Bangalore District Court
In vs In All Cases on 6 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
HOLDING C/C XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-47)
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2017.
PRESENT:
Shri. G.BASAVARAJA B.A.,LL.M.
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Bangalore City, holding c/c of II Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.270/2005, 265/2005, 266/2005,
267/2005, 268/2005 and 269/2005
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.270/2005 :
1) Sri. Vishwanath s/o Puttaswamy
Gowda,
2) Sri. Surya Murthy s/o Puttaswammy
Gowda.
All are R/at. Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore south Taluk, Bangalore District.
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.265/2005 :
Anjineya s/o Muniyappa, No.911, Kengeri
village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk.
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.266/2005
:
Vinayaka Temple Trust, Adinarayana s/o K.
Venkataswamy, 50
years, r/o Kengeri, Bangalore.
2
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.267/2005 :
Thimmaraju s/o Dasappa, 56 years, r/o
Bangalore.
CLAIMANT IN
LAC NO.268/2005 :
Sri. Jayaram s/o Govindappa, 55 years, r/o
Kengeri, Bangalore.
(By Sri.R.P. Advocate for all Claimants, in all
five cases)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT IN ALL CASES:
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, V.V. Tower,
3rd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar VEedhi, Bangalore.
(By Sri. D.G.P.)
------
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the above cases are referred by the Respondent u/s.18
of Land Acquisition Act to determine the actual market value of
the property acquired by the Respondent for the purpose of
widening of Bangalore - Mysore state Highway.
3
.2. After registering the case, the notices were issued to
both the parties. The Claimants were appeared before the court
through their counsels. D.G.P. representing the Respondent.
That in view of the order passed by this court on 10.08.2010,
this court has passed an order for clubbing the above cases in
common evidence and judgment in L.A.C. No.270/2005
.3. The relevant details of the cases are referred as under:
L.A.C. Land Building Surveyor Extent of
Case No. Value Value building site (sq.
Rs. Rs. valu feet)
Rs.
270/2005 2,44,970 2,51,256 6,00,000 2227
265/2005 73,260 48,514 - 666
266/2005 95,810 61,705 1,50,000 871
267/2005 86,240 1,05,986 2,50,000 784
268/2005 54,600 4,75,730 5,00,000 273
a) Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.110/- per sq. fet
for L.A.C. No.270/2005, 265/2005, 266/2005 and
267/2005.
b) Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.200/- per sq.
feet for L.A.C. No.268/2005.
4
It is alleged in the petition that the
Respondent/authority has issued the award notice under
Section 12(2) of L.A. Act dated 08.03.2004 and the same was
served on him within 90 days from the date of receipt of award.
The Claimants have filed these applications for enhancement
of compensation. Further it is stated that the acquired
property is a house property even then the authority has fixed
meager compensation amount in respect of the acquired land
and structure thereon. The Authority has not fixed the correct
and proper market value of the acquired land and structure.
As on the date of preliminary notification the land value of the
acquired property was of Rs.2,500/- per sq. feet and value of
the structure was of Rs.10,00,000/-. The total measurement
of the land acquired by the Respondent is 2,227 sq. feet. In
that land they had constructed 4 shops on the ground floor
and one shop on the first floor each measuring 15 X 12 feet
and the same has been acquired by the Respondent. Due to
this acquisition they have lost rent from the tenements to
whom they had let out. Apart from the constructed building,
the Respondent has also demolished 2 staircases put up by
5
them to reach the 1st and 2nd floors. Due to demolition of the
staircases they have no other alternative but to put up another
staircase at the available space and they have spent nearly
Rs.50,000/- for construction work. The Respondent has also
demolished compound wall measuring 180 feet put up in front
of the house. After demolition once again they have
constructed new compound wall and have spent nearly
Rs.75,000/-. The portico measuring 10 X 10 feet constructed
in front of the house is also demolished. As such they had no
other alternative but to spend Rs.25,000/- for alteration of the
house. The portion of the building demolished by the
Respondent was constructed in the year 1984 by raising loan
from the bank. The shutters fixed to the shops and the grills
fitted to the compound wall are also damaged and it is not fit
for use. The acquired converted property is adjoining to
Bangalore Mysore road and near to Bangalore city. Layouts,
police station, Hotels, Transport corporations and factories
surround the acquired property. Under such circumstances,
the value fixed by the authority is very less and meager.
Looking from any angle the authority has fixed the
6
compensation without taking into the consideration of the
above facts. Hence, the Claimants have sought for
enhancement of compensation.
.4. The Respondents have not filed any objections to
these petitions.
.5. To substantiate the case of the Claimants, in all
examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked the
documents as per Ex.P-1 to 23.
.6. After closure of the Claimants' side, the Respondent
has not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
.7. Heard the arguments of both sides.
.8. Before framing as to the points for consideration it is
necessary to mention here as to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex court which is reported in AIR 1988 Supreme
court 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona and another). Wherein their
Lordship have held that:
7
"(1) A reference under Section 18 is not an
appeal against the award and the court cannot
take into account the material relied upon by
the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless
the same materials is produced and proved
before the court.
(2) So, also the Award of the Land Acquisition
Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the
trial court open or exposed to challenge before
the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an
offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and
the material utilized by him for making his
valuable cannot be utilized by the court unless
produced and proved before it. It is not the
function of the court to sit in appeal against the
Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or
correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the
conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition
Officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an
original proceeding before it and determine the
market value afresh on the basis of the material
produced before it.
(4) The Claimant is in the position of a plaintiff
who has to show that the price offered for his
land in the award is inadequate on the basis of
the materials produced in the court. Of course
the materials placed and proved by the other
side can also be taken into account for this
purpose."
.9. After closure of Claimants' evidence, the
Respondents have not led any evidence in support of their
case. Claimants' Counsel filed written arguments and also oral
8
arguments. No representation is made on behalf of
Respondent. Hence, argument of the Respondent is taken as
nil. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the following points would arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the Claimants prove that the
award passed by the Respondent is not
just, fair and adequate?
2. Whether the Claimants prove that
what is actual market value of the
properties acquired by the Respondent?
3. What Award or Order?
.10. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2 : Claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation as per final order.
Point No.3: As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.11. Points No.1 & 2:- As these points are interlinked
and overlapping with each other and for the sake of
9
convenience and in order to avoid repetition, both points have
been taken up together for consideration.
.12. PW.1 L.P. Suryamurthy has deposed in his evidence
that the Gramatana property bearing No.346,445 and 578/1,
measuring 2227 sq. feet of Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, for
the purpose of formation of 2 lane Bangalore-Mysore state
Highway. Further he deposed in his evidence that the total
measurement of the land acquired by the Respondent is 2,227
sq. feet. In that land they ad constructed 4 shops on the
ground floor and one shop on the first floor each measuring 15
X 12 feet and the same has been acquired by the Respondent.
Due to this acquisition they have lost rent from the tenements
to whom they had let out. Apart from the constructed
building, the Respondent has also demolished 2 staircases put
up by them to reach the 1st and 2nd floors. Due to demolition
of the staircases they have no other alternative built to put up
another staircase at the available space and they have spent
nearly Rs.50,000/- for construction work. The Respondent
has also demolished compound wall measuring 180 feet put
10
up in front of the house. After demolition once again they have
constructed new compound wall and have spent nearly
Rs.75,000/-. The portico measuring 10 X 10 feet constructed
in front of the house is also demolished. As such they ad no
other alternative but to spend Rs.25,000/- for alternation of
the house. The portion of the building demolished by the
Respondent was constructed in the year 1984 by raising loan
from the bank. The shutters fixed to the shops and the grills
fitted to the compound wall are also damaged and it is not fit
for use. Further he has stated that the acquired converted
property is adjoining to Bangalore - Mysore road and near to
Bangalore city, layouts, Police Station, Hotels, Transport
corporations and factories surround the acquired property.
Under such circumstances the value fixed by the authority is
very less and meager.
.13. PW.2 Adinarayana has deposed in his evidence that
the Authority has not taken proper steps to assess the proper
market value of the acquired property, Navagraha and
structure. As on the date of preliminary notification the value
11
of the acquired property was of Rs.2,500/- per sq. feet and the
value of the structure was of Rs.10,00,000/-. He submits that
for construction of a new temple and other things, the temple
authorities will have to spend huge amount. Further he has
stated that the acquired property is adjoining to Bangalore -
Mysore road and near to Bangalore city, Layouts, Police
Station, Hotels, Transport corporations and factories surround
the acquired property. Under such circumstances the value
fixed by the authority is very less and meager.
.14. PW.3 Thimmaraju has stated in his evidence that
the authority has not taken proper steps to assess the proper
market value of the acquired property and structure. As on
the date of the preliminary notification the value of the
acquired property was of Rs.2,500/-per sq. feet an the value of
the structure was of Rs.10,00,000/-. He was getting
Rs.9,000/- rent per month from three shops. He was running
a Non-vegetarian Hotel and getting income of Rs.1,000/- per
day after deducing expenditure. The entire building is
acquired by the Respondent. He further stated in his evidence
12
that the acquired property is a corner property and is facing to
Bangalore Mysore road and near to Bangalore city. Layouts,
Police Station, hotels, Transport corporations and factories
surround the acquired property. Under such circumstances
the value fixed by the authority is very less and meager. Xxxx
.15. PW.4 Sri. Jayaram has stated in his evidence that
the authority has not taken proper steps to assess the proper
market value of the acquired property and structure. As on
the date of the preliminary notification the value of the
acquired property was of Rs.2,500/-per sq. feet an the value of
the structure was of Rs.20,00,000/-. The officer has agreed to
fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per sq. feet and
Rs.20,00,000/- for structure at the time of taking his
signature, but they have fixed lesser compensation to the land
and building. He is an innocent person and has no legal
knowledge as such he has put his signature. He further stated
in his evidence that the acquired property is adjoining to
Bangalore Mysore road and near to Bangalore city. Layouts,
Police Station, hotels, Transport corporations and factories
13
surround the acquired property. Under such circumstances
the value fixed by the authority is very less and meager.
Hence, on all these grounds, he has sought for enhancement of
compensation.
.16. PW.5 Umesh C. Achar has stated in his evidence
that he is working as surveyor, loss assessor and registered
valuator in Bangalore since 1990. As per the request of the
Claimants in all the cases, he conducted the valuation of the
acquired house properties in the presence of the parties in the
month of January 2003 and has given reports on 10.01.2003.
He is producing the certificate issued by the competent
authority to show that he is a surveyor and loss assessor. He
is also producing the valuation extracts pertaining to the
acquired land before the court.
.17. The Claimants have produced 23 documents as per
Ex.P-1 to 23. Ex.P-1 to 12, 18 and 19 are the copies of protest
applications filed u/s.18 of L.A. Act which is endorsed by the
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore. Ex.P-2, 10, 16 and
14
23 are certified copies of sale deeds. Ex.P-3 to 8, 13, 17 and
20 are the photos. Ex.P-9 is the village map. Ex.P.14 is the
resolution passed by Vinayaka Temple Trust (R). Ex.P-15 is
the award notice. Ex.P-21 is the detailed estimate of items of
the residential building marked for road widening of Mysore
road. Ex.P-22 is the certificate of registration.
.18. The learned counsel for the Claimants has
submitted his arguments that the Respondent has not placed
any materials to show that the award passed by the Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer is just, fair and adequate. On the contrary
the Claimants have adduced their evidence before this court to
determine the actual market value of the property. Further he
has submitted that Ex.P-16 is the sale deed dated 08.05.2002
which reveals that the immovable property bearing No.64 EWS
bearing Kengeri Town Muncipal khata No.355, situated at II
stage Kengeri Satellite Town, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk measuring East to west 18 feet and North to South 26
feet (18 X 26 = 468 Sq. feet). He sold the said property for
Rs.3,00,000/-. The preliminary notification is issued on
15
16.11.2002. Therefore, this sale deed Ex.P-16 is the document
prior to preliminary notification dated 16.11.2002. Therefore,
at least on the basis of this Ex.P-16 the actual market value of
the property can be determined. Further he has submitted
that the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded proper
compensation to the structure. Hence, the Claimants have
sought for enhancement of compensation.
.19. No representation is made on behalf of the
Respondent.
.20. I have perused the materials placed by the
Claimants before this court. With regard to the L.A.C.
No.270/2005 is concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded the amount of Rs.2,44,970/- to the extent of site
property No.345, 445, 578/1 measuring 2227 sq. feet. A
perusal of the award passed by the Respondent reveals that
the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the amount of
Rs.110 per sq. feet. The Respondent has not placed any
materials before the court to show that the amount of Rs.110
per sq. feet is fair, just and adequate compensation. Even he
16
has not produced any documents along with this award to
substantiate the market value fixed by the Respondent.
Therefore, that there are no materials to come to the
conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Respondent
is fair, just and adequate.
.21. With regard to the L.A.C. No.265/2005 is
concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
amount of Rs.73,260/- to the extent of site property No.324/1
measuring 666 sq. feet. A perusal of the award passed by the
Respondent reveals that the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has
awarded an amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet. The Respondent
has not placed any materials before the court to show that the
amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet is fair, just and adequate
compensation. Even he has not produced any documents
along with this award to substantiate the market value fixed
by the Respondent. Therefore, that there are no materials to
come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the
Respondent is fair, just and adequate compensation.
17
.22. With regard to the L.A.C. No.266/2005 is
concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
amount of Rs.95,810/- to the extent of site property No.853
measuring 871 sq. feet. A perusal of the award passed by the
Respondent reveals that the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has
awarded the amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet. The Respondent
has not placed any materials before the court to show that the
amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet is fair, just and adequate
compensation. Even he has not produced any documents
along with this award to substantiate the market value fixed
by the Respondent. Therefore, that there are no materials to
come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the
Respondent is fair, just and adequate.
.23. With regard to the L.A.C. No.267/2005 is
concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
amount of Rs.86,240/- to the extent of site property No.686
measuring 784 sq. feet. A perusal of the award passed by the
Respondent reveals that the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has
awarded the amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet. The Respondent
18
has not placed any materials before the court to show that the
amount of Rs.110 per sq. feet is fair, just and adequate
compensation. Even he has not produced any documents
along with this award to substantiate the market value fixed
by the Respondent. Therefore, that there are no materials to
come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the
Respondent is fair, just and adequate.
.24. With regard to the L.A.C. No.268/2005 is
concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
amount of Rs.54,600/- to the extent of site property
No.33/16A measuring 273 sq. feet. A perusal of the award
passed by the Respondent reveals that the Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded the amount of Rs.200 per sq.
feet. The Respondent has not placed any materials before the
court to show that the amount of Rs.200 per sq. feet is fair,
just and adequate compensation. Even he has not produced
any documents along with this award to substantiate the
market value fixed by the Respondent. Therefore, that there
are no materials to come to the conclusion that the
19
compensation awarded by the Respondent is fair, just and
adequate.
.25. To substantiate arguments of Claimants, he has
relied upon the decisions reported in:
1) 2012 AIR SCW 2822 (Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Reg)
Faridcot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others);
"L.A. Act S.23-Market value-Determination-
Many comparable sale transactions relied -
Highest comparable e-mplar there from has
to be accepted-Method of drawing average of
various sale deeds-Not to be adopted"
2) 2009(3) KCCR 2133 SC (C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs.
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and
another);
"B-L.A. Act 1894 Section 4-public purpose-
Development charges-public purpose for
which the land was acquired, was for
widening of the National Highway-unable to
point out any such evidence regarding the
proposed development-we cannot ignore the
fact that the proposed development-we
cannot ignore the fact that the land is
20
acquired only for widening of the National
Highway-There would, therefore, be no
question of any such development or any
costs therefore.
3) AIR 1988 SC 943 (Administrator Genl of West
Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi)
"(A) L.A. Act 1894 S. 23 Market value-
Determination- Land with potentialities for
urban use-prices fetched for lands similar to
acquired land with similar advantages and
potentialities at or about time of preliminary
notification constitute best evidence"
Keeping in the mind of the aforesaid decisions and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
learned counsel for the Claimants has relied Ex.P-16 sale deed
which is highest market value shown in the sale deed which is
prior to the preliminary notification. Ex.P-16 is the absolute
registered sale deed dated 08.05.2002 executed by K.N.
Ramesh in favour of R.G. Shekar in respect of the scheduled
immovable property bearing No.64 EWS bearing Kengeri Town
Municipal khata No.355, situated at II stage Kengeri Satellite
21
Tow2n, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East
to west 18 feet and North to South 26 feet for valuable sale
consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. If this amount is divided by
sq. feet, it comes to Rs.641 per sq. feet. The land in question
was acquired by the Respondent under preliminary notification
dated 16.11.2002. This sale deed is dated 08.05.2002. The
sale deed is prior to 6 months 7 days from the date of
preliminary notification.
.26. It has come in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Ex.P-
9 certified copy of the map issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore reveals that the acquired property is
adjacent to Bangalore - Mysore road and near to Bangalore
city. Layouts, Police Station, Hotels, Transport corporations
and factories surround the acquired property in question.
.27. The Respondent has not adduced any evidence to
discard the contents of Ex.P-16 and also the oral evidence
placed by the Claimants. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in the mind of the
22
aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Claimants, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to
determine the actual market value of the property @ Rs.641/-
per sq. feet relying on Ex.P-16.
.28. With regard to the structure involved in L.A.C.
No.270/2005 is concerned, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,51,256/- as building
value. PW.1 Suryamurthy has deposed in his evidence that he
has sought for Rs.10,00,000/- towards structure of the
building in respect of the acquired property. PW.5 Umesh C.
Achar who is working as surveyor, loss assessor and registered
valuator, has issued Ex.P-21 Detailed estimate of items of the
residential building marked for road widening of Mysore road
at site No.346, 445 and 578/1, Kengeri village, Bangalore. As
per Ex.P-21, PW.5 has assessed the structure of the market
value acquired by the Respondent @ Rs.6,00,000/-. Apart
from his evidence, the Claimants have produced Ex.P-3 to 13
photos. But the Respondent has awarded an amount of
Rs.2,51,256/-. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5
23
he has clearly stated that he has not assessed the value of the
property as per SR Rates (Schedule Rates issued by
Government of Karnataka). The Respondent has not produced
any documents to show that the Respondent has assessed the
market value of the structure on the basis of SR Rates issued
by government of Karnataka. Therefore, the Respondent has
failed to prove that the amount awarded to the structure is fair
and adequate. On the contrary, the Claimants have also not
produced sufficient evidence to come to conclusion that they
are entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for
structure. However, the Claimants have adduced their oral
evidence and also the photos of the building. Considering the
evidence placed by the Claimants and also keeping in the mind
of evidence of PW.5 and contents of Ex.P-21, I am of the
opinion that it is just and proper to award an amount
Rs.1,25,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.2,51,256/-
awarded by the Respondent. Accordingly, I hold that the
Claimants are entitled for additional amount Rs.1,25,000/-
towards structure. Accordingly an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is
enhanced i.e., from Rs.2,51,256/- to Rs.3,76,256/-.
24
.29. With regard to the L.A.C. No.265/2005 is concerned
the Respondent has awarded the amount of Rs.48,514/- to the
structure. The Claimants have not adduced any evidence
towards enhancement of compensation awarded to the
structure. Hence, the Claimants are not entitled for any
enhanced compensation in respect of the structure pertaining
to the property involved in L.A.C. No.265/2005.
.30. With regard to the L.A.C. No.266/2005 is concerned
the Respondent has awarded the amount of Rs.61,705/- to the
structure. PW.2 Adinarayana who is President of the
Ganapathi Temple Trust has deposed in his evidence that the
award passed by the Respondent is not correct and proper. He
has produced 4 photos and CD Ex.P-11 to 14. In Ex.P-21 the
PW.5 Umesh C. Achar has shown the valuation of
Rs.1,50,000/-. It is just and proper to award an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. But during the course of cross-examination,
PW.5 has clearly admitted that he has not assessed the value
of the property on the basis of SR rates issued by Government
25
of Karnataka. The Respondent has also not produced any
documents to show that he has assessed the structure of the
property on the basis of SR Rates issued by Government of
Karnataka. However, considering the evidence placed by the
Claimants, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to
enhance the additional compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
i.e., from Rs.61,705/- to Rs.1,61,705/-.
.31. With regard to the L.A.C. No.267/2005 is concerned
the Respondent has awarded an amount of Rs.1,05,986/- to
the structure. PW.5 who is working as surveyor has valued
this property for Rs. 2,50,000/-. In the cross-examination of
PW.5 he has also admitted that he has not issued the
valuation certificate on the basis of the scheduled rates issued
by Government of Karnataka. The Respondent has not
produced any documents to show that he has assessed the
structure on the basis of SR rates issued by Government of
Karnataka. However considering the evidence placed by the
valuator and nature of the property I am of the opinion that
ends of justice would be met if Rs.90,000/- is awarded in
26
addition to the amount of Rs.1,05,986/- awarded by the
Respondent. Accordingly, the Claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation amount.
.32. With regard to the L.A.C. No.268/2005 is concerned
the Respondent has awarded the amount of Rs.4,75,730/- to
the structure. PW.5 valuator has assessed the structure for
Rs.5,00,000/-. Only there is Rs.24,270/- is difference between
the award passed by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and value
assessed by PW.5. That there is no much difference between
award passed by the Respondent and the amount assessed by
valuator PW.5. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not just
and proper to enhance the compensation amount pertaining to
this case. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 partly in
Affirmative.
.33. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons and
discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
27
ORDER
The Reference petitions referred u/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, are hereby partly allowed.
The actual Market value of the acquired properties which are shown in para No.3 of page No.3 of judgment is determined @ 641/- sq.feet. Apart from this:
In L.A.C. No.270/2005 an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.2,51,256/- to Rs.3,76,256/- for structure.
In L.A.C. No.266/2005 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.61,705/- to Rs.1,61,705/- for structure.
In L.A.C. No.267/2005 an amount of Rs.90,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.1,05,986/- to Rs.1,95,986/- for structure.
The claimants are entitled for all statutory benefits as contemplated u/s.23(2), 23(1-A), u/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 28 court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211.
Draw separate Award in each case accordingly.
Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.270/2005 and copies of the same be kept in LAC No. 265/2005, LAC No.266/2005, L.A.C. No.267/2005 and LAC No.268/2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of March, 2017.) (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : L.P. Suryamurthy PW.2 : Adinarayana PW.3 : Thimmaraju PW.4 : Sri. Jayaram 29 PW.5 : Umesh C. Achar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 : Protest application Ex.P.2 : C/c of the sale deed Ex.P.3-5 : Photos with negatives Ex.P.6-8 : Negatives Ex.P.9 : Village map Ex.P.10 : Certified copy pf sale deed Ex.P.11 : Award Notice Ex.P.12 : Protest application Ex.P.13 : Photos Ex.P.14 : Letter Ex.P.15 : Notice Ex.P.16 : Copy of the sale deed Ex.P.17 : Photos Ex.P.17(a): CD Ex.P.18 : Protest application Ex.P.19 : Protest application Ex.P.20 : photos Ex.P.21 : Detailed estimate of items of residential Building 30 Ex.P.22 : Certificate of registration Ex.P.23 : Copy of sale deed
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Nil (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.31
06.03.2017 Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate order) ORDER The Reference petitions referred u/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, are hereby partly allowed.
The actual Market value of the acquired properties which are shown in para No.3 of page No.3 of judgment is determined @ 641/- sq.feet. Apart from this:
In L.A.C. No.270/2005 an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-
is enhanced i.e., from
Rs.2,51,256/- to
Rs.3,76,256/-.
In L.A.C. No.266/2005 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.61,705/- to Rs.1,61,705/- .
In L.A.C. No.267/2005 an amount of Rs.90,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.1,05,986/- to Rs.1,95,986/-.
32
The claimants are
entitled for all statutory benefits as contemplated u/s.23(2), 23(1-A), u/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC
211.
Draw separate Award in each case accordingly.
Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.270/2005 and copies of the same be kept in LAC No. 265/2005, LAC No.266/2005, L.A.C. No.267/2005 and LAC No.268/2005.
(G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.