dated 13.11.2015 Endorsement Ex.P.10 addressed to the certified copy S.L.A.O. of letter dated 08.04.2015 Ex.P.14 certified copy of letter addressed to the S.L.A.O. dated 25.01.2016 Cont'd..
addressed to the S.L.A.O. Ex.P.15 Letter dated 12.02.2016 addressed to the petitioner company by the S.L.A.O.
- 58 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Ex.P.16 certified copy of the letter dated 20.06.2016 Ex.P.17 TDS certificate in form No.16A, Ex.P.18 Letter dated 21.08.2013 Ex.P.19 certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.12.2012 Ex.P.20 certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.10.2013 Ex.P.21 Letter dated 25.02.2014 Ex.P.22 Certified copy of the order dated 05.01.2013 Ex.P.23 Endorsement dated 16.05.2015 Ex.P.24 Award copy Ex.P.25 Certified copy of the Gazette notification, Ex.P.26 Certified copy of the Gazette notification, Ex.P.27 Application filed under RTI Ex.P.28 Endorsement Ex.P.29 Office note Ex.P.30 Certified copy of Gazette notification Ex.P.31 Endorsement Ex.P.32 Certified copy of office note Ex.P.33 Copy of minutes of meeting held with regard to guideline value Ex.P.34 Copy of communication
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Cont'd..
- 59 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Bangalore.
Cont'd..
- 60 - : L.A.C. No.33/2017 :
Cont'd..