Bangalore District Court
In vs In All Cases on 26 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. BIDARI B.Com., LL.B. (Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE Nos.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014
and 103/2014
CLAIMANTS IN
LAC NO.100/2014 :
1) Smt. Susheela w/o late. Nagaraj Reddy,
major, residing at No.95, 7th cross, Domulur
village, Bengaluru.
2) Smt. Vijiyamma w/o late. Chandra Reddy,
major, residing at No.47, 1st cross, 1st main,
Domulur layout, Bengaluru.
CLAIMANTS IN
LAC NO.101/2014 :
1) L. Sreenivasa Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
2) L. Ramachandra s/o late.
Lakshmaiah
3) L. Krishna Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
4) L. Govinda Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
All are r/o at No.67, 1st cross, 1st main
road, Domulur layout, Bengaluru.
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.102/2014:
:
1) L. Sreenivasa Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
2 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
2) L. Ramachandra s/o late.
Lakshmaiah
3) L. Krishna Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
4) L. Govinda Reddy s/o late.
Lakshmaiah,
All are r/o at No.67, 1st cross, 1st main
road, Domulur layout, Bengaluru.
Lakshmaiah s/o late. Annayyappa,
Kondasanapura village, Bidarahalli hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.103/2014 :
1) Smt. Susheela w/o late. Nagaraj Reddy, major,
residing at No.95, 7th cross, Domulur village,
Bengaluru.
2) Smt. Vijiyamma w/o late. Chandra Reddy,
major, residing at No.47, 1st cross, 1st main,
Domulur layout, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.MNS, Advocate in all cases)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS IN ALL CASES:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, V.V.
Tower, 3rd floor, Bengaluru.
2) The Asst. Executive Engineer, BWSSB,
Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru.
(R-1 - Exparte)
(R-1 By Sri. KBJ., Advocate)
------
3 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as
LAO), Bengaluru, for formation of sewerage treatment plant by
the BWSSB, has acquired the lands in these references. The
details of acquired lands in these references are as under:
Sl. No. L.A.C. Sy.No. Extent Situated at
No. A/G
O1 100/2014 292 00.12 Bellandur
Amanikere
02 102/2014 288/1 01.07 "
03 103/2014 288/1 00.32 "
04 101/2014 292 00.12 "
The preliminary notification u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act
1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act), in
No.LAQ/SR/02/2008-09 dated 27.08.2008 has been published
in Karnataka State Gazette dated 08.11.2008 and the amended
Gazette notification dated 12.03.2009 is also issued. The final
notification u/s. 6(1) of L.A. Act, in No.Revenue Dept/160/Land
Acquisiton/2009 dated 23.03.2010 is being published in
Karnataka State Gazette dated 08.04.2010. The L.A.O., resorting
to the provisions of L.A. Act, has acquired the aforesaid lands
4 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
along with other lands, through award dated 31.01.2012. The
L.A.O. fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,25,00,000/- per
acre of the aforesaid lands in the award with statutory benefits.
The L.A.O. issued notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act, to the claimants.
The claimants being not satisfied with the compensation awarded
to their respective acquired lands did file the protest petitions
u/s. 18 of L.A. Act. The L.A.O., on receipt of protest petitions
u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, from the claimants, have made these
references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, consequently, on receipt of
respective references of the claimants, this court registered the
cases in L.A.C. Nos. 100/2014 and 101/2014 in respect of
acquired 12 guntas land each, in these references, in-respect of
the acquired land in Sy.No.292, registered the cases in L.A.C.
Nos. 102/2014 and 103/2014 in-respect of the acquired land
measuring 1 acre 7 guntas and 00.32 guntas in-respect of the
land acquired in Sy.No.288/1 respectively of Bellandur
Amanikere village. This court issued notices to both the parties.
Pursuant to the service of notice, the claimants and the
respondent No.2 appeared through their respective counsel, but
the respondent No.1 remained absent. Therefore, the respondent
5 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
No.1 has been placed exparte, in all thee cases. The learned DGP
has filed a memo of appearance for respondent No.1 in L.A.C.
No.101/2014, but not taken steps to set aside an exparte order
passed against the respondent No.1.
.2. These references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, are arising out of
the same notification, hence, cases in L.A.C. Nos.100/2014,
102/2014 and 103/2014 are clubbed in L.A.C. No.101/2014, for
recording common evidence, relating to all cases in L.A.C.
No.101/2014 and for disposal of, all the said cases by common
judgment. Therefore, common evidence relating to all these
cases, is being recorded in L.A.C. No.101/2014.
.3. To substantiate their claim, the claimants have
examined the claimant No.4 in L.A.C. Nos.101/2014 and
102/2014 L. Govinda Reddy as PW.1. The documents at Exs.P.1
to 6 are marked for the claimants. On the other hand, on behalf
of respondent No.2, the Asst. Executive Engineer in K-1-1, Sub-
Division, BWSSB, Bengaluru, has been examined as RW.1. The
documents at Exs.R.1 to 3 are marked for the respondent No.2.
6 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
.4. I have heard Sri.MNS the learned counsel for the
claimants and heard Sri. KBJ the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2. The written argument is filed on behalf of
claimants. Perused the records and the written argument.
.5. The points would arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the references u/s.18 of L.A. Act,
made by the respondent No.1/LAO, are
valid and in time?
2. Whether the Claimants prove that the
market value fixed by the respondent
No.1/LAO, in-respect of their acquired
lands, is unjust and inadequate?
3. Whether the claimants are entitle for
enhanced compensation of their acquired
lands? If so, at what rate?
4. What Order or Award?
.6. 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 the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.7. Point No.1:- The PW.1 Govinda Reddy, who is
claimant No.4 in L.A.C. No.101/2014 and L.A.C. No.102/2014,
7 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, reiterating
most of the protest petitions averments, submitted by the
respective claimants before the S.L.A.O., seeking reference
u/s. 18 of L.A. Act. The respondent No.1/L.A.O. has made
these references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, consequent upon, filing
protest petitions by the respective claimants. The PW.1 in his
chief-examination has stated that the claimants 2 to 4 in
L.A.C. No.101/2014 and L.A.C. No.102/2014,are his brothers
and whereas, the claimants in L.A.C. No.103/2014 and L.A.C.
No.100/2014 are his sister and his sister-in-law, respectively
and he is deposing on behalf of remaining claimants also. The
PW.1 in his chief-examination has stated that thereafter
service of 12(2) notice, the claimants did file the protest
petitions before the L.A.O., well within time and the L.A.O. has
also made the references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act well within
limitation, hence, all the references in these cases are well
within time. The Exs.P.1, 2, 3 and 4 are separate protest
petitions, all u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, filed by the respective
claimants in L.A.C. Nos. 101/2014, 102/2014, 103/2014 and
100/2014 respectively. The claimants in Exs.P.1 to 4, among
8 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
others, have stated that as on the date of preliminary
notification, the market value of the acquired land was not less
than Rs.1000/- per sq. feet and the market value fixed by the
L.A.O., at Rs.280/- per sq. feet is too low and in-adequate,
hence, sought to send the references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act. The
Exs.P.1 to 4 are dated 13.02.2013 and the same are being
received in the office of S.L.A.O., on 14.02.2013. The
statements submitted by the L.A.O., along with references
evidences that the notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act, has been
served on the claimants 30.11.2012. The Exs.P.1 to 4
discloses that the award notice dated 30.11.2011 served on
the claimants, but the learned counsel for the claimants
through a memo dated 12.09.2018 has stated that the award
notice mentioned in Exs.P.1 to 4 served on 30.11.2012, but
due to typical mistake it has been typed as 13.11.2011 instead
of 30.11.2012. The statements and the records transmitted by
the S.L.A.O. /respondent No.1 along with these references
evidences that the notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act has been served
on the claimants on 30.11.2012, as such, there is substance
in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants and
9 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
a memo dated 12.09.2018 that date of service of award notice
is mistakenly typed as 30.11.2011 in Exs.P.1 to 4 instead as
30.11.2012. The oral evidence of PW.1 and contents of
Exs.P.1 to 4, submitted by the respective claimants are well
within 90 days from the date of service of notice u/s. 12(2) of
L.A. Act. The L.A.O. has made the references on 20.05.2014
(29.03.2014). Therefore, this court is constrained to hold that
these references made by the S.L.A.O./ respondent No.1 in all
these cases u/s. 18 of L.A. Act are well within limitation and
the same are valid and in time. Neither the claimants nor the
respondent No.2 in these references, have raised the question
of limitation, despite that the court is duty bound to consider
the question of limitation. In this connection, it is worth to
quote the observations of their Lordships in the ruling reported
in ILR 1991 KAR 1109 (In the case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer Vs. Gurappa Channabasappa paramaj). The relevant
portion runs as under:
"HELD: (1) The court has not only the
power but also the duty to consider as to
whether Reference is time barred and
therefore invalid. From Section 3(1) (of the
Limitation Act) also, it is clear that it is the
10 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
duty of the court to decide whether the
proceedings instituted before it was barred
by time, even if plea of limitation is not
taken by the opposite party;
(ii) Article 137 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act applies to an application
under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land
Acquisition Act and consequently any
application made after the expiry of 3 years
is liable to be dismissed on the ground it is
barred by limitation;
(iii) The power to make reference under
section 18(3) exists till the right of the
party to make an application before the
court seeking a direction to the Deputy
Commissioner to make Reference exists and
from this it follows, no power to make
Reference exists thereafter and if made it is
invalid.
(iv) An application before the court has to
be made within 3 years after the expiry of
90 days from the date of the application and
if any application is made beyond the time
so fixed in view of Article 137 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, it is liable
to be rejected in limine. In other words, if
no application is made within the time, the
right to secure Reference ceases....once the
right of the party to get a Reference is time
barred, it would be incongruous to hold that
the Deputy Commissioner can still make a
Reference, at any time, even after decades.
It is reasonable to construe the provision to
mean that the date on which the right of a
party to get a Reference comes an end
would also be the date on which the power
of the Deputy Commissioner to make
Reference comes to an end.... Therefore,
neither the party can seek a Reference nor
11 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
the Deputy Commissioner can make the
Reference after the expiry of 3 years and 90
days from the date of the Reference
application.
ANSWER:
A Reference made by a Land Acquisition
Officer under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, as amended by Karnataka
Land Acquisition Act (Amendment) Act,
1961, after the rights of the claimant to
make an application before the Civil Judge
praying for a direction to call for Reference
under section 18 of the Act had come to an
end, is invalid"
(Underline supplied by me)
.8. As already discussed above, the claimants in these
references did file their respective protest petitions dated
13.02.2013 u/s. 18(2) of L.A. Act, before the S.L.A.O., seeking
reference to the Civil Court and the said protest petitions are
received in the office of S.L.A.O. dated 14.02.2013, consequent
upon which, subsequently, the L.A.O. has made the references
u/s. 18 of L.A. Act on 20.05.2014 (29.03.2014). As per the
amended provisions of Karnataka State Amendment brought
into section 18 of L.A. Act, the claimant, who has not accepted
the quantum of compensation awarded by the L.A.O., shall
12 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
have to file the protest petition within 90 days, after receipt of
12(2) notice as contemplated in proviso to sections 18(1) and
18(2) of L.A. Act and thereafter, the receipt of such protest
petition, the L.A.O. shall have to make the references u/s. 18
of L.A. Act, within 90 days as per the provisions contemplated
u/s. 18(3)(a) of L.A. Act and if the L.A.O., failed to do so, then,
the claimant can apply to the reference court as contemplated
u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act, seeking direction to L.A.O., to make a
reference to court.. Therefore, it is worth to quote the section
18 of Act, as stood after bringing the Karnataka State
Amendment (w.e.f. 24.08.1961), in section 18 of L.A. Act,
which reads as under:
"18. Reference to court-(1) Any person
interested who has not accepted the award (or
amendment thereof) may, by written application
to the (Deputy Commissioner) require that the
matter be referred by the Deputy Commission
for the determination of the court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the persons to
whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on
which objection to the award (or the
amendment) is taken;
(provided that every such application shall be
made within ninety days from the date of service
13 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner
under sub-section (2) of section 12)
(3)(a) The Deputy Commissioner shall within
ninety days from the date of receipt of an
application under sub-section (1) make a
reference to the court.
(b) If the Deputy Commissioner does not make
a reference to the court within a period of ninety
days from the date of receipt of the application,
the applicant may apply to the court to direct
the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference
and the court may direct the Deputy
Commissioner to make the reference within such
time as the court may fix"
.9. Their Lordships in the ruling reported in ILR 1987
KAR 2132 (In the case of Assistant Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi
Bai), after considering the provisions brought into section 18 of
the L.A. Act, through Karnataka State Amendment have ruled
that the claimant shall have to file the protest petition before
the L.A.O., within 90 days from the date of receipt of 12(2)
notice, seeking enhancement of compensation, if is not
agreeable for compensation awarded to his acquired land and
thereafter as per section 18(3)(a), the L.A.O. shall have to make
a reference to court within 90 days from the date of receipt of
such protest petition, if failed to do so, the claimant shall apply
to the court, seeking direction to the L.A.O. to make a
14 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
reference as contemplated u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act and
maximum period that the L.A.O., shall makes a reference u/s.
18 of L.A. Act, is 3 years 90 days. The relevant portion of the
said ruling reads as under:
"Karnataka Land Acquisition (Extension &
Amendment) Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No.16 of
1961)-section 18(3)(a)-Statutory obligation on
L.A.O., to make reference of Section 18(1)
application does not end with expiry of 90 days
under section 18(3)(b) and right of person
interested to seek and compel reference
subsists-Section 18(3)(a) procedural provision,
built-in for benefit of person-interested, not to be
construed to deny rights leading to serious
injustice-Nature and quality of prescription of
time under section 18(2) and 18(3)(a):
Distinction - Section 18(2) prescribes limitation:
Section 18(3)(a) performance of statutory duty
not involving extinguishment of duty itself-
Reference by L.A.O., even after 90 days in
section 18(3)(a) sustainable"
Point for determination: Where a "person
interested" files a valid application under section
18(1) within the time prescribed therefor but the
Land Acquisition Officer makes the reference
beyond the period of 90 days contemplated in
section 18(3)(a), whether such a reference would
be an invalid reference by reason alone of the
delay on the part of the L.A.O., in making the
reference?
Whether the pronouncement in Uppara
Basappa's case (ILR 1986 KAR 2102) can be said
to lay down the law on the point correctly?"
15 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
HELD:
(i) Section 18(1) confers a right on the
person interested, who has not accepted
the award, that he may "require" that the
matter be referred by the Deputy
Commissioner for determination of the
court....The reference to be made
pursuant to section 18(3)(b) is pursuant
to and in effectuation of the same right of
the person interested on which an
application under section 18(1) is based
and in enforcement of the same statutory
obligation on the part of the L.A.O., to
make reference under section 18(3)(a).
there are no two sets of rights and
obligations separately under section
18(3)(a) and 18(3)(b).... Jurisdiction of the
court is to require the Deputy
Commissioner to make a reference. That
obligation is not independent of the one
arising from the right of the person
interested to require a reference under
section 18(1) of the Act.
(ii) The statutory obligation on the part of the
L.A.O., to make a reference on the
application filed under section 18(1) does
not come to an end with the expiry of
ninety days contemplated under section
18(3)(b). The obligation subsists till the
court is moved in the matter under
section 18(3)(b).
(iii) If the time limit under section 18(3)(b) is
built in for the benefit of the person-
interested, no construction can be placed
on it which would defeat its very purpose
by the delay on the part of the person
charged with the duty to act promptly.
The L.A.O. cannot benefit by his own
wrong. Section 18(3)(a) is a procedural
16 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
provision... To construe a provision which
was intended to give speedy relief to the
persons-interested and in aid of their
substantive rights should not be
construed in a manner which would
defeat the very rights of those persons.
Any construction which would lead to
serious injustice should be avoided.
(iv) There is a fundamental distinction
between the nature and quality of the
prescription of time in the second proviso
to section 18(2) on the one hand and in
section 18(3)(a) on the other. The first is a
case of 1 mitation for the enforcement of a
right and seeking a remedy; the other is a
case of prescription of time for the
performance of a statutory-duty. In the
very nature of things, these two
prescriptions cannot be put on the same
footing, for purposes of construction. A
provision prescribing limitation is a
disabling one. An accessory right- a right
to a remedy-gets barred---The
prescription of time in a right to a
remedy-gets barred...The prescription of
time in section 18(3)(a) is for the benefit
and furtherance of the right of the person-
interested and was clearly not intended as
a time limit beyond which the statutory-
duty itself would get extinguished....The
time limit prescribed for performance of a
statutory duty is rarely mandatory. As
long as the right on the part of the
person-interested to compel reference
subsists- that right must be held to
subsist till the right to move the court
under section 18(3)(b) is not lost-a
reference made by the L.A.O., even if it be
after the period of ninety days prescribed
17 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
in section 18(3)(a), would require to be
sustained. Section 18(3)(a) directs the
L.A.O. to act promptly and the period of
ninety days referred to therein is the
Legislature's standard of promptitude. It
does not mean that if the L.A.O., is not
prompt in performing the duty, the right,
to aid which the duty exist as correlative,
is itself lost. Such a construction would
payably be an unjust construction...
Statutory obligation to make a reference
would continue and remain subsisting till
the corresponding right on the part of the
person interested to seek and compel a
reference subsists"
.10. The ratio and the principles laid down by their
Lordship in the rulings cited supra, reported in (1) ILR 1991 (2)
KAR 1109 and (2) ILR 1987 KAR 2132, are being approved and
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the ruling
reported in (2005)8 SCC 709 (in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Laxuman). The relevant portion runs as under:
"A Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - S. 18(3)(b) & (2)
(as in force in Karnataka)-Limitation-Dy.
Commissioner's power to make a reference
under, held, stands extinguished simultaneously
with the extinction of the claimant's right to get a
reference called for on expiry of three years and
90 days from the date of reference application
made within the time prescribed by S. 18(2)-
Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 137
B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .........
18 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ........
D. D. Statute Law- .......
E. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ........
F. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ....
The present appeals ...........
Extinguishment of a right can be expressly
provided for or it can arise by implication from
the statute. Section 18(3)(a) and section
18(3)(b) read in harmony, cast an obligation on
the claimant to enforce his claim within the
period available for it. The scheme brings about
a repose. When the right of the Deputy
Commissioner to make the reference on the
application of the claimant under section 18(1)
of the Act stands extinguished on the expiry of 3
years and 90 days from the date of application
for reference and the right of the claimant to
move the court for compelling a reference also
stands extinguished, the right itself loses its
enforceability and thus comes to an end. That
is the scheme of section 18 of the Act as
adopted in the State of Karnataka. The Deputy
Commissioner would not be entitled to revive a
claim which has thus become unenforceable
due to lapse of time or non-diligence on the part
of the claimant.
Addl. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Vs.
Thakoredas (1997) 11 SCC 412: AIR 1994 SC
2227, relied on
Hanamappa Vs. Special L.A.O., ILR 1998 Kant
4071 (FB) overruled,
Special L.A.O., Vs. G.C. Paramraj, ILR (1991)2
Kant 1109, Asst. Commisisoner Vs. Laxmi Bai,
ILR 1987 Kant 2132, approved.
State of M.P. s. Bailal Bhai (1964)6 SCR 261,
AIR 1964 SC 1006, referred to"
(Under line supplied by me)
Therefore, in view of the ratio and the principles laid
down by their Lordships, in the rulings cited supra, the
19 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
present references made by the L.A.O., to this court u/s. 18 of
L.A. Act are well within limitation as same are being made
within 3 years 90 days from the date of filing of respective
protest petitions by the claimants before the L.A.O., as
contemplated u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act. Hence, I hold the point
No.1 in the affirmative, for consideration.
.11. Point Nos.2 and 3: These points are inter-related,
hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to
avoid repetition of facts. The Exs.P.1 to 4 are the protest
petitions, submitted by the respective claimants in these
references u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, before the L.A.O., seeking
references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, to the reference court,
consequent upon which, these references are being made by
the L.A.O. As already discussed above, the claimant No.4 L.
Govinda Reddy in L.A.C. Nos.101/2014 and 102/2014, has
filed an affidavit, in lieu of his chief-examination, re-iterating
most of the protest petitions averments marked at Exs.P.1 to
4, submitted by the respective claimants, in these references,
before the L.A.O., contending that the market value fixed by
20 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
the L.A.O., to their respective lands at the rate of Rs.280/- per
sq. feet, is on lower side, as market value of their respective
acquired lands was more than Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet, as on
the date of preliminary notification u/s. 4(1) of L.A. Act. The
PW.1 has deposed for himself and also on behalf of remaining
claimants, in these references. On the other hand, on behalf
of respondent No.2, Assistant Executive Engineer, in K-1-1
Sub-Division, BWSSB, Bengaluru has filed an affidavit in lieu
of his chief-examination and he has been examined as RW.1.
The protest petitions u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act submitted by the
claimants before the L.A.O., in-connection with the acquired
lands in L.A.C. Nos.101/2014, 102/2014, 103/2014 and
100/2014, are marked at Exs.P.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively,
during the evidence of PW.1. He states that the Ex.P.5 is a
certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.02.2008, is
considered by the L.A.O. at sl. No.29, but the L.A.O., has not
fixed the market value of their acquired land, as per the sale
price mentioned in Ex.P.5, which come to Rs.4,16,66,666/-
per acre and their acquired lands, which are having similar
and equal potential value as that of the lands sold under
21 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
Ex.P.5, hence, they are entitle to the compensation and the
market value of their acquired land at the rate mentioned in
Ex.P.5. The PW.1 further stated in his chief-examination that
the compensation and the market value fixed by the L.A.O., to
their respective acquired lands is on lower side and in-
adequate, hence, they have filed the protest petitions before
the L.A.O., seeking the reference to this court u/s. 18 of L.A.
Act and prayed that the market value of their respective
acquired lands shall be fixed at-least at the rate marked in
Ex.P.5. Per contra, the RW.1 K.V. Chethan, Asst. Executive
Engineer of respondent No.2, among other facts, has stated in
his chief-examination that the land sold under sale deed
marked at Ex.P.5 dated 26.02.2008, is in-respect of
Sy.No.131/3 of Amani Bellandur Khane village and the
acquired lands in these references are more than 5 kms, away
from the land sold under Ex.P.5. The RW.1 further stated in
the chief-examination that the land covered under Ex.P.1 is
fully developed area, wherein, many multistoried buildings
etc., have been constructed, but the acquired lands are far
away from the developed areas and interior, towards eastern
22 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
side from ring-road and outer-ring roads and the acquired land
is containing loose soil and not fit for construction of buildings
and the acquired lands are not in developed area, as such, the
acquired lands in these references shall not be compared with
the land sold under Ex.P.5. The RW.1 states that the market
value fixed by the L.A.O., to the acquired lands under his
award is proper and market value of the acquired lands cannot
be enhanced, as prayed by the claimants, much less at the
rate mentioned in Ex.P.5. The documents at Exs.R.1 to 3 are
marked during evidence of RW.1. The Exs.R.1 and 2 are the
certified copies of Karnataka State Gazette notifications
published in Gazette dated 17.04.2007 and 31.03.2017
respectively, wherein, the competent authority contemplated
u/s. 45(B) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 has fixed the
guidelines value of the immovable properties, coming within
the Sub-registrar offices, coming within BBMP limits for the
purpose of obtaining stamp duty (value) for registration. The
Ex.R.3 is a certified copy of map of Amani Bellandur Khane
village, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka, Bengaluru.
The survey numbers of the acquired lands in these references
23 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
are marked at Ex.R.3(a), whereas, the Sy.No.131 which
comprised and the portion of land in Sy.No.131 mentioned in
Ex.P.5 is marked at Ex.R.3(b). The location of ring road
formed in Sy. Nos. 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174
of Bellandur Amanikhane village, is marked at Ex.R.3(c). Sri.
KBJ the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, referring to
the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, let-in by the
parties and also going through the references made by the
L.A.O., u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, submits that the claimants in these
references are seeking enhancement of market value of the
acquired lands, contending that the market value of their
acquired lands fixed by the L.A.O., is on lower side, under the
circumstances, the claimants who are owners of the acquired
lands, are standing in position of plaintiffs and the references
of their acquired lands u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, made by the L.A.O.,
are analogous to plaints in the suit and the materials,
references and the statements transmitted by the L.A.O., as
contemplated u/s. 19 of L.A. Act with references are
analogous to the written statements. Therefore, the burden is
on the claimants to prove that the market value and the
24 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
compensation awarded by the L.A.O., to their acquired lands is
on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. The
learned counsel in support of the argument, placed the
reliance on the ruling reported in ILR 1985 Karnataka 2734
(In the case of Special L.A.O. Vs. Laxman Radavo Gawada).
The relevant portion runs as under:
"7. As to the first of the above contentions,
.............
In such a proceeding, claimant land owner is
in position of the plaintiff. The burden is upon
him to show that the compensation offered is
inadequate and that he is entitled to higher
compensation. In such a proceeding, the
application under section 18 for reference is
analogous to a plaint in a suit and the reference
and the statement that accompanies it in terms
of Section 19 are in the position of and analogous
to the written statement. The court of reference
can also permit further pleadings"
.12. Sri. MNS the learned counsel for the claimants in
the written argument as well during oral evidence, submits
that the L.A.O., ought to have awarded the market value of the
acquired land at-least at the rate mentioned in Ex.P.5, in-
respect of the acquired lands, but the L.A.O., though
considered Ex.P.5 as one of the sale instance along with other
25 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
sale instances to arrive at market value of the acquired lands,
but instead-of fixing the market value of the acquired lands as
per Ex.P.5, which is being considered at sl. No.29 in the
award, among other sale instances, has fixed the market value
of the acquired lands adopting average value of the sale
instances considered in his award, which is in not proper as
the claimants are entitle for the compensation and the market
value of their acquired lands at highest comparable sale
instances. The learned counsel in support of the argument
has placed the reliance on the ruling reported in 2012 AIR
SCW 2822 (In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd)
Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab & others). The
relevant portion runs as under:
"(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 )Market
value -Determination-Many comparable sale
transactions relied-Highest comparable exemplar
therefrom has to be accepted-Method of drawing
average of various sale deeds-Not to be adopted"
.13. Sri. MNS submits that the RW.1 during cross-
examination admits that the acquired lands of the claimants in
these references are coming within the BBMP limits, as such,
26 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
the market value of the acquired lands is more valuable and
these acquired lands are only the lands available for the
purpose for which the respondent No.1, has acquired for the
benefits of respondent No.2. Therefore, the claimants are
entitle for enhanced market value. The learned counsel in
support of the argument, placed the reliance on the ruling
reported in ILR 1985 Karnataka 1261 (In the case of Spl.
L.A.O. Vs. B.M. Krishnamurthy) (B.M. Narayanaswamy Vs.
Spl. L.A.O.) and (B.M. Ramaswamy by LRs Vs. Spl. L.A.O.) The
relevant portion runs as under:
"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act No.1 of
1894)----Section 23-Market value -Lands nearer the
Corporation limits or within the Corporation Limits
more valuable than lands outside- Acquired land
being the only land available in the vicinity for
industrial purposes acquires a special value"
.14. Sri. KBJ the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 submits that the PW.1 during his cross-examination
categorically deposed that they were growing paddy crops in
the acquired lands and surrounding lands owners whose lands
are acquired to the extent of more than 58 acres were also
27 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
growing paddy, prior to the acquisition, as such, the acquired
lands being agricultural lands, situated interior and far-away
from the land mentioned in Ex.P.5, are not entitle for
enhanced market value, since the market value fixed by the
L.A.O., is fair and proper. The learned counsel submits that
this court being reference court shall not sit as an appellant
court over the award passed by the L.A.O. fixing the market
value of the acquired lands and unless the claimants and the
parties adduce independent documentary and oral evidence,
this court shall not make use of materials and reasoning given
by the L.A.O. in his award. The learned submits that the
acquired lands are existing at-least 5 kms away from the land
sold under Ex.P.5 and the acquired lands are not having equal
and similar potentialities as got the land sold under Ex.P.5,
was possessing, as such, the market value cannot be
enhanced. The learned counsel in support of the argument,
placed the reliance on the ruling reported in (1) AIR 2013 SC
3452 (in the case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another Kantilal Manikchand Shah (Since
28 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
deceased by his LRs ) Vs. State of Maharashtra and another).
The relevant portion runs as under:
"(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) S. 18-Reference court-Not
court of appeal-Cannot enhance compensation by re-appreciating
evidence before the L.A.O. -only if claimant adduces evidence to
show that amount awarded does not represent correct market value -
compensation can be enhanced by reference court.
In a reference under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act on the
question of adequacy of compensation determined by the collector,
the burden to prove that the collector's award does not correctly
determine the amount of compensation payable to the landowner is
upon the owner concerned. It is for the claimant to prove that the
amount awarded by the collector needs enhancement, and if so, to
what extent. The claimant can do so by adducing evidence, whether
oral or documentary which the Reference court would evaluate
having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land
Acquisition Act while determining the compensation payable to the
owners. To that extent the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff
before the court. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the
amount of award by the collector does not represent the true market
value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification,
the Reference court will be helpless and will not be justified in
granting any enhancement. The court cannot go by surmises and
conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role
of an Appellate court and enhance the amount awarded by
reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the
collector.
(B) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) S. 18-Reference - Burden to
prove that market value needs to be enhanced-Discharge of-claimant
can rely upon documents produced or relied upon by defendants only
if they are either admitted by claimant or properly proved-cannot rely
upon document which was merely referred to in draft award"
(2) AIR 2014 SC 1957 (In the case of Bhule Ram Vs. Union
of India and another Rajaram and others Vs. Union of
India and another) The relevant portion runs as under:
"Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23-Compensation-market value
of land-Determination-Land of appellant acquired was situated at
29 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
distance of 6 kms., from road-While comparable lands are adjacent to
roads surrounded by hospitals and residential and commercially
developed areas- Appellant not entitled for same rate of
compensation as given to claimants of comparable lands"
.15. Sri. KBJ submits that PW.1 admits that the land
situated adjacent to the eastern boundary of Amanikere are
being for benefit of BWSSB and admits that the outer ring road
formed by BDA is passing through Sy. Nos.165, 168, 170, 71,
173 and 178 of Bellanduru Amanikere village, under the
circumstances, no prudent purchaser will pay similar value of
the consideration to the acquired lands, equal to that of the
sale consideration paid under Ex.P.5. The learned counsel
submits that the potentiality, location, development etc., which
are existing in Ex.P.5 land is not similar in the acquired lands.
Therefore, the claimants are not entitle for enhanced market
value of the acquired lands and also not entitle for the market
value at the rate mentioned in Ex.P.5. The learned counsel in
support of the argument, placed the reliance on the rulings
reported in:
(1) AIR 1997 SC 2159 (In the case of G. Ramesan Vs. State
of Kerala and another). The relevant portion runs as
under:
30 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
"Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) S. 23-
Acqisition of land-Determination-Belting-Two
categories of land acquired-One land abutting
road and other strip of land was in low lying
area-Order of High Court applying belting
system between two belts of land and
determining compensation-Is proper since no
prudent buyer would pay same rate for said
two types of land"
(2) AIR 1994 SC 1160 (In the case of M/s. Printers House
Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by LRs., and
others) with Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by LRs etc.,
Appellant Vs. M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd., etc. and
M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Masjid of village and
another, and M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M/s.
Cold Storage and Food Products and others. The
relevant portion runs as under:
"(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), s. 23-
Valuation of acquired land - Method of-
Separate plots of acquired lands with
differing features-Should not be valued at
uniform rate per unit measure"
(B) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), s. 23-
Determination of market value -comparable
sales Method of valuation - Method of
averaging market value fetched for different
lands having different features, under
previous sale deeds and awards - Not correct
- court is to consider price reflected in
sale/award pertaining to land which is closest
or nearest to acquired land.
(3) AIR 2005 SC 3467 (In the case of Ranvir Singh and
another Vs. Union of India). The relevant portion runs as
under:
31 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
"(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 65-
Secondary evidence-Admissibility-Xerox copy
of deeds of sale were marked exhibits in land
acquisition proceedings without any
objection-Objection can not be raised for first
time before supreme court.
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894). S. 51A.
Xerox copy of the deeds of sale were marked
exhibits in land acquisition proceedings
without any objection having been taken by
the respondents. Such an objection cannot,
therefore, be taken for the first time before
Supreme court. What would be their
evidentiary value may ultimately fall for
consideration by the court, but the said
deeds of sale cannot be rejected only on the
ground that only Xerox copies thereof had
been brought on records. The onus to prove
the market value as obtaining on the date of
notification was on the claimants. It was for
them to adduce evidence to prove their
claims by bringing sufficient and cogent
materials on record so as to enable the court
to determine the market value of the
acquired land as on the date of issuance of
notification under S. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act. If the claimants themselves
filed Xerox copies of the deeds of sale or
failed to examine any witness to prove the
relevant factors for determining the market
value of the land acquired with reference to
the said sale instances, they cannot now be
permitted to resile therefrom and contend
that the said documents should be totally
ignored"
32 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
.16. Admittedly, the claimants are seeking enhancement
of their acquired lands in these references and both the parties
have adduced oral and documentary evidence as discussed
above. The respondent No.2 has not filed separate statements
of objections to the protest petitions of the claimants marked
at Exs.P.1 to 4, but in view of the ratio and the principles laid
down by their Lordships in the rulings cited supra in ILR 1985
KAR 2734, the statements transmitted by the L.A.O., as
contemplated u/s. 19 of L.A. Act, accompanying to the
references made by him are analogous to the written statement
of the respondents in these references. As per the ratio and
the principles laid down by their Lordships in the ruling cited
supra, reported in 2013 SC 3452, this court is not sitting as
an appellate court over the award passed by the L.A.O.,
awarding the compensation to the acquired land and this court
has to consider the oral and the documentary evidence let-in
by the parties, in these references, u/s. 18 of L.A. Act and the
burden of proof of the claim of the claimants for enhancement
of compensation in these references is casted on them to prove
that, as on the date of 4(1) notification, the market value of the
33 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
acquired lands was more than Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet and the
market value and the compensation awarded by the L.A.O., to
their acquired lands, is on lower side. The well known methods
of determining the market value of the acquired lands are (1)
expert's opinion, (2) sales statistics method, (3) yield (income)
method and (4) sale of comparable lands or judgment of court,
in-respect of the comparable lands. During evidence of PW.1
the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.02.2008 is
marked, where-under, 12 guntas of agricultural land in
Sy.No.131/3 of Bellanduru Amanikere village is being sold for
Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The L.A.O., in his award, among other sale
instances, considered this Ex.P.5 sale instance at sl. No.29.
The L.A.O., has considered the sale instances of 3 years prior
to 4(1) notification i.e., from 01.04.2007 to 18.12.2008 and
ultimately, fixed the market value of the acquired lands, in
these references, at Rs.1,25,00,000/- per acre. The
preliminary notification for acquisition of these lands are dated
27.08.2008 and amended notification dated 12.03.2009. The
Ex.P.6 is a certified copy of map of Bellanduru Amanikere
village. The Exs.R.1 and 2 are the certified copies of Gazette
34 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
notifications dated 17.04.2007 and 03.03.2007, respectively,
marked during evidence of RW.1, showing the guidelines value
of the immovable properties fixed therein by the competent
authority, for the purpose of obtaining the stamp duty payable
on the immovable properties under Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957, in the Sub-registrar offices coming within the limitation
of BBMP. The Ex.R.3 is a certified copy of Bellanduru
Amanikere map. Except the aforesaid documentary evidence
and the oral evidence of PW.1 and RW.1, the parties have not
adduced any other documentary evidence. Therefore, the
evidence on record proves that the claimants in these
references are placing reliance on sales statistics method, in
support of their claim, for the alleged enhancement of market
value of their acquired lands and also the oral evidence of
PW.1. Their Lordships in the rulings cited supra, reported in
AIR 1994 SC 1160 in para No.7 among others observed that,
if the price under comparable sale to be taken by the court as
furnishing the 'price basis' for determination of market value of
the acquired land, the comparable sale must, firstly be
genuine, secondly it must have taken place at a time
35 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary
notification u/s. 4(1) of L.A. Act, thirdly the land sold under
sale must be the 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. Their
Lordships in the said para have also observed as to how the
court has to arrive at the proper market value of the acquired
land, in case, the comparable, lands sold are different, from
features of the acquired land in question. Therefore, it is
worth to quote the para No.7 of the said judgment, it reads as
under
"7. Where there is evidence of sales or awards
of land(s), which could be compared with the
acquired land(s), the court, as a matter of
course, adopts the 'comparable sales method of
valuation of land', in preference to other
recognized methods of valuation of lands, such
as 'capitalization of Net Income Method' or
36 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
'Expert opinion method' for determining the
market value of the ac(s). 'comparable sales
method' is the most favoured method, since the
prices paid within a reasonable time in
bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the
very acquired land or a portion thereof or of the
lands adjacent to those acquired and
possessing similar advantages, could furnished
to the court the 'price basis' for determination
of the market value of the acquired land, in
that, there can be no better evidence of what
the willing purchaser would pay for the
acquired land if it had been sold in the open
market at the time of publication of preliminary
notification. Evidence of prices fetched by sales
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 to be taken by the court as
furnishing the 'price basis' for determination of
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 u/s. 4(1) of L.A. Act,
thirdly the land sold under sale must be the
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.
However, if any differing feature or factor in a
land covered by comparable sale admits of
37 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
adjustment in terms of money, depending on
whether it is plus factor or minus factor, the
market value of the acquired land is
determined either by increasing its price or
decreasing its price vis-à-vis the price fetched
for land under comparable sale. What applies
to comparable sale, equally applies to
comparable award, if such award is relied upon
as that furnishing a price-basis for
determination of the market value of the land,
cannot be disputed. Thus, the best evidence
for determining the market value of the
acquired land could be an authentic
transaction of sale relating to the very acquired
land or a portion thereof or any other land
which could be favourably compared with the
acquired land. The same would be the position
when the available evidence relates to land
covered by a previous award"
.17. The claimants have not examined the vendor and
vendee of Ex.P.5 the certified copy of sale deed dated
26.07.2008. This Ex.P.5 is a sale instance executed just few
months prior to 4(1) notification, in this case. The respondent
No.2 has not raised objections to mark this Ex.P.5. This apart,
in the proceedings in these references u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, there
is no need to examine either vendor or vendee of Ex.P.5, in
view of the ratio and principles laid down by their Lordships in
the ruling reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 (in the case of Trishala
38 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another). The
relevant portion runs as under:
"J. Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S.23-Compensation-Ground for
rejection of exemplar-Non-examination of vendor or vendee to prove it in
court, held, not a ground to reject exemplar.
Cement Crporation of India Vs. Purya (2004)8 SCC 270, Chimanlal
Hargovinddas Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751;State of
Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, (2001)6 SCC 254 relied on
A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Venkaiah (1997)10 SCC 128, held overruled"
Therefore, in view of the ratio and the principles laid down by
their Lordships in the ruling cited supra, though the vendor
and vendee of Ex.P.5 are not examined, then also this Ex.P.5 is
permissible to consider this Ex.P.5 as furnishing price basis
for determination of market value of the acquired lands, in
question, since the sale under Ex.P.5 is an agricultural land
and the acquired lands in these references are also
agricultural lands and the agricultural land sold under Ex.P.5
and the acquired lands in these references are of same
Bellanduru Amanikere village but existing at some distance.
.18. The PW.1 L. Govinda Reddy during cross-
examination deposed that he is a holder of B.E., Electrical and
39 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
Electronics degree and also a holder of MBA, PG degree in
Safety Management and serving in a private company. The
PW.1 deposed that Panathuru village is existing towards
eastern side of Bellanduru Amanikere village, whereas, the
Yammaluru and Munnekolalu are existing towards western
side of Bellanduru Amanikere village and Kundalli are existing
towards western side of Bellanduru Amanikere village. He
deposed that the distance of Amanikere limits from east to
west is measuring about 5-6 kms. He admits that the lands
situated adjacent to the eastern boundary of Amanikere village
are being acquired for the benefit of BWSSB. The perusal of
Ex.R.3 certified copy of Bellanduru Amanikere village map, as
deposed by RW.1 the acquired lands in these references are
situated towards extreme eastern edge of Bellanduru
Amanikere village, marked at Ex.R.3(a). The Sy.No.131 of
Bellanduru Amanikere village, is marked at Ex.R.3(b), which is
existing towards western side. The lands covered under Ex.P.5
is a portion of Sy.No.131, marked at Ex.R.3(b). There is no
dispute that the land sold under Ex.P.5 is comprised in
Sy.No.131 of Bellanduru Amanikere village i.e, in the land
40 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
marked at Ex.R.3(b), in Ex.R.3 map. The outer-ring road
formed by BDA is passing through Sy. Nos. 165, 168, 170,
171, 172, 173 and 178 of Bellanduru Amanikere village, which
is also admitted by PW.1 during cross-examination. The said
outer-ring road passing through the aforesaid survey numbers
is marked at Ex.R.3(c), in Ex.R.3 map. As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the PW.1 in his
cross-examination categorically deposed that prior to 2008, the
claimants, as well, the land holders of 58 acres, which lands
also acquired, situated adjacent to their acquired lands, were
growing paddy crops and crops in the said acquired lands.
The copy of the award, as well, the Ex.P.5 sale instance
evidences that the acquired lands in these references, as well,
the land sold under Ex.P.5 were agricultural lands. This
apart, the evidence of PW.1, leads to the unmistakable fact
that the claimants in these references were growing paddy
crops in their acquired lands, prior to the notification u/s. 4(1)
of L.A. Act and as per the evidence of PW.1, the land holders of
58 acres, which are also acquired, situated surrounding the
acquired lands of claimants, were growing crops in the said
41 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
lands. These pieces of oral evidence of PW.1, Ex.P.5 and the
materials on record, proves that as on the date of 4(1)
notification, the acquired lands of the claimants were
agricultural lands. The PW.1 during cross-examination
deposed that their acquired lands are situated towards eastern
side of the ring road. The PW.1 during cross-examination
deposed that may be land in Sy.No.131/3 is near to the outer
ring road and also situated towards western side of the outer-
ring road.
.19. The RW.1 during cross-examination deposed that in
the year 2007-08, he was not in service in BWSSB and joined
the service in BWSSB, in the year 2010. The RW.1 during
cross-examination categorically deposed that he does not know
the topographical development and constructions which were
on the acquired lands at the time of acquisition. He deposed
that he is not aware as to the market value of the acquired
lands, as on the date of 4(1) notification. The RW.1 deposed
that they have got tested soil of the acquired lands and not
produced the soil test reports in these references. He deposed
42 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
that except the soil test of acquired lands, they have not got
tested the soil of any other lands existing surrounding to the
acquired lands. He denied the suggestion that nature of the
acquired lands and nature of the land in Sy.No.131/3 of
Bellanduru Amanikere village, is one and the same and having
same potentiality. The RW.1 admits that since 2006-07, the
Sy.No.131/3, surrounding areas and acquired lands are
merged in the limits of BBMP. The PW.1 during cross-
examination deposed that prior to 2008, the area of Yamaluru
village was developed and software companies were established
in Yamaluru village limits. He also admits that the lands
abutting to the ring-roads fetching higher market value and
the lands, which are far-away from the ring-road were fetching
lower market value. The perusal of Ex.R.3 map of Bellanduru
Amanikere village, evidences that Yamaluru village is near and
adjacent to the land sold under Ex.P.5 as the Sy.No.131 of
Bellanduru Amanikere village marked at Ex.R.3, is just
towards eastern side boundary of Yamaluru village. The ring
road marked at Ex.R.3(c) is very near to the land covered
under Ex.P.5 as the land sold under Ex.P.5 is part and parcel
43 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
of land in Sy.No.131/3 marked at Ex.R.3(b) in Ex.R.3. The
acquired lands in these references are said to be situated at
Ex.R.3(a), which is far-away from Ex.P.3(c) ring road towards
eastern side. The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.R.3 and also the
Ex.R.3(a), Ex.R.3(b) and Ex.R.3(c) evidences that the acquired
lands are far-away from Ex.R.3(c) ring road and also Yamaluru
village towards eastern interior side in Ex.R.3 and whereas, the
land sold under Ex.P.5 is very near and close to the eastern
side of Yamaluru village and also near to the ring road marked
at Ex.R.3(c). As deposed by PW.1, the lands in Yamaluru
village and surrounding lands were well developed prior to
2007-08 and software companies were also adjacent to
Yamaluru village limits. Admittedly, the preliminary
notifications of the acquired lands in these references are
issued in the year 2008. The RW.1, Assistant Executive
Engineer in K-1-1 Sub-division, has deposed that the soil of
the acquired lands is loose and they have tested the soil of the
acquired lands, but has not produced any report for having
tested the soil of the acquired lands. The evidence of RW.1 is
also clear that they have not tested the soil of surrounding
44 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
lands of acquired lands, under the circumstances, it is not
credit worthy to believe the evidence of PW.1, to the extent that
the soil of the acquired lands was loose and not fit for
construction of buildings etc. The oral evidence of PW.1 is
clear that the boundary limits of Bellanduru Amanikere village
from eastern side to western side is 5-6 kms. The evidence of
PW.1 also evidences that he is a holder of B.E. graduate, as
well, holder of MBA, P.G. degree in Safety Management.
Therefore, it is made clear that the PW.1 is very much
competent witness to depose about the distance and to verify
the map Ex.R.3, under the circumstances, there is no reason
to disbelieve or discard his evidence that Bellanduru
Amanikere village boundary limits from eastern side to western
side, measures 5-6 kms. If the evidence of PW.1, in this aspect
is to be believed, then, the oral evidence of RW.1 and the
distance being seen between Ex.R.3(a), Ex.R.3(c) and Ex.R.3(b)
and the oral evidence of PW.1 makes it clear that the acquired
lands of the claimants in these references are at-least 3-4 kms,
interior towards, eastern side from Bellanduru Amanikere
village limits. The acquired lands of the claimants are
45 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
towards eastern interior side from Yamaluru village, and the
land sold under Ex.P.5 which is comprised in Sy.No.131,
marked at Ex.R.3(b). The land sold in Ex.P.5 is towards
western side of ring-road marked at Ex.R.3(c) and very near
and close to the developed lands and areas said to be existed
in Yamaluru village. Therefore, it is made clear that the land
sold under Ex.P.5 is having more non-agricultural potentiality
and very developed area, wherein, the software companies are
existing in the said land. Under the circumstances, in view of
the ratio and the principles laid down by their Lordships, in
the ruling reported in AIR 2014 SC 1957 cited supra, the value
of the acquired lands of the claimants shall not be equal to the
value of the land sold under Ex.P.5. At the same time, the
acquired lands are situated far-away from well developed area
of Yamaluru village and the land sold under Ex.P.5 towards
western side of the ring road, under the circumstances, in view
of the ratio and the principles laid down by their Lordships in
the ruling reported in AIR 1997 SC 2159, the value of the land
sold under Ex.P.5, may not be the same as the market value of
the acquired lands of claimants in these references, since,
46 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
potentiality, advantages that were available in the land sold
under Ex.P.5 and the acquired lands are quite different and
features of the acquired lands of the claimants are also
different. The appreciation of the evidence on record leads to
the only probability that advantage, potentiality that was
available in the acquired lands of claimants are some what
interior than the potentiality, advantages attached to the land
sold under Ex.P.5. Therefore, the market value of the acquired
lands, cannot be considered as the same market value as that
of the land sold under Ex.P.5. However, the evidence of RW.1
evidences that since 2006-07 the acquired lands are within
BBMP limits. Therefore, it is made clear that prior to the
preliminary notification the acquired lands were within the
limits of BBMP and there is no dispute in that regard.
Therefore, as per the ratio and the principles laid down by
their Lordships in the ruling reported in ILR 1985 KAR 1261
cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
claimants, the market value of the acquired lands which were
within BBMP limits, were having more value than the lands
situated outside BBMP limits. No-doubt, the land sold under
47 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
Ex.P.5 also within BBMP limits, as on the date of preliminary
notification issued in-respect of acquired lands in these
references. Therefore, in view of the ratio and the principles
laid down by their Lordships in the rulings cited supra, relied
upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, reported
in (1) AIR 2014 SC 1957; (2) AIR 1997 SC 2159 and (3) AIR
1994 SC 1160, the market value of the acquired lands cannot
be equivalent to the land sold under Ex.P.5, for the reasons
discussed above. At the same time, the evidence on record
discussed above evidences that the acquired lands are having
non-agricultural potentiality and somewhat far away from the
land sold under Ex.P.5, but within BBMP limits, under the
circumstances, though the market value of the acquired lands
cannot be equal to the lands sold under Ex.P.5, but the market
value of the acquired lands is required to be enhanced, than
the market value fixed by the L.A.O. This apart, the award of
the L.A.O., evidences that the L.A.O. on verifying the sale
instances was of the opinion that the market value of the
acquired lands of the claimants is Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre,
but as per the decision taken by the Government, the market
48 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
value of the acquired lands is fixed at Rs.1,25,00,000/- per
acre, but no justifiable reasons are forth-coming as to how the
market value of the acquired lands has been fixed at
Rs.1,25,00,000/- per acre in the award. The appreciation of
the evidence on record leads to the only probability that only
the sale instance marked at Ex.P.5 adduced on behalf of the
claimants is not sufficient to arrive at the market value of the
acquired lands. Therefore, this court, in view of the ratio and
the principles laid down by their Lordships in the ruling
reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 (in the case of Trishala Jain and
another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another), it is just to fix
market value of acquired land on principle of guesstimation.
The relevant portion of said ruling reads as under:
"A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S.23-Compenasation - Determination of
market value- principle of guesstimation, held, is applicable to land
acquisition proceedings- valuation.
B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S.23-Compensaiton-Determination of market
value -principle of guesstimation-objectives and principles controlling
application of "guesstimate", stated-whatever method of determining
compensation is applied by court, its result, held, should always be
reasonable, just and fair as that is the purpose sought to be achieved under the
scheme of the Act-Guesswork has to be used with greater element of caution-
It is intended to bridge the gap between calculated compensation and actual
compensation that claimants may be entitled to receive as per facts of a given
case to meet the ends of justice-Thus for instance, if parties do not bring on
record any evidence, court cannot award compensation merely on basis of
49 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
imagination, conjecture, etc., -valuation-obligations Law-
Compensation/Damages-words and "phrases-"Guess", "guesswork",
"guesstimate", "guesstimation"
Held:
More often than not, it is not possible to fix the compensation with exactitude
or arithmetic accuracy. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the
fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation
that is required to be paid to the persons interested in the acquired land.
The concept of "guesswork" is not unknown to various fields of law. It has
been applied in cases relating to insurance, taxation, compensation under the
Motor vehicles Act as well as under the Labour Laws.
Kamta Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1976)3SCC 772, Land Acquisition
Officer Vs. Karigowda (2010) 5 SCCC 708;(2010)2 SCC (Civ) 531, relied on
CCE Vs. Rajasthan Spg and Wvg,Mills Ltd., (2007)13 SCC 129, considered.
Where the parties have not brought on record any evidence, then the court
will not be in a position to award compensation merely on the basis of
imagination, conjecture, etc. There are different methods of computation of
compensation payable to the claimants, for example it can be based upon
comparable sale instances, awards and judgments relating to the similar or
comparable lands, method of averages, yearly yields with reference to the
revenue earned by the land, etc., whatever method of determining the
compensation is applied by the court, its result should always be reasonable,
just and fair as that is the purpose sought to be achieved under the scheme of
the Act.
The Court may apply some guesswork before it could arrive at a final
determination, which is in consonance with the statutory law as well as the
principles stated in the judicial pronouncements. This principle is only
intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and the
actual compensation that the claimants may be entitled to receive as per the
facts of a given case to meet the ends of justice.
Principles controlling the application of "guesstimate" are:
(a) wherever the evidence produce by the parties, is not sufficient to
determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be
resorted to.
(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case
is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to
the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further,
this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under
sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.
50 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
Charan Dass Vs. H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority, (2010) 13
SCC 398: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 933, relied on
"Guess" as understood in its common parlance is an estimate without any
specific information while "calculations" are always made with reference to
specific data. "Guesstimate" is an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork
and calculations and it is a process in itself. At the same time "guess" cannot
be treated synonymous to "conjecture", "Guess" by itself may be a statement
or result based on unknown factors while "conjecture" is made with a very
slight amount of knowledge, which is just sufficient to incline the scale of
probability. "Guesstimate" is with higher certainty than mere "guess" or a
"conjecture" per se.
All that is required from a court is that such guesswork has to be used with
greater element of caution and within the determinants of law declared by the
legislature or by the courts from time to time. By applying the principle of
guesstimate and considering all other facts and circumstances the market
value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre as on the
date of the issuance of the notification u/s. 4(1) of the Act."
.20. This court on appreciating the evidence on record
as discussed above and also in view of the ratio and the
principles laid down by their Lordships in the ruling cited
supra, reported in (2011)6 SCC 47, is of the considered
opinion that the market value of the acquired lands of the
claimants in these references is liable to be enhanced at
Rs.1,75,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.1,25,00,000/- per
acre, awarded by the L.A.O. with a statutory benefits and
accordingly, same is awarded. The evidence on record
discussed above and the reasons assigned by this court
evidences that the claimant s proved that the market value
51 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014,
102/2014 & 103/2014
fixed by the respondent No.1/L.A.O., in-respect of the acquired
lands in these references are unjust and inadequate and on
lower side. Therefore, the claimants in these references are
entitle for enhanced market value at the rate of
Rs.1,75,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.1,25,00,000/- per
acre, awarded by the L.A.O., for the acquired lands with all
statutory benefits. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the
affirmative and point No.3 is answered accordingly for
consideration.
.21. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on the afore-
mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The References made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, in L.A.C. Nos. 100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 and 103/2014 are partly allowed.
The claimants in L.A.C. Nos. 100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 and 103/2014, are entitle for market value of 52 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 & 103/2014 their acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1, 75,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.1,25,00,000/- per acre, awarded by the S.L.A.O./respondent No1. (details of acquired lands mentioned in the body of the judgment).
The claimants are entitle for additional market value u/s. 23(1-A) of L.A. Act, at the rate of 12% p.a., on the enhanced market value from the date of publication of preliminary notification u/s. 4(1) of L.A. Act, till the date of dispossession or the date of award, which-ever is earlier.
The claimants are entitle for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value as per section 23(2) of L.A. Act.
The claimants are entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of 1 year, from the date of taking over possession of lands and interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire amount.
The amount already paid by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., shall be 53 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 & 103/2014 deducted in the enhanced market value now awarded.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in each cases.
Draw Award accordingly, in each cases.
This original common judgment be retained in L.A.C. No.101/2014 and copies of the same shall be kept in L.A.C. Nos.100/2014, 102/2014 and 103/2014. (Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2018.) (I.F. BIDARI), II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : L. Govinda Reddy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Exs.P.1-4 : Applications filed before S.L.A.O., u/s. 18 of L.A. Act Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.02.2008 Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of map of Bellanduru Amanikere 54 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 & 103/2014
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1 : K.V. Chethan
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Exs.R.1-2 : Certified copies of Gazette notifications Ex.R.3 : Certified copy of map of Bellanduru Amanikhane village Ex.R.3(a) : The relevant portion in Ex.R.3 showing the place of acquired lands in these References Ex.R.3(b) : Relevant portion in Ex.R.3 with regard to land in Sy.No.131, in which land sold under Ex.P.5 comprised Ex.R.3(c) : Portion in Ex.R.3 showing the location of ring road formed in Sy. Nos.164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174 of Bellanduru Amanikhane village.
(I.F. BIDARI), II ACC & Sessions 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 Date: 2018.09.28 10:34:25 IST BIDARI 55 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 & 103/2014 56 L.A.C. NOs.100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014 & 103/2014