Karnataka High Court
Venkatappa @ Annayappa Since Decd By Lrs vs Additional Land Acquisition Officer on 6 January, 2011
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.G.Ramesh
E IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE am DAY OF JANUAR¥fl"éCi1 a pnzsmuw THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE"K;L 1M#§@fiR#$fi?x AND _ '_T, _ .A. , _- THE HGN'BLE MR. Jfi$T1c$"H,¢; EAfi§éfis MISC. FIRST A9§mA;,fiQ[?%39j/2605 (LAC) BETWEEN: ' v v" Venkatappa.@ $nnayéppéj Since deceased by L.Rs. W 1. G.v.vefika£égh 5/ouiaté" ' Venkatapéa @TAnnayappa;"" Sin¢e'deCeaSéd"byVL§Rs. 1(a) G.V.Ravi Kumé: 570 late 4$fV,Venkatésh, 37 years, ;gVi(b) G.§QSfiashi Kumar s/o late » s' V, G,-.Véhgatesh, 33 years, 1(¢§ ,vij5ya w/o late Vefikatesh, 55 years, ' G.v *Q.V; u *iXd}_G.V!Hemalatha d/0 late '.V'G,V.Venkate5h, 35 years, ":A§l are Rfat No.54/2, yv , "Geddalahalli, RMV II Staga, ",_:vBangalore~94& ink, '.7 2. G.V.Kodandarama s/0 late Venkatappa @ Annayappa, Since dead by L.Rs. 2(a) Bhagyamma w/o late G.V.Kodandarama, 50 years, 2(b) K.Hema d/o late G.V. V _ Kodandarama w/o Narayan". Prasad, ' * 2(0) K.Krupa d/o late Q;V¥$bdanda£éma,= w/o H.G.Dharin¢esh_dfQ"laté G.V.Kodandaramu, 27ayea;s;f," All are R/atQ$o,77} :_J ,_» ,u . Geddalahalii, REV II Stage,' """ Banga1ora+94a""* '*~"< "V7 ' APPELLANTS (Advocafié S}: M K fihivarém for L.Rs. of A-2) (Advocate Spi Teshu Mishra for L.Rs. of A-1) 1. A@dl,.Lafid_3Cquisition Officer, _ Béngalope Dévelopment Authority, ",BanqélQre, ?1.Thé"dém@£$sioner, 'BangalG:Q7Deve1opment Authqfity, Bangalore. afi RESPONDENTS
. _;{Advdéate Sri.n.L.Jagadeesh for R~2) ~ This Misc. First Appeal is filed under V ",_Sec.54(1} of The Land Acquisition Act against the 'judgment and award dated 23.8.2065 passed in LAC m«''''\ .
:5' \ \ '3 __'9 No.72/99 on the file of the City Civil & Sessions Judge, Eangalore, allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking further enhaneement of compensation' "'""""""l This Appeal is coming on for final hearing thlse day, MANJUNATH J. delivered :the"'£ol.lowin"g_:_ _ J U D.:G-.__M Being not satisiled filth the aeternination of the market value by £a¢'¢;£fi élnil Judge, Bangalore in LAC 72/Q9l#nateg1 é3;hiéBOhif appellants have preferred ;th§sVha§§¢a;plse§klng7 enhancement of the market value adfindioated hf the reference court.
2. We have.heare the eounsel for the appellants and the"CQunsel for the respondent. .3j:eTheK facts leading to this case are as 'l~_phereunder:"l BEA tnotified the land of the appellants "tmeasnring 2~l6 acres situatee in NQu54%2 of hV_Qe&§alahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk for the '"m_fermation of RMV II Stage under preliminary sfif;
5 4 notification dated 24.2.1977. Final not.i_ficat:'.on was issued on 31.8.1978. Award was the LAO determining the market value uiof Rs.15, O00/-- per acre. Since'""appella_ptis reference, a reference was .s«ent_VA.to Judge, Bangalore under Before the LAO, appellants 'c_lai"med the market value of the land at the rate ;Rs_.,:3--f_'l.ac_s per acre. In order to proye--Lt"ne appellants, on behalf of G.V.Shash:i.};umar was examined" upon Exs.P---1 to 16.
On benalf Second Division Assistant V'~~-":B.M.Cik3caiah was examined, ,_.__.wh,om xE'x's-----.«R~--1 & 2 came to be marked. I{,eif.erence»i'c'our'i< after considering the evidence let in ibyithe.iifzarties, determined the market value at rate"; of Rs .70, 000/'- per acre. Accordingly, .__refere':_1ce was allowed in part and it was further that the claimants are entitled for other iV""..,__istatutory benefits under the LA Act. Being not 2" ,-
3)' "
3, 5 satisfied. with 'the same, present appeal sis filed for seeking enhancement of market value. d*?"
4. The main contention of the appellants' counsel before us is that reference court did not gonsider.= Ex.P--l6 wherein in respect of the sane netitioation land situated in the ad§odn§nod"ee#lade by name Chikkamarenahalli was acouered tor the same purpose and. in. LAC 219/357_r§£eré§eg'°¢s§§L" had. determined the market jaiee at the eetebofdRs.24/~ per square yard consrderdno the igfig eednired was capable of convertdne: into Vresidential sites and that the award passed 'in has been subsequently confirmed by' the vbivision Bench in MFA 1643/91 :W_datedu §§}§_l995. He further contends that the trial ocfirt has determined the market value at the Vt rate %off Rs§70/M per acre relying upon Ex.P~10, uRbhjndgment"passed in LAC 383/?2 in respect the land paeqniredg for the establishment of Central Eewer :'_:;g;~.~;d. He further contends that LAC 219/85 dwreference court has determined the market value at {E the rate of Rs.24/~ per square yard which amounts to Rs.l,l6,l60/* per acre and in the said case EDA has also given one site per acre free of costs to the claimants therein. Therefore; _if* the ;trial l court had considered the ya1¢e_¢g the srte.allotted to the land looser in addition to the cofifiensatlon determined at the rate of fisléfiff per"square yard, market value would he fiat less than Rs.2 lacs per acre as (M1 the date of the acdulsition. In the circumstances; h§§;ééua$ts this court to allow the aPPeal. . """ *-d"
5. Though the*a§neliafit had claimed Rs.3 lacs as market value for the lands acquired before the LAO, tin"the firesegt appeal, appellants have restricted their claim @lRs.l,5O,0O0/M per acre. He further ldcontefids, that though the subject matter of LAC "'Ql2@§£8§ via an agricultural land situated in 4Chlkkamarenahalli village, market value of the jtroperty was more potential than the land situated l"d in Chikkamarenahalli since Geddalahalli is situated 7 more nearer to Sadashivanagar and situated in front of the developed institutions like Mgfiffiamaieh Medical College & Hospital, M.S.Ramaieh'Engineering College and other various :i:n'st'itu'if.ions':v'<and--f2it=« is the heart of Bangalore c;ty\,_;t§£§f5g§ he reduests the court to determine the marhet ralue aonsidering the judgment passed in LAC"ri9§S as Fer Er.P~16 and taking into consideirehtioani'V;:'th%'V:. allotted to 1and~losers in the said oaseft¢p'?r
6. Per coa;rg;_fi£{p;£}J§gade$5, counsel appearing for the BEA bdggénds that the compensation awarded by 'the reference {c§fix§" is just and. proper since reference_ court" has determined the market value Zhrelied upon the document produced by the claimant as per Erk?wlQf when the appellants have relied Vhgpon WEx5P~lO and if the reference court has ulhhdetermined the market value based on the document lreliedw upon by the claimant, this court cannot fllightly interfere with such judgment and therefore Alfie requests the court to dismiss the appeal. <3 5
7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be determined by this court is this appeal is:
"Whether the market value""determinede hyf the» reference court is just and proper and does it requires any interference?"r * ' * « V" "
8. Except the evidence uiof _V?W41;id respondent virtually has not let afiy evidence except producing copy of the award and saluationWnete prepared by the LAO in order to determine the market value.
9. It is not in dispfité that the land is acquired for the £o;mat:§sfa§_§:¢s;igious laywout which is known as Rafi Mahel Viles II Stage. By the time iand pfiémflidotified,' for acquisition, entire sazeauaaingg» sf _Geddalahal1i village was well- i",developed and hes been considered as developed area ices the ssme is situated in the midst of M.S.Ramaiah fMedicsi°g College & Hospital; University of "iAgrice;tsre and Veterinary Sciences and next to Vd*.Sadashivanagar which is only one posh layout in se G Bangalore. The existence of these educational institutions and development of City is '$5; _in dispute. It is also not in dispute same layout land situated in the adjoining yillage' known as Chikkamarenahalli has also been aceuifed and notified. In order to show the loeation oft Chikkamarenahalli andf.GeddalanaIli holaimants have relied upon Ex.P~14, filan of fiangaloze City. On Perusal of .$R,P'?§""efii§.;m~is¥¢; clear that Chikkamarenahaliifl:¢omea}Laftetlfiéeddalahalli and Geddalahalli id situated in between Bangalore City and Chittafiazenafiallifidfig . In other words, Geddalahalli is mote deyeloped layout in Bangalore andfl viftually inw the heart of the City of aafiga;5ae.,i»' lxrlfia Counsel'.fiot the respondent does not dispute ""that"in reeyect of the land acquired under the same Rdhotifiicetion of Chikkamarenahalli, reference eeurt las-pet Ex.Pw16 has determined the market value at /wmthe rate of Rs 24/~ per square yard. If the same m is converted into acre, reference court has determined the market value at Chikkamarenahalli at Rs.1,16;l60/W per acre. It is also net ifildienute that the said judgment has been confirmed by the? Division Bench of this cdurtfl<' 2Therefere:W:thei"
determination of the market va1de.offltfig_1find3 at Chikkamarenahalli village_h§g.b¢poeée£i%%}. It is also not in dispute that in addition to awarding of compensation at_ the "rage gag lR%fé§;~ per square yard, a f;ee_1§i§e'laaé_ aleohiheen given to land loosere»Wcfilthihkafiarenahaili as an ex--gratia. While value of Geddalahalli, it is no doubt true that reference court has relied "u§on the judgeent passed in LAC 383/72 which has been 'relied*¥n;on by the appellants. Appellants 'iVVe hafie relied ufion Ex.?--l0 to Show that the adjoining flwnnproperties were developed prior to the acquisition "',a5d, Central Power Grid, by acquiring" land» in LAC dwe383f72 and he has also relied upon the said 'i%, document to show that the actual development of the E 3 property in and around the village and he has mainly relied upon Ex.P~16 which land was galso acquired under the same notificationgt' _Learfied:
Judge has not assigned any ~ reason " forg .fiot' considering Ex.Pwl6 which haéivfiaéfi 'c§hr;§a§aj fig this court. According tflj as, "even nthofigh; the appellants relied upon &Ex:$viO{ hitm.was more appropriate for' the rererenoe}'eonrh',to rely 'upon Ex.P--16 since lane acgnrrefi en the nresent case and the land aqqfiirefifiafinfiég, E%§ga1EW are under one notificat;on=an§ tor the eafie"$urpose. Therefore, we are of the Vteé that noneconsideration of Ex.P~ 16 by the trial court requires to be interfered by v_'=S> za.=a>?.j°5'*o1?':ii::.91y;V"" 'w----e«-«hold that Ex.P--16 should have been the beers for determining the market value of 'tnghe lane by the reference court.
hhiifthwhen. we are holding that Ex.P~l6 would. have ha heen'the basis for determining the market value and twhen"the reference Court has awaréed at the rate of "%RéZ24;m per square yard which works out to E if-:
Rs.1,16,160/-, we are also required to consider the value of the site which has been given land loosers under Ex P-16. If the value QS the site is considered, we are of the opi:iion_-"itf1*at.tithe' cvlai.;fi3.p made by the appellant at the rate of Rs.iiSQfUQ0/;V"
per acre is just and proper. :gd¢O;¢%h§%?iV%e hold that reference court has act determifiad {he market value based on the e§ideheepietflih;hy the appellant and we deter:/?i'I'»"~":_ t1F!'e"'ii.at the rate of Rs.1,5o,oeQ/4 poi acrer_ ,;Tr'
12. In~"th& yzeofiltj. the" appeal is allowed with costs. Vj Judgmefit, aha 'award passed in LAC 72/99 dated 23.af2oo5 is hereby modified holding that the '"claimants§appeiia»ts are also entitled to claim benefits in accordance with the LA Séfg §§§§E Safl §§B$§ iVi""R£e7e11i