Bangalore District Court
In Both Cases vs In Both Cases on 3 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2019.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.43/2016 C/W L.A.C.
No.31/2017
CLAIMANT IN BOTH CASES:
Sri. Vinod Kumar K
S/o Sri. A.D. Kumaraswamy,
61 years, Residing at No.106, Wheelers road,
Cox Town, Bengaluru-560 005.
(By Sri.DNM, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT IN BOTH CASES:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BBMP,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.NRJ, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The reference in L.A.C. No.43/2016 submitted by
the respondent under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter called as L.A Act) for determination of
enhancement of compensation in-respect of acquired
property.
2 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.2. The reference in L.A.C. No.31/2017 submitted
by the respondent under Section 64 of the Right to Fair
Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred as New L.A. Act 2013).
.3. Initially the L.A.C. No.43/2016 referred before
this court on 13.10.2015. As per the order of the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.35605/2015 and
W.P. No.126/2016, the respondent once-again submitted
the reference in L.A.C. No.31/2017 before this court on
06.02.2017 under Section 64 of New L.A. Act, 2013.
.4. As per the records, both the references filed
before this court in-respect of the same property,
notification and award. As per the memo filed by the
petitioner in L.A.C. No.31/2017, with the consent of the
respondent's side, this court clubbed L.A.C. No.31/2017
in L.A.C. No.43/2016 for common evidence and
judgment.
3 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.5. Exercising powers confirmed under Section 51
of New L.A. Act, 2013, the notification No.KE-05 REH
2014 (P-3) dated 13.07.2017 issued by the Government of
Karnataka, the Presiding Officer of this court has
appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Authority
contemplated under Section 64 of Act 2013.
.6. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The claimant is the absolute owner of the property
bearing BBMP No.54, PID No.66-1-54, CTS No.224,
situated at Hosur main road, Madiwala, corporation
Division No.35, ward No.66, Bengaluru. This property
totally measuring 9688 sq.ft in the form of trapezium
consisting of a vacant site with old structure having a
super built area of 1000 sq.ft consisting of 5 shops in the
ground floor and office rooms in the 1st floor. It is corner
site and commercial property. The petitioner derived this
property by virtue of registered relinquishment deed
dated 09.02.1987 from his mother. The name of
petitioner entered in the revenue records. It is stated that
S.L.A.O., BBMP (respondent) issued preliminary
4 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
notification for acquisition of property of the claimant for
the purpose of widening of Hosur main road. Preliminary
notification was issued on 16.07.2011, final notification
was issued on 03.11.2012 and award notice issued
on18.02.2015. In the acquisition proceedings, the
portion of the land acquired was shown as 245 sq.ft, out
of the property of the petitioner. Though in the
preliminary and final notification as well in the award, it
is mentioned that the property acquired by the
respondent to the extent of 245 sq.ft, the respondent
acquired more than the notified area. He has not paid
the compensation in accordance with the guidance value
and market value prevailing in the area. The petitioner
has raised objections for deduction of tax for a sum of
Rs.1,33,121/- on the award amount of Rs.13,27,231/-.
It is opposed to the said Act. It is stated that as per the
objections filed by the petitioner, re-survey has been
conducted. In the survey report it is mentioned that to
the extent of 71 sq. meters or 769 sq.ft has been taken in
excess of the land notified by the respondent. The
5 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
respondent in his letter dated 06.07.2015 has admitted
that even though excess land has been acquired than the
notified land, they do not have authority to compensate
the claimant in-respect of alleged excess land.
.7. It is stated that aggrieved the above said order
dated 06.07.2015, the petitioner had filed W.P.
No.35605/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka. On 08.09.2015 the Hon'ble Court directed
the respondent to constitute and establish an authority
and to consider the grievance of the claimant within the
period of 9 weeks. But the respondent had failed to
comply the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.126/2016. On
10.01.2017 the Hon'ble Court allowed the said writ
petition and directed the authority to consider the claim
of petitioner for passing an award in lieu of acquisition.
It is stated that for clarification about constituting
authority under the said Act, the claimant has filed
another W.P. No.30332/2017. On 21.07.2017 the said
6 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
W.P. was allowed and directed this court to consider the
case of the claimant in accordance with law i.e., Right to
Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.
.8. It is stated that the claimant is the absolute
owner of the property bearing BBMP No.54 of Madivala, it
totally measuring 4800 sq.ft, consisting of a vacant site
with old structure having super built area of 1000 sq.ft.
The respondent has acquired the land to the extent of
1014 sq.ft belongs to the petitioner. It is stated that the
respondent has not notified and passed an award to the
excess land acquired by them to the extent of 769 sq.ft.
The petitioner had challenged the same before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition. In the
said Writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed the
authority to consider all aspects of the matter pertaining
to the land belongs to the petitioner. It is stated that the
respondent is liable to pay total compensation of
Rs.6,65,86,440/- to the claimant under various heads as
7 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
mentioned in the claim petition. Hence, the petitioner
prayed for passing compensation accordingly.
.9. After service of notice, both petitioner and the
respondent have appeared through their counsel. The
respondent has filed objections to the claim petition filed
by the petitioner and it is as follows:
.10. The claim petition filed by the petitioner is
false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable.
Contents of para No.2 of the claim statement is not
within the knowledge of this respondent and petitioner
has put to strict proof of the same. The contention of the
petitioner that he has filed objections to the preliminary
and final notifications and award passed by the
respondent that the land acquired is more than the
notified area of 245 sq.ft and the payment of
compensation is not in accordance with the guidelines
value and market value prevailing in the area, deductions
of tax and opposed to the said Act is not fully true and
correct. The petitioner has to put to strict proof of the
8 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
same. It is denied that as per the objections filed by the
petitioner resurvey conducted by the respondent officials
and the claimant jointly had reported that the respondent
has taken in excess of the land notified by the respondent
in the preliminary and final notifications and also award.
It is denied that on 06.07.2015 the respondent has
admitted about conducting resurvey, acquisition of
excess land and contended that they will not be able to
compensate the claimant in-respect of the land
acquisition of excess land. It is admitted about filing of
writ petitions by the petitioner and orders passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is stated that the
petitioner has to prove the contents of para No.8 of the
claim statement. The petitioner has to prove his
ownership of the property. It is denied that without
notifying, the respondent acquired to an extent of 769
sq.ft belongs to the petitioner. From the above said
grounds, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of this
case with exemplary cost.
9 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.11. To prove his case, the petitioner himself
examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.32. The respondent has not adduced oral evidence.
But during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, two
documents got marked by the respondent's side as
Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 by way of confrontation.
.12. Heard the arguments on main by both side.
.13. The following point would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the reference made by the
respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., is valid
and in time?
2. Whether the petitioner/Claimant
proves that the respondent
acquired excess land measuring
769 sq.ft (71 sq. meter) in his
property bearing BBMP No.54,
PID No.66-1-54, CTS No.224
situated at Hosur main road as
against notified in the acquisition
proceedings?
3. Whether the petitioner/claimant
proves that the market value fixed
by the respondent/S.L.A.O., to the
acquired property is unjust and
inadequate?
10 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
4. Whether the petitioner/claimant
proves that the compensation
awarded by the
respondent/S.L.A.O. to the
acquired property is not in
consonance with the provisions of
the New L.A. Act, Act 2013?
5. Whether the petitioner/claimant is
entitle for the enhanced
compensation of its acquired
property? If so, at what rate?
6. What Order or Award?
.14. My findings to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the negative,
Point No.3 : In the partly affirmative,
Point No.4 : In the partly affirmative,
Point No.5 : In the partly affirmative,
Point No.6: As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.15. Point No.1:- Section 64 of the New L.A. Act,
reads as under:
11 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
"64. Reference to Authority,- (1)
Any person interested who has not accepted
the award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred
by the Collector for the determination of the
Authority, as the case may be, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land,
the amount of the compensation, the person
to whom it is payable, the rights of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement under
Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of
the compensation among the persons
interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of application, make a reference to the
Appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector
fails to make such reference within the period
so specified, the applicant may apply to the
Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to
direct the collector to make the reference to it
within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds
on which objection to the award is taken;
Provided that every such application shall
be made:-
(a) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the
time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the
Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector
under Section 21, or within six months
from the date of the Collector's award,
whichever period shall first expire;
Provided further that the Collector may
entertain an application after the expiry of
12 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
the said period, within a further period of
one year, if he is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within the
period specified in the first proviso"
.16. As per the records, the claimant/petitioner is
the owner of the property bearing BBMP No.54, PID
No.66-1-54, CTS No.224, situated at Hosur main road,
Madiwala, corporation Division No.35, Ward No.66,
Bengaluru. As per Ex.P.5 preliminary notification dated
16.07.2011, the respondent/BBMP acquired the portion
of property belongs to the petitioner measuring 245 sq.ft
for widening of Hosur main road between Silk Board
Junction and Yankey factory junction. As per Ex.P.6
final notification issued on 03.11.2012, award passed on
10.10.2014 and which has been confirmed on 06-02-
2015. After passing preliminary notification, the
petitioner has submitted the objection as per Ex.P.7 on
16.08.2011. He also filed objection to the preliminary
notification vide Ex.P.8 dated 03.11.2011. After passing
the award, Ex.R.1 of the award notice issued to the
13 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
petitioner on 18.02.2015. As per Ex.P.9 the petitioner
filed objection to the award on 18.03.2015.
.17. In the mean-time, the petitioner had filed Writ
petition No.35605/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and challenged the acquisition proceedings.
On 08.09.2015 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
passed an order and directed the respondent to consider
the representation given by the petitioner dated
18.03.2015 as objection for the purpose of Section 64 of
the 'New Land Acquisition Act' and reference would be
made by the authority, if extended reasonable time of
nine weeks. It is directed the respondent to consider the
representation dated 18.03.2015 submitted by the
petitioner as objections for the purpose of Section 64 of
the 'New Land Acquisition Act'. Ex.P.13 is certified copy of
the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in W.P.No.126/2016 dated 10.01.2017. The petitioner
had filed the said writ petition for quashing an
endorsement dated 19.10.2015 issued by the respondent.
14 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
It is mentioned in the Writ petition that the petitioner has
filed an application under Section 64 of New Act, 2013
seeking the reference of dispute to the Civil Court. But
the respondent/L.A.O. did not refer the matter to the
competent authority, because the authority as
contemplated under Section 51 of 2013 Act is not
established. As per the order passed in
W.P.No.35605/2015 dated 08.09.2015 the State
Government has established the competent authority as
contemplated under Section 51 of the Act and the L.A.O.,
was directed to refer the matter to the said authority
within 9 weeks. After establishment of the competent
authority as per section 51 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, the
S.L.A.O. has not referred the matter to the Civil Court
and issued the endorsement dated 29.10.2015. As per
the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the
Government has issued notification dated 10.01.2017
under Section 51 of New L.A. Act, 2013 and designated
the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge of each district
has been designated as the Presiding Officer of the said
15 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
authority for that district and in case, if the 1st Addl.
District and Sessions Judge is not available in any
District, then the Principal District and Sessions Judge is
designated as the Presiding Officer of the said authority.
Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed
the endorsement dated 29.10.2015, that issued by the
respondent and directed the petitioner to make fresh
reference to the authority within 3 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
.18. Ex.P.14 is the order of the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in W.P.No.30332/2017 (LA-RES) dated
21.07.2017. This petition had filed by the petitioner and
prayed for directing the respondent (State) to comply with
the order of this court in W.P.No.126/2016 and his
representation made before them. In the said writ
petition, it has been observed that as per notification
dated 31.07.2017 instead of 1st Addl. District and
Sessions Judge in Bengaluru city, the 2nd Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge has been designated as the Presiding
16 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
Officer of the authority under Section 51 of 2013, Act.
Therefore, it is directed the petitioner to take necessary
action to prosecute the case before this court i.e., 2nd
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city.
.19. From perusal of the same, it is clear that the
respondent/S.L.A.O., has passed the award on
10.10.2014 and it was confirmed on 06.02.2015. As per
Ex.R.1 award notice issued on 18.02.2015. Thereafter,
as per Ex.P.9, the petitioner filed objections to the award
on 18.03.2015 and requested the respondent to refer the
matter to the concerned court. In view of the
objections/application filed by the petitioner under
Section 64 of New L.A. Act, 2013 and the direction issued
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.35605/2015 dated 08.09.2015, the
W.P.No.126/2016 dated 10.01.2017 and
W.P.No.30332/2017 dated 21.07.2017, the respondent
referred these two petitions on 13.10.2015 and
06.02.2017 respectively. Considering the same, I come to
17 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
the conclusion that the petitioner has filed objections
before the respondent to refer the matter for
enhancement of compensation before this court is in
time. Further I come to the conclusion that after receipt
of the said objections/application by the petitioner, the
respondent referred the matter before this court is in
time. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
.20. Point No.2: As per the records, the
respondent/S.L.A.O., BBMP, Bengaluru acquired the
lands of the claimant and other 46 persons for public
purpose in the area of Madivala village attached to Hosur
road for the purpose of widening Hosur road between Silk
Board junction to Yankey Factory junction. In the
preliminary and final notifications and the award the
property of the petitioner shown in Sl.No.39. It is
mentioned that the respondent acquired portion of the
property belongs to the petitioner to the extent of 245
sq.ft (22.72 sq. meters). Ex.P.5 and 6 are the certified
copies of preliminary and final notifications. I have
18 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
perused the award passed by the S.L.A.O., BBMP dated
10.10.2014 in LAQ/CR/15/2009-2010. He has passed
award in-respect of the land acquired by them measuring
245 sq.ft. In the award particulars (Takthe) mentioned
that acquired property is measuring 245 sq.ft. It is
further mentioned in the award that, the petitioner has
filed objection that actually acquired land is measuring
500 sq.ft, joint survey conducted by the surveyor is not
correct, he has no objection to acquisition of the land
after resurvey of measurement. Copy of the statement of
the petitioner dated 09.04.2013 before the S.L.A.O.,
produced along with the award. In the statement, the
petitioner stated that actually the respondent acquired
his property measuring 500 sq.ft. In his cross-
examination, PW.1 has admitted the same. He has stated
that during the time of award proceedings, he has filed
objections and made statement before S.L.A.O., that the
acquired property is measuring 500 sq.ft. Along with
award, the respondent has produced copy of the joint
survey report and sketch. It is mentioned that in CTS
19 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
No.224, the acquired property is measuring 22.72 sq.ft
(245 sq.ft).
.21. In the claim petition and PW.1 in his
examination in chief stated that, in the preliminary and
final notification, in the award mentioned the extent of
acquired land is 245 Sq.ft. But as against the same the
respondent acquired more than notified area of 245 sq.ft.
They acquired 245 sq.feet + 769 sq.feet in total 1014
sq.feet. It is further stated that, the petitioner has filed
objection and prayed for resurvey of the property. Joint
survey conducted by the officials of the respondent
reported that an extent of 71 sq.meters. (769 sq.ft) has
been taken in excess of the land notified by the
respondent in the preliminary, final notifications and
award notice. Acquisition of excess land has been
admitted by the respondent vide there letter dated
6.07.2015 and stated that even though they acquired
excess land, they do not have authority to compensate
the petitioner. Per contra, the respondent in there
objections to main, specifically denied the above said
20 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
contention the petitioner. It is also denied that the
petitioner is the owner of entire extent of property No.54
as claimed in the claim petition. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that burden on the petitioner to prove that the
respondent has acquired alleged excess land measuring
769 sq.ft.
.22. As per the petitioner, he is the owner of the
property bearing No. BBMP No. 54, PID No.66-1-54, CTS
No.224, situated at Hosur Main Road, Madiwala,
Bengaluru City. This property is totally measuring 9,688
sq.ft. He derived the said property through registered
relinquishment deed dated 09.02.1987 from his mother-
Smt.Navaneetham. To prove the same, the petitioner has
produced copy of alleged relinquishment deed and got
marked as Ex.P1. From careful perusal of the said
document, it reveals that, the property measuring
East:110 feet, West:140 feet, North:62 feet and South:92
feet (total 9625 sq.ft), consisting of brick and stoned
roofed house with asbestos sheet, given to the petitioner
21 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
by his mother. Therefore, the contention of petitioner
that he derived the property measuring 9,688 sq.ft, is not
supported to Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1 the property acquired
by the petitioner is measuring 9,625 sq.ft but not 9,688
sq.ft. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that in
Ex.P.1 it is not mentioned the measurement of the
property as 9688 sq.ft and he has not produced any other
documents to prove that his property is measuring 9688
sq.ft. Hence I am of the opinion that, the claimant has
failed to prove that as per Ex.P.1 he acquired property
measuring 9688 sq.ft from his mother.
.23. The petitioner has produced two Khatha
extracts dated 15.11.2014 and 25.11.2016 issued by
BBMP in respect of his property bearing new No.54 and
got marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3. In the said documents it is
not mentioned the measurement of site. But it is only
mentioned the measurement of total buildup area
measuring 2,300 sq.ft. It is noticed that, though the
petitioner acquired property as per Ex.P1 measuring
22 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
9,625 sq.ft, in Ex.P2 and 3 khatha extracts entered in his
name only to extent of 2,300 sq.ft towards building.
Measurement of property measuring 9,625 sq.ft
mentioned in Ex.P.1 is not entered in khatha in the name
of petitioner. I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has
not explained about the same. Further, I am of the
opinion that, except Ex.P.1 of relinquishment deed, the
petitioner has not produced other supported documents
to prove that as on the date of preliminary notification, he
was the owner of the property measuring 9,625 sq.ft. or
9688 sq.feet.
.24. Ex.P.26 is the property card field book of
detailed mapping particulars belongs to property bearing
No.224, CTS.No.39 measuring 444.2 sq.meters (4779.85
sq.ft), it is in the name of Smt.Navaneetham W/o
A.D.Kumarswamy who is the mother of the petitioner.
After rounded of 432.0 sq.meter (3681 sq.ft), it is
mentioned as 444.2 sq.meters. I am of the opinion that,
the measurement of the property mentioned in the Ex.P.1
23 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
is not tallied with Ex.P.26. The petitioner has stated that,
he acquired 9688 sq.ft through Ex.P.1 of registered sale
deed executed by his mother Smt.Navaneetham. But in
Ex.P.1 the measurement of the property is only 9625
sq.ft. As per Ex.P.26 the property measuring 4779.85
sq.ft was in the name of Smt.Navaneetham. Ex.P.27 is
encumbrance certificate dated 03.07.2019 mentioned the
measurement property bearing No.54 as per Ex.P.1. PW.1
in his cross-examination stated that, Ex.P.26 has been
prepared as per sale deed of his father, for the year 1959.
He further stated that, it is not mentioned in the Ex.P.26
that it has been prepared as per sale deed of his father.
PW.1 further stated that, he does not know about on
what basis measurement of property rounded off in
Ex.P.26 and mentioned as 444.0 sq.ft. He further sated
that, he has not produced sale deed of his father and not
stated about Ex.P.26 in the claim statement and his
examination in chief. Perusal of the measurement of
property mentioned in Ex.P.26, I am of the opinion that,
this document is not as per Ex.P.1 and not supported the
24 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
case of the petitioner that he was the owner of total
extent of 9688 sq.feet as on the date of preliminary
notification.
.25. Ex.R.2 is the endorsement dated 06.10.2015
issued by respondent to the petitioner. It reveals that the
petitioner has filed the application before the respondent
for payment of compensation to the alleged excess land.
He has stated that, respondent has acquired excess land
as against notified in the acquisition proceedings. Hence,
he prayed for payment of compensation to the excess
land. It is mentioned in the Ex.R.2, that as per the
direction of the Executive Engineer dated 25.03.2015,
spot Inspection has been conducted on 31.03.2015. But
as per final notification the land acquired measuring 245
sq.ft, passed an award and it was confirmed by the
Government. There is no provision for payment of
compensation to the excess land in the existing
acquisition proceedings, after proposal by the Executive
Engineer for acquisition of more extent of property, then
25 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
they will take action for payment of compensation to the
excess land. I am of the opinion that, in Ex.R.2 not
mentioned measurement and particulars of alleged
excess extent of land acquired by the respondent,
acquisition of alleged excess land and payment of
compensation.
.26. Ex.P.7 is the objections filed by the petitioner
to 4(1) notification. In the said objections, he has not
stated that, the respondent acquired excess land. Ex.P.8
is the statement of objection 18.03.2015 filed by the
petitioner before the respondent to the preliminary
notification issued Section 4(1) of L.A. Act. In Para 5 it is
mentioned that as per the Gazette notification, 22.72
sq.meter of land acquired out of the property belongs to
the petitioner. The boundaries and measurements of the
acquired property are not correctly mentioned in the
notification. Hence, it was requested to inspect the spot
in his present, take measurements and ascertain the
actual extent of land required for road and fix the
26 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
boundaries. It is noticed that, either in Ex.P.7 or in
Ex.P.8, the petitioner has not stated that the respondent
acquired excess of land 769 sq.ft. PW.1 in his cross-
examination has admitted that in Ex.P.7 and P.8 he has
not mentioned the measurement of excess of land.
.27. Ex.P.9 is the objections dated 18.03.2015 filed
by the petitioner to the award passed by the respondent.
It is mentioned in the said document that the respondent
acquired the property of the petitioner measuring 850
sq.ft and prayed for passing on award. In the claim
petition and PW.1 in his examination in chief stated that
the respondent acquired total extent of 1014 sq.ft of land.
But, contrary to the same, in Ex.P.9 he has stated that
the respondent acquired total area of 850 sq.ft. As
discussed above, the petitioner made a statement before
the L.A.O. in acquisition proceedings and stated that the
respondent acquired total extent of 500 sq. feet.
.28. Ex.P10 is the letter dated 25.03.2015 issued by
the respondent to the Executive Engineer, Road Widening
27 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
Division, BBMP. It is mentioned that, the petitioner has
filed application that the respondent has acquired excess
of land has against 245 sq.ft. Therefore, it is directed to
conduct survey of the property and ascertaining about
required space of acquisition for widening 30 meters
Road and submit the report. Ex.P.32 is the sketch issued
by the Asst. Executive Engineer, BBMP, prepared for
widening of Madivala main road.
.29. Ex.P.11 is the copy of sketch and report
prepared by the Executive Engineer, Road Widening
Division, BBMP on 29.02.2016. He has prepared the
sketch and report in respect of acquired property in
question and furnished details. It is mentioned that
yellow colour portion is measuring 71 sq. meter (769
sq.ft) is proposed for widening Road and blue colour
portion measuring 22 sq. meters (245 sq.ft) has already
acquired and formed tar road. On the basis of Ex.P.10
and P.11, the petitioner contended that, though the
respondent acquired and notified an extent of 245 sq.ft,
28 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
actually he acquired excess land measuring 769 sq.ft in
total 1014 sq.ft. I have carefully perused the above said
arguments with case on hand. As per the acquisition
proceedings, the respondent acquired 245 sq.ft out of the
property belongs to the petitioner. It is true that, as per
the representation filed by the petitioner, the
respondent/S.L.A.O. has issued letter to the Executive
Engineer, Road Widening Division (Ex.P.10) dated
25.10.2015 and directed to the Surveyor C.Lakshmana
Rathod to inspect the spot and conduct re-survey on
31.03.2015 and ascertaining actual measurement of
acquired land. As per Ex.P.11 the Surveyor and other
officials of the BBMP went to the spot on 29.09.2016,
inspected, measured the property of the petitioner and
filed report with sketch. As stated above it is clearly
mentioned in the Ex.P.11 that yellow colour portion is
measuring 71 sq.meter (769 sq.ft) area proposed for
acquisition for widening road and blue colour portion is
measuring 245 sq.ft already acquired and formed road. It
is pertaining to note that, in Ex.P.11 it is nowhere
29 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
mentioned that the respondent acquired alleged excess
land of 769 sq.ft belongs to the petitioner. It is only
mentioned that, it is proposed for acquisition. PW.1 in his
cross-examination has specifically admitted the
suggestion put by the respondent that, in Ex.P.11 not
mentioned that acquisition of excess land measuring 769
sq.ft. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that, after
passing award the respondent took the possession of
acquired property including excess extent of land. But to
prove the same, he has not produced any documentary
evidence. Generally, the respondent has to take the
possession of the acquired land by way of conducting
mahazar. But the petitioner has not produced the
mahazar drawn by the respondent. I am of the opinion
that, the petitioner has not produced documentary
evidence to show that the respondent acquired excess
land of 769 sq.ft and taking over the possession of the
said land. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, only
on the basis of Ex.P.11, it can not hold that respondent
acquired excess land of 769 sq.ft as alleged by the
30 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
petitioner. As discussed above, the petitioner has not firm
about total extent of his land and acquisition of alleged
excess land by the respondent. As stated above, the
petitioner has not proved that, he derived total extent of
9688 sq.ft or 7625 sq. feet from his mother through
Ex.P.1. As per measurement of property mentioned in
Ex.P.1, no khatha transferred in the name of the
petitioner. In Ex.P.7 and P.8, the petitioner has not
mentioned the measurement of extent of alleged excess
land. In Ex.P.9, he has stated that, the respondent has
acquired total extent of 850 sq.ft out of his property.
Before land acquisition proceedings, he made the
statement that the respondent acquired total extent of
500 sq.ft. In claim statement and PW.1 in his
examination in chief stated that, the respondent acquired
total extent of 1014 sq.ft. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that, the petitioner has not firm about what is the total
measurement of his property and out of the same what is
the measurement of excess land acquired by the
respondent.
31 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.30. Ex.P.25 is notice for meeting issued by the
Executive Engineer, Road Widening Division, BBMP dated
10.11.2016. It is mentioned that, as per Sec.175 of The
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, BBMP has
power to acquire the private land for the purpose of
widening Hosur Madiwala Road. On 29.02.2016 in
meeting of BBMP took a decision to consult the land
owners for fixing the market value of land and purchase.
Therefore, it was called for the private land owners to
attend the meeting to be held on 11.11.2016. As per this
document, the petitioner contended that the BBMP called
for meeting for fixing market value and purchase of
property from him and other land owners. I have carefully
perused Ex.P.25. This notice was not issued in the name
of petitioner. Generally this notice was issued to the
private land owners for fixing the rate and purchase of
land to the scheme in question. From the above
discussion, I am of the opinion that, there is no material
document produced by the petitioner to prove that the
32 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
respondent acquired excess land of 769 sq.ft. Further, I
come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to
prove with documentary evidence that, the respondent
acquired excess land measuring 769 sq.ft. belongs to
him. Hence, I answer the point No.2 in the negative.
.31. Points 3 to 5: These three points are inter-
connected. Therefore, for the purpose of avoiding repeated
discussion, I have taken up all these points together for
consideration.
.32. The State has power to acquire the property of the
citizen compulsory for public purpose. On the other hand, it
is duty and obligation of the State to pay the compensation to
the property owners. It is the duty of the Government to
provide just and fair compensation to the affected families,
whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or
are affected by such acquisition and make adequate
provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation
and resettlement.
33 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.33. As stated above respondent has acquired the
portion of property measuring 245 sq.ft out of property
belongs to the petitioner in property bearing BBMP No.54,
PAD No.66-1-54, CTS.No.224, situated at Hosur Road,
Madiwala, Corporation Division No.35, Ward No.66 of
Bengaluru City. This property acquired for the purpose of
widening 30 feet width Road of Hosur Road from Central Silk
Board Junction to Yankey Factory Junction. This property
acquired under new land acquisition Act i.e. Right to Fair
Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. Preliminary
notification was on 16.07.2011, final notification on
03.11.2012, award passed on 10.10.2014 and it was
confirmed on 06.02.2015. The acquired land belongs to the
petitioner shown in Sl.No.39 of preliminary and final
notification and award. The respondent fixed market value of
the acquired land in question at Rs.2,278/- per sq.ft and
awarded total compensation of Rs.13,27,231/-. After
deducting income tax of Rs.1,33,121/-, the remaining amount
of Rs.11,94,110/- paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has
received the said amount under protest and filed application
34 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
under Section 64 of New L.A. Act, 2013 for refer the matter to
this Court for enhancement of compensation.
.34. In the claim petition and PW.1 in his examination
in chief it is stated that, the respondent has not computed the
award as per the prevailing market value of the property. The
determination of compensation by the respondent as per rates
prevailing in the Madiwala Grama Thana Village which is in
correct and applicable to his land. The petitioner had
challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by way of writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court
passed an award and directed the authority to consider all the
aspects of the matter pertaining to the land belongs to the
petitioner. The petitioner prayed for fixing the market value of
the property at Rs.17,360/- per sq.ft with all statutory
benefits under new LA Act, 2013. It is stated that passing of
award by the respondent is not accordance with Sec.26 of new
LA Act, 2013. As per said provision, the market value of the
land should have considered if any specified in the Karnataka
Stamp Act for registration of Sale deed or agreements to sell in
respect of property situated in and around the acquired
property. As per Sec.26(b) of the said Act market value
35 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
should have been determined on the average sale price for
similar type of land situated in the nearest vicinity area of the
acquired property. The market value should be determined as
on the date of preliminary notification under Sec.11 of New LA
Act, 2013.
.35. I have perused the above said contention of the
petitioner. Sec.26 of new L.A. Act reads as follows:
"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, 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
36 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
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".
.36. For determination of market value under Sec.26(b)
of the said Act, the petitioner has produced certified copies of
4 auction sale deeds executed by Bengaluru Development
Authority in favour of action purchasers and got marked as
Exs.P.17 to P.20. Based on the said sale deeds the petitioner
prayed for fixing the market value of the acquired property. I
have perused the above said 4 sale deeds. Ex.P.17 is auction
sale deed dated 20.05.2011 executed by BDA in favour of one
Manjunath Dasappa in-respect of property measuring 255
sq.meter situated at Koramangala 6th Block. Sale value
mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.1,53,00,000/-.
Calculating the same, it comes to Rs.5,574/- per sq. feet
(Rs.60,000/- per sq. meter). Ex.P.18 is auction sale deed
dated 20.05.2011 executed by BDA in favour of one
Manjunath Dasappa in-respect of property measuring 105
37 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
sq.meter situated at Koramangala 6th Block. Sale value
mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.86,10,000/-.
Calculating the same, it comes to Rs.7,617/- per sq. feet
(Rs.82,000/- per sq. meter). Ex.P.19 is auction sale deed
dated 19.07.2010 executed by BDA in favour of one Harish
Arora and Smt. Pallavi Arora in-respect of property measuring
128.28 situated at Koramangala 4th Block. Sale value
mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.1,11,60,360/-.
Calculating the same, it comes to Rs.8,082/- per sq. feet
(Rs.87,000/- per sq. meter). Ex.P.20 is auction sale deed
dated 03.03.2011 executed by BDA in favour of one
Manjunath Dasappa in-respect of property measuring 68.75
sq.meter situated at Koramangala 6th Block. Sale value
mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.1,10,00,000/-.
Calculating the same, it comes to Rs.14,864/- per sq. feet
(Rs.1,60,000/- per sq. meter).
.37. During the course of arguments on main the
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Exs.P.17 to
20 sale deeds pertaining to the properties situated at
Koramangala 4th and 6th Blocks which are at the distance of 3
to 5 kms from the acquired lands. He further submitted that
38 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
Exs.P.17 to 20 are the auction sale deeds executed by BDA in-
favour of bidder by way of competitive building. Usually the
properties sold in the auction are on higher rate as bid by the
parties. Hence, Exs.P.17 to 20 cannot be considered for
determination of market value as contended by the petitioner.
He further submitted that the petitioner has not produced the
sale deeds relates to the area of acquired properties. As
against the above submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the properties which are subject
matter of Exs.P.17 to 20, situated in Koramangala, which are
nearby acquired property. As per Section 26(b) of New L.A.
Act, 2013, the market value to be determined on the average
sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or nearest vicinity area. In this context, he relied
upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
17.10.2014 in Civil appeal Nos.2545-2546/2012
(MAJ.GEN.Kapil Mishtra and others Vs. Union of India and
another). Hence, he prayed for determination of the market
value on the basis of Exs.P.17 to 20. I have perused the
Hon'ble court decision stated supra, in para No.28 of their
judgment, the Hon'ble court held that " The general rule that
the sale prices of the comparable sales should be relied upon
39 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
for calculating the market value will not apply when the sale
transactions relied upon are auction sales. As per the decision
in Karnataka Housing Boards case (2011) 2 SCC 246, in our
view, 20% deduction is to be made for competitive bidding. "
.38. I have carefully perused Exs.P.17 to 20. It is
undisputed fact that the properties involved in the said
documents situated at Koramangala 4th and 6th stage. PW.1 in
his cross-examination has admitted the same. He has stated
that the properties of Exs.P.17 to 20 are situated within the
distance of 2-3 kms from the acquired property. He has
admitted the suggestion put by the respondent's side that the
area of Koramangala is highly developed than Madivala area.
.38. The petitioner has produced certified copy of
Gazette notification dated 01.01.2019 issued by the Sub-
registrar, Jayanagara BTM layout, Bengaluru in-respect of
fixing of market value (guidance value) within the jurisdiction
of Bengaluru Urban District, Jayanagara District Registrar
office and got marked as Ex.P.21. It is mentioned that on
05.12.2018 notification issued and fixed market value of
immovable properties (guidance value) and the said market
40 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
value for the year 2018-19 commencing from 01.01.2019. In
Sl. No.153 of the said document mentioned that the market
value of property at Madivala Hosuru main road (Central Silk
Board to Dairy circle, NH-7) as fixed Rs.1,20,000/- per sq.
meter. I have perused the Ex.P.21 with case on hand. As per
Section 26 of New L.A. Act 2013, the date for determination of
market value shall be the date on which the notification has
been issued under Section 11 of the said Act. As per Ex.P.5,
in this case publication of preliminary notification is on
16.07.2011. Ex.P.21 issued on 05.12.2018 and market value
shall be came into force from 01.01.2019. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that this document cannot be considered for
determination of market value of the property in question.
Ex.P.28 is the Gazette notification issued by Sub-registrar,
Jayanagar (BTM layout) Bengaluru to the petitioner and
furnished details of the market value (guidance value) of the
immovable properties dated 17.04.2007 and 21.09.2011. As
stated above, the preliminary notification issued in this case
on 06.07.2011. Therefore, this Ex.P.28 cannot consider in
this case for determining the market value.
41 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
.39. Ex.P.31 is another Gazette notification dated
28.03.2016 issued by Senior Sub-registrar office,
Bommanahalli, Bengaluru Urban District. It is mentioned
that the market value of the properties are in-force from
01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. I am of the opinion that Ex.P.31 is
not the document relates to the date of the preliminary
notification of this case. For the purpose of determination of
compensation to the alleged excess land, the petitioner has
produced this document of Ex.P.31. But as discussed above,
the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has
acquired the alleged excess land of 769 sq.feet in the year
2016. Therefore, this Ex.P.31 is not help the case of the
petitioner.
.40. Exs.P.29 and 30 are the certified copies of Gazette
notifications dated 21.09.2011 issued by the Sub-registrar,
Jayanagar (BTM layout), Bengaluru. Ex.P.29 and 30 are one
the same. But Ex.P.29 is relates to the area of this case and
Ex.P.30 is relates to the properties situated at Koramangala.
These Gazette notifications issued on 21.09.2011 and fixed
the market value of the immovable properties. It came into
force on 26.09.2011. In the present case the preliminary
42 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
notification issued on 16.07.2011. The Government has re-
considered the market value of the immovable properties in
the areas of Sub-registrars, which are coming under District
Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District. Page No.36 of Ex.P.29
mentioned about the market value of the properties belonged
to Madivala Hosur main road (from Central Silk Board to
Dairy circle) (NH-7) (from KEB circle to Dairy circle). It is
mentioned the site value at Rs.4,500/- per sq.feet. It is
further mentioned that if the property relates to the
commercial and residential flats 30% to be added and if the
property is commercial mall complex to be added 40% on the
residential site value. If the properties are corner sites, 10%
to be added on the site value of the area. In the cross-
examination of PW.1, the respondent's side have not at all
challenged Ex.P.29 and guidance value mentioned in the said
document. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent's
side itself was suggested that the S.L.A.O. has considered
Ex.P.28 to 31 and passed an award. Therefore, it is clear that
the respondent has not disputed the Ex.P.29. I am of the
opinion that this document is conclusive proof and best
evidence for determination of market value of this case under
Section 26 (a) of New L.A. Act, 2013. I am of the opinion
43 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
that when the best evidence available to this court for
determination of market value, as per Ex.P.29, considering
the Ex.P.17 to 20 and determining the market value under
Section 26(b) of the said Act will not arise. Moreover, as
stated above, the properties of Ex.P.17 to 20 were sold in
auction, which are not situated in the area of acquired
property and said properties are situated 2-3 kms distance
from the acquired property. Therefore, I am not consider
Ex.P.17 to 20 for determination of market value as urged by
the petitioner's side. I come to the conclusion that to be
considered this case on the basis of Ex.P.29 is just and
necessary. As per Ex.P.29 the Government has fixed the
market value of the properties at Rs.4,500/- per sq.feet.
Acquired property is commercial and residential property.
Hence, to be added 40% on the residential site value. 40% of
said value is Rs.1,800/-. Acquired property is corner property.
Hence, to be added 10% on site value of the area. 10% of the
amount is valued Rs.630/-. Calculating the same, it comes to
Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet. Hence, I fixed the market value of
acquired property at Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet.
44 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
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.
.41. 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. As per
Section 26(2) r/w aforesaid Schedule First appended,
to New L.A. 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%
45 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
solatium on the compensation as discussed above, as
per the provisions contemplated u/s. 26(2) of New
L.A. Act, 2013. As per Section 69(2) of the New L.A.
Act, 2013, the petitioner is entitle 12% interest on
the compensation of market value from the date of
publication of notification, until passing of award or
taking the possession of acquired property which
ever is earlier. As per Section 72 and 80 of New L.A.
Act, 2013 the petitioner is entitle for interest @
Rs.9% p.a., on the execs amount from the date of
taking over possession of acquired property for the 1st
year and interest @ Rs.15% p.a., for subsequent year
till deposit of entire amount.
.42. In the claim statement and PW.1 in his
examination-in-chief, it is stated that the deductions
made by the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,33,121/-
towards income-tax is opposed to Section 96 of New
L.A. Act, 2013. Hence, he prayed for directing the
respondent to pay the income tax amount. I have
perused Ex.P.9 objections filed by the petitioner to
the award passed by the respondent. In para No.8, it
46 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
is mentioned that deduction of Rs.1,33,121/-
towards income tax at the rate of Rs.10.3% is illegal,
Section 96 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 clearly
stipulates that no income tax or stamp duty shall be
levied on any award or agreement made under the
said Act. Hence, he prayed for payment of the said
income-tax amount. I have perused the cross-
examination of PW.1. The respondent's side has not
at all challenged the above said contention of the
petitioner about deduction of income-tax. Section
96 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 reads as under:
"96. Exemption from income tax, stamp
duty and fees-No income tax or stamp duty
shall be levied on any award or agreement
made under this Act, except under Section 46
and no person claiming under any such
award or agreement shall be liable to pay
any fee for a copy of the same."
.43. In Ex.R.1 of award notice, it is mentioned
that the respondent passed the award for a sum of
Rs.13,27,231/-, out of the same, a sum of
Rs.1,33,121/- deducted towards income tax at the
rate of Rs.10.3%. From perusal of the same along
with the provisions of Section 96 of New L.A. Act,
47 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
2013, I am of the opinion that no income tax will be
levied on any award or agreement made under this
Act. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that
deduction of income-tax of Rs.1,33,121/- by the
respondent in the award amount is illegal and
against Section 96 of the said Act. Hence, I come to
the conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for
Rs.1,33,121/- from the respondent towards
deduction of income tax.
.44. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is entitle additional compensation of
Rs.75% of total compensation as determination
under Section 27 of the New L.A. Act, 2013. He
further submitted that the petitioner is entitle the
said additional compensation amount under Section
40(2) of the said Act. I have perused the above said
contention of the petitioner with case on hand.
Section 40(1) & (5) of the New L.A. Act, 2013
reads as under:
48 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
"40. Special powers in case of urgency
to acquire land in certain cases, - (1) I cases
of urgency, whenever the appropriate
Government so directs, the Collector, though
no such award has been made, may, on the
expiration of thirty days from the publication
of the notice mentioned in Section 21, take
possession of any land needed for a public
purpose and such land shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government, free from all
encumbrances.
(5) An additional compensation of
seventy-five percent of the total compensation
as determined under Section 27, shall be paid
by the Collector in respect of land and
property for acquisition of which proceedings
have been initiated under sub-section (1) of
this section"
.45. From perusal of the above said provision, it is
clear that, if the property of the petitioner acquired
by the respondent under Section 40(1) of the New
L.A. Act, 2013, he is entitle additional compensation
of Rs.75% of the total compensation as determined
under Section 27 of the said Act. But in the case on
hand, in the claim statement, PW.1 in his
examination-in-chief not stated that the respondent
acquired the land in question under Section 40(1) of
the said Act. The petitioner has also not produced
any iota of documentary evidence before this court
49 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
that his land acquired by the respondent in urgency
manner and not passed the award within 30 days
from the date of notification and taken possession of
property. Such being the case, I come to the
conclusion that the property of the petitioner has not
acquired by the respondent by way of initiating
proceedings under Section 40(1) of the New L.A. Act,
2013. Hence, the petitioner is not entitle additional
compensation of 75% on the total compensation as
determined under Section 27 of the said Act.
.46. As discussed above, the petitioner has not
proved his case that the respondent has acquired
excess land belongs to him measuring 769 sq. feet.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle for
compensation in-respect of alleged excess land.
Further I come to the conclusion that prayer sought
by the petitioner for directing the respondent for
payment of compensation in-respect of alleged excess
land measuring 769 sq.feet is liable to be rejected.
.47. From the above discussion I come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is entitle compensation
50 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w
L.A.C. No.31/2017
at the rate of Rs.9,630/- per sq.feet along with all
statutory benefits as stated above. I further come to
the conclusion that the petitioner has proved that the
market value fixed by the S.L.A.O./respondent to the
acquired land is inadequate and in-just and it is not
consonance with the provisions of New L.A. Act,
2013. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that these
two references are liable to be partly allowed. From
looking into the facts and circumstances of the case,
parties are directed to bear their own cost. Hence, I
answer the points 3 to 5 in the partly affirmative.
.48. Point No.6: In view of my findings on points 1
to 5, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Both references 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, are partly allowed.
51 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/wL.A.C. No.31/2017 The petitioner/claimant is entitle for the market value of its acquired property measuring 245 sq.feet, out of the property bearing BBMP No.54, PID No.66-1-54, CTS No.224, situated at Hosur main road, Madivala, Corporation Division No.35, Ward No.66, Bengaluru city at the rate of Rs.6,930/- per sq. feet, instead of Rs.2,278/- per sq. feet, awarded by the S.L.A.O./respondent.
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 the New L.A. Act, 2013.
The petitioner is entitle for Rs.1,33,121/- towards deduction of income tax.
The reliefs sought by the petitioner for directing the respondent to pay compensation to the alleged excess land measuring 769 sq.feet is hereby rejected.
The petitioner as per section 30 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, is entitle 100% 52 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w L.A.C. No.31/2017 solatium of total compensation, including the market value.
The petitioner as per section 69(2) of New L.A. 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 New L.A. 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 06.05.2016 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.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
The parties are directed to bear their own cost in these cases.
Draw award accordingly.
53 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/wL.A.C. No.31/2017 It is directed the office to keep original judgment in L.A.C. No.43/2016 and copy of the same in L.A.C. No.31/2017.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 3rd day of September, 2019) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : Vinod Kumar K
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of relinquishment deed Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Khatha extract dated 15.11.2014 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Khatha extract dated 25.11.2016 Ex.P.4 Tax receipt Ex.P.5 Preliminary notification dated 16.07.2011 Ex.P.6 Final notification Ex.P.7 Objections to preliminary notification Ex.P.8 Statement of objections Ex.P.9 Objections to award Ex.P.10 Letter dated 25.03.2015 Ex.P.11 Sketch 54 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w L.A.C. No.31/2017 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of order passed in W.P. No.35605/2015 dated 08.09.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ex.P.13 Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.126/2016 (LA-
RES) Ex.P.14 Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.30332/2017 (LA-RES) Ex.P.15 Statement showing details of Auction sites from 2008 to 2009 Ex.P.16 Award particulars Ex.P.17- Certified copies of sale deeds dated 20.05.2011, 20.05.2012, 19.07.2010 and 20 03.03.2011 respectively Ex.P.21 Certified copy of Gazette notification dated 05.12.2018 Ex.P.22 Endorsement dated 06.07.2015 issued by S.L.A.O. Ex.P.23 Internal office note in LAQ/CR/15/2009-10 in the office of S.L.A.O. Ex.P.24 Notice dated 06.05.2016 issued by BBMP to the claimant Ex.P.25 Notice for meeting issued by BBMP Ex.P.26 Property card issued by ADLR Ex.P.27 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.28 Copy of Gazette notification regarding market value of the property for the year 2007 issued by Sub-registrar office, Jayanagar with letter Ex.P.29 Copy of Gazette notification regarding market value of the property for the year 2011 issued by Sub-registrar office, Jayanagar Ex.P.30 Copy of Gazette notification regarding market value of the property for the year 2011 issued by Sub-registrar office, Bommanahalli Ex.P.31 Copy of Gazette notification regarding market value of the property for the year 2016 issued by Sub-registrar office, Bommanahali Ex.P.32 Copy of Hosur road widening map issued by BBMP 55 L.A.C. No.43/2016 c/w L.A.C. No.31/2017
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Award notice copy Ex.R.2 : Endorsement (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
RACHENAHALLI Y DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF SHASHIDHARA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.09.07 11:11:39 IST