Bangalore District Court
M. Narasimhaiah vs Unknown on 13 February, 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 13th day of February, 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.122/2006
CLAIMANTS : 1. M. Narasimhaiah,
S/o. Muniyappa,
No.1020, Dasarahalli,
Hesaraghatta road,
Bangalore - 27.
2. Smt. Rajani,
W/o. Srinivasa Reddy,
No.204, Flat - 'C', Premier
Griha Lakshmi Apartment,
S.M. Road, Jalahalli West
post, Bangalore - 15.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS :
1) Special Land Acquisition
Officer, 3rd Floor, Vishveshwariah
Centre, Podium Block, Bangalore.
2) Bangalore water Supply and
Sewerage Board, Bangalore.
Represented by Executive Engineer,
Sri. K.R. Manjunath.
-0-
2
JUDGMENT
This is a Composite Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2), and also under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, arising out of the L.A.O's. L.A.Q. No.15/1999-2000, which, in turn, arose out of the compulsory acquisition of the property measuring 1 acre 37 guntas of land in Survey No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yashavanthapura hobli, Bangalore North taluk. Such property was acquired for the benefit of B.W.S.S.B. In respect of such acquisition of property, Preliminary Notification was dated:17-09-1999, Final Notification was dated:02-01-2001, Award came to be passed on 15-02-2001, and the Compensation Amount Awarded was Rs.6,57,283-00, - for that Land acquired - which was to the extent of 00-23 guntas only. (When calculated in terms of feet, it comes to Rs.26-25 paise per square foot.) That Award passed was the subject matter of the Writ Petition in No.43415/2002 (LA-RES) instituted by the Claimant - M. Narasimhaiah. The Hon'ble High Court, in the said Writ Petition, allowed that petition in part, and held that the petitioner was at 3 liberty to approach the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to get the compensation as per the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, a direction was also issued to the said Land Acquisition Officer to send a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court, within six months from that date of order (which was on 21-06-2005). It was further held in that Writ Petition that the Civil Court is at liberty to determine the market value in accordance with law. It is in these circumstances the Reference is a Composite Reference both under Sections 30 and 31(2), and under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
.2. In pursuance to such Reference, notices were issued to the parties to the proceedings. They did appear before the Court through their respective Counsel. Claimants have filed their Claim statements. Claimant No.1 - M. Narasimhaiah s/o Muniyappa - got himself examined as P.W.1, and he has relied on the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.19. P.W.2 - M. Chikkanjinappa and P.W.3 - M. Maruthi - both sons of 4 B. Muniyappa - are the two brothers of Claimant No.1 - M. Narasimhaiah (P.W.1). They support that P.W.1 and themselves Claim no interest whatsoever, - in the property acquired, and consequently, in the Compensation Amount Awarded.
.3. P.W.4 - Smt. Rajani w/o S. Sreenivasa Reddy who is Claimant No.2 in this case, asserts her interest in respect of a site bearing No.7 in Khata No.304 measuring 25 feet x 60 feet. She Claims to have purchased such property under a registered sale deed dated:26-08-1997 for a sum of Rs.2,43,000-00, and her documents are marked at Exs.P.19 and P.23. And she has also relied on the documents produced by P.W.1. No evidence is being led in by the Respondent, - as could be seen from the proceedings - and no documents are got marked for them.
.4. After hearing on both sides, this court has passed the judgment and award on 21.07.2011. The order portion of L.A.C. No.122/2006 dated 21.07.2011 reads as under:
5
ORDER This Composite Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is allowed.
Claimant No.1 - M. Narasimhaiah (P.W.1) is entitled for 00-23 guntas -minus- that Site No.7 measuring 25 feet x 60 feet, - while P.W.4 - Smt. Rajani is entitled for that Site No.7 measuring 25 feet x 60 feet.
Both P.W.1 - M. Narasimhaiah and P.W.4 - Smt. Rajani - are entitled for the corresponding Compensation Amounts also.
They are also entitled for the statutory benefits in that regard, viz., the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired Survey number for the initial period of one year, and 6 thereafter, such rate of interest shall be 15 per cent till such amount is paid or deposited in the Court.
In respect of that Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Compensation Amount is enhanced to Rs.162-00 per square foot, together with statutory benefits.
Said Claimant are entitled to additional market value at the rate of 12 per cent on the enhanced market value from the date of Preliminary Notification till the date of Award, or till the date of taking possession - whichever is earlier.
Said Claimants are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the enhanced market value of the property acquired.
Further, said Claimants are also entitled to 9 per cent interest 7 on the enhanced market value of the property for the first year from the date of taking possession, and thereafter, such interest shall be 15 per cent till it is paid or deposited in the Court.
Each of the said Claimants, viz., P.W.1 - M. Narasimhaiah and P.W.4 - Smt. Rajani - shall execute an indemnity bond to the extent of the Compensation Amount they are entitled to together with a surety in like sum.
Draw a decree accordingly.
.5. After passing the judgment and award by this court the Claimant No.1 has received a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,22,737/- as per the order dated 10.01.2014 and the Claimant No.2 Rajini has received a sum of Rs.65,150/- as per the order dated 27.01.2014 as per Judgment and Award passed by this court.8
.6. After passing the judgment and award by this court, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore has preferred the M.F.A. No.731/2014 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 25.04.2014, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed an order as under:
"The impugned judgment and award dated 21.07.2011 passed in L.A.C. No.122/2006, by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17), is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the jurisdictional Reference Court for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal personally or through their counsel.
The appellant is permitted to file necessary application before the jurisdictional Reference court to get himself impleaded as Respondent. If such an application is filed by the appellant, the Reference Court is directed to receive and allow the same permitting him to prosecute the case.
The appellant and Respondents are directed to appear before the Reference Court 9 either personally or through their counsel on 23rd June 2014 at 11.00 a.m. to take further dates of hearing.
Office is directed to refund the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in accordance with law.
In view of remanding the matter, the prayer sought by the appellant in IA No.2/2014 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous."
In view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the advocate Sri.KBJ for applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule10(2) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. praying to implead the applicant as Respondent No.2 and the same was allowed by this court on 24.06.2014 and amendment is carried out and amended petition also filed. After impleading the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 has not filed any objection to the Claimant statement and also to the application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
.7. The Respondent No.1 remained absent. But the Respondent No.2 K.R. Manjunatha, Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Bangalore is examined as RW.1 and 10 no documents are marked on behalf of Respondent No.2.
.8. I have heard the arguments on both sides. .9. 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 extent of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Respondent -
Land Acquisition Officer was meager, and hence, unsustainable in law, and that they are entitled for the higher Compensation Amount at the rate set out?
(2) What order or award?
.10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1:Partly in the Affirmative (no separate order is required as to apportionment of compensation as Claimants 1 and 2 have already received the amount as per the previous judgment passed by this court.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:11
REASONS .11. POINT NO.1 : The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The Claimants are sought for enhancement of compensation amount. To substantiate the claim of the Claimants, M. Narasimhaiah is examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence that as per the head note-3 dated 26.12.2003 there is reference to award passed by the Respondent in L.A.C. No.173/2000-2001 dated 17.04.2001. The Respondent has determined compensation of Rs.15,40,000/- for 1 acre 37 guntas i.e., Rs.7,08,045.96 per acre by excluding all statutory benefits. The compensation awarded per acre by the Respondent is very low compare to the potential value of the location of his land. He is not accepting the rate of compensation awarded by the Respondent. The Respondent has awarded peanut price to his valuable land which has got high potentiality and located in a very near to high road. Further he has deposed that the land which is acquired by the Respondent is very valuable and it has got high potential value, number of 12 residential extensions have developed already in and surrounding his acquired land and after converting his land from agriculture to non-agriculture he has formed a residential layout and out of that he has sold one site measuring 25 X 60 feet to one Smt. Rajani for sale consideration of Rs.2,43,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 26.08.1997. The market value of his land is more than the sale price mentioned in this sale deed.
His land is situated one furlong away from WIDIA India Ltd, Habib Extraction Ltd, Gatge Patel Ltd., are about 1000 feet away from this land, petrol bunk "Savani" attached to this land. This land is situated about 400 feet away from Bangalore Tumkur Highway, number of new residential buildings is coming up in surrounding lands. Based on potential value of this lands market value prevailed on the date of taking possession of this land, the land easily worth more than Rs.1.10 crore per acre. The market value in that area was easily worth more than Rs.500/- per sq. feet based on the location of his land. Hence on these grounds, the Claimants sought for enhancement of compensation. 13
.12. PW.2 M. Chikkanjinappa has deposed in his evidence that he has no right and title whatsoever in the land in question.
.13. PW.3 M. Maruthi has deposed in his evidence that out of this land 1 acre was converted for non- agriculture as per the order of Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.ALN-SR(N)65/92-93 dated 17.11.1992. Out of this land 0.37 guntas of land was acquired for the public purpose. Later, 0.09 guntas was denotified that was fallen to his share. Only 28 guntas of land that was fallen to the share of Claimant No.1 M. Narasimhaiah i.e., his elder brother was acquired. He has no objection for payment of compensation that was awarded and also enhanced compensation that may be awarded by this court.
.14. PW.4 Smt. S. Rajani the Claimant No.2 has deposed in her evidence that she is Claimant No.2 in this case. The Claimant No.1 is an absolute owner of converted land measuring 0.28 guntas out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village. The said 0.28 guntas of land was 14 acquired by the Respondent for the public purpose. She has purchased a site measuring 25 X 60 feet bearing site No.7, khata No.304 from Claimant No.1 M. Narasimhaiah under a registered sale deed dated 26.08.1997 for valuable consideration of Rs.2,43,000/-. She was put in possession of the said site on the date of sale deed. After the purchase of site by her, the Respondent has acquired the land of Claimant No.1 measuring 0.28 guntas, which includes her site also. She is entitled for compensation awarded and also for enhanced compensation that may be determined by this court. Further it is submitted that she has filed Writ Petition No.17450/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore against the Respondent and the same was allowed directing the Respondent to consider her application for payment of compensation. As per directions in W.P. No.43415/2002 (LA-RES) dated 21.06.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was filed by Claimant No.1, there is reference under Section 18, 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to this court. Further it is submitted 15 that the Respondent has awarded a sum of Rs.7,08,045.56 per acre is highly unreasonable and it is very low. As on the date of acquisition of the land the land was easily worth more than Rs.1.00 crore per acre. This land has got high potential value. This land is situated about one furlong away from Widia India Ltd., Habib Extraction Ltd., Gatge Patel Ltd are about 1000 feet away from the acquired land. Savani Petrol Bunk is attached to this land. The acquired land is situated at a distance of about 400 feet from Bangalore - tumkur Highway. Number of new residential buildings is coming up, surrounding acquired land. Further it is submitted that based on potential value of this land, the market value prevailed on the date of taking possession of the land. This land was easily worth more than Rs.1.00 crore per acre. The market value of this land surrounding the land is easily worth more than Rs.500/- per sq. feet. At present the market value of the said land easily worth Rs.1500/- per sq. feet. Hence, she sought for compensation of Rs.1.00 crore 16 per acre. So, on these grounds, she sought for enhancement of compensation amount.
.15. Apart from the oral evidence, the Claimants have produced documentary evidence as per Ex.P-1 to
23. .16. As against this, RW.1 K. R. Manjunatha s/o late. C.H. Rangappa, Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Bangalore has deposed in his evidence that he is working as Executive Engineer, K-4 Division, 19th cross, BWSSB, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. The Respondent No.1 Land Acquisition Officer has notified and acquired an extent of 23 guntas of land out of Sy.No.32 in Nagasandra village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of BWSSB for the purpose of construction of sewage treatment plat under Cauvery 4 stage vide preliminary notification dated 17.09.1999 and final notification dated 02.01.2001. The Respondent No.1 - Spl. Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiry and after taking into consideration of the potential value of the land in question and after getting 17 sale statistics from the jurisdictional sub-Registrar has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. As on the date of preliminary notification though the layout was formed by the Claimants the area was not developed. There were no development activities on the land in question and on the surrounding lands. There was no transport facility, hospital facilities and approach road to the land in question as on the date of preliminary notification. The market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is more than the market value prevailing as on the date of preliminary notification. Further it is submitted that the market value fixed by the Respondent - Land Acquisition Officer is fair and reasonable and further it is on the basis of sale statistics given by the jurisdictional sub-registrar in respect of transactions of surrounding lands of the land in question. Hence, the question of enhancement of compensation will not arise. Further he has stated that the Claimant after conversion formed the layout in the land in question and sold some sites to other parties. Further it is submitted that the deputy commissioner 18 while converting the land in question has imposed a condition that the roads and civic amenities sites are belonged to B.D.A. /village Panchayath. Hence, the Claimant is not entitled for compensation for the roads and civil amenities sites. Hence, on these grounds, the Respondent No.1 sought for rejecting the reference with cost.
.17. The learning counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant No.1 submits that the Respondent has acquired the land bearing Sy.No.23 guntas which comes to Rs. 25047 square feet. The preliminary notification issued on 17.09.1999 and the conversion of the land accorded by the Deputy Commissioner on 17.11.1992. The Claimant No.1 has sold the site measuring 1500 sq. feet for a sum of Rs.2,43,000/-. It comes to about 162 per sq. feet. The preliminary notification issued after 2 years from the date of sale deed executed by Claimant No.1 in favour of Claimant No.2. Therefore, the potential value increases has to be taken into consideration only 10% per year. If it is taken up 10% then the market value as on the date of notification 19 which comes to Rs.194.40. Therefore, the market value of the property has to be fixed at the rate of Rs.194.40 per sq. feet with all the statutory benefits. Hence, on all these grounds, the learned counsel for Claimant No.1 sought for enhancement of compensation amount.
.18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 has submitted his arguments that the sale deed relied by the Claimant No.1 which is small piece of land cannot be taken into consideration and development charges have to be deducted from 40% to 65%. To substantiate his argument, Learned Counsel for the Claimants has relied on the decisions reported in (1) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1179, (2) AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1222, (3) AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 700, (4) AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 2272, and (5) AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 221. The principles laid down in the said decisions are kept in mind in preparing .19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant No.1 has submitted that during 1992 the land was developed into sites and the parties have enjoyed 20 the property. The extent involved in this case is smaller extent. It is not in records. It is not a raw land. Therefore, the development charges cannot be deducted.
.20. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties. Ex.P-13 is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District vide No.B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)65/92-93 dated 17.11.1992, which reveals that the sanction was accorded to the alienation of 1.00 acre (one acre) of land out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Ex.P-16 is the plan showing in Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yashawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk which reveals the formation of layout. Ex.P-19 and 19(a) are one and the same. Ex.P-19 is the copy of sale deed dated 26.08.1997. Ex.P-19(a) is the original sale deed dated 26.08.1997. They reveal that the Claimant No.1 Narasimhaiah has sold portion of site No.7 formed in Sy.No.32, khata No.304 situated at Nagasandra village for valuable consideration of Rs.2,43,000/- in favour of Claimant No.2 Rajini. Ex.P-20 is certified copy of the 21 sale deed dated 26.09.2006 pertaining to Sy.No.99 and 100 of Nagasandra village. Ex.P-21 is the endorsement issued by Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. Ex.P-22 is the endorsement issued by Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
.21. The documents produced by the Claimant No.1 are not disputed by the Respondent No.1 and 2. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of notification the land in question was non-agricultural converted land as per the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Ex.P-16 is the sketch issued by Administrator, Bagalagunte Panchayati, Yashawantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is not disputed by other side. This sketch reveals that the Claimant No.1 is formed 14 sites in the land in question and out of these, the site No.7 was sold to Claimant No.2.
.22. The contents of sale deed have not been disputed by other side. Even after impleading the Respondent No.2 also RW.1 is not disputed the contents 22 of the sale deed Ex.P-19(a) which was executed prior to 2 years from the date of preliminary notification. Considering all these aspects this court has fixed the market value of Rs.1,62,000/- per sq. feet. The Claimants have not preferred any appeal as to the market value of the property fixed by this court. But the case is remanded to the court only to implead Respondent No.2 who is beneficiary of the acquired land and even after impleading the Respondent No.2 as party to the proceedings the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence to discard the evidence placed by the Claimants to reduce the market value already fixed by this court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the documents placed by the Claimants I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to fix the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.162 per sq. feet. With regard to the deduction of development charges are concerned, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has submitted his arguments that 40 to 65% has to be deducted as development charges. To substantiate the 23 arguments of counsel for the Respondent No.2, he has relied upon the decisions, they are:
1) ILR 2003 Karnataka 3057 (The Asst.
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Karwar and others Vs. Mahabaleshwar Batu Naik and others):
2) AIR 1996 Scheduled Caste 2886 (K.S. Shivadevamma and others Vs. Asst.
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another):
3) ILR 2004 Karnataka 4240(The Agricultural produce Market Committee, by its Secretary and another Vs. the Asst. Commisisoner cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi and others):
4) ILR 1996 Karnataka 1666 (The Asst.
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Yadgir Vs. Mohammad Aziz Rahaman and others:
5) 2006(2) AIR R 525(Dundappa Sadashivappa Patil Vs. Asst. Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Indi):
6) AIR 1996 Scheduled Caste 531(Smt. Indumati Chitaley Vs. Government of India and another):
7) 2001(4) KCCR 2712 (DB)(The Asst.
commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur) But the total extent of land is only 23 guntas. The sketch which is approved by the Administrator, Bagalagunte Panchayathi, Yashawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk revelas that there is a road towards southern side of site No.1 to 6. This sketch is subject to scale 1 inch = 66 feet. The length of the road 24 is about 144 feet and width is 20 feet. Approximately it comes to 2880 sq.feet which is left for formation of road. Expect this road, the Claimants are not reserved any sites for formation of other civic amenities. The Respondents have not disputed this document placed by the Claimants. RW-1 has admitted about existing of sites shown in Ex.P-16. That 00.23 guntas of land when converted in terms of square feet, would come to 25047 sq. feet. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in the mind of decisions relied by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and counsel for Claimants, it is just and proper to deduct 2880 sq. feet out of 25047 sq.feet. Then it comes to 22167 sq. feet (25047 - 2880 = 22167 sq. feet), which is reserved for road as per the plan Ex.P-16. The Claimant No.1 is not entitled for 2880 sq. feet which is reserved for civic amenities i.e., for formation of road as per Ex.P-16.
.23. With regard to the Claim of Claimant No.2 Smt. Rajani is concerned, Smt. Rajani is examined as PW.4. She has deposed in her evidence that she has purchased the site measuring 25 X 60 feet in site No.7, 25 khata No.304 from Claimant No.1 M. Narasimhaiah under a registered sale deed dated 26.08.1997 for valuable consideration of Rs.2,43,000/-. The sale deed is marked as per Ex.P-19. A perusal of Ex.P-19 it is clear that the Claimant No.2 Rajani has purchased a site measuring 25 X 60 feet in site No.7 of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village. The Claimant No.1 has not disputed this document. Therefore, the Claimant No.2 is entitled for enhanced compensation towards site measuring 25 X 60 feet = 1500 sq. feet.
.24. Under the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the Claimant No.1 Narasimhaiah is entitled for compensation as under:
1) Total extent of the land is 23 guntas, which would come to 25047 sq.feet
2) As per Ex.P-16, 2880 sq.feet have to be deducted, which is reserved for formation of road 2880 sq.feet ________________ 22167 sq. feet
3) Claimant No.2 Rajani is entitled for compensation towards 1500 sq. feet out of 23 guntas 1500 sq. feet ________________ 20667 sq. feet 26 Accordingly, the Claimant No.1 is entitled for enhanced compensation for 20667 sq. feet and Claimant No.2 Rajani is entitled for enhanced compensation for 1500 sq. feet. Accordingly, the parties to the proceedings are entitled for enhanced compensation with statutory benefits. After disposal of this case by the then Presiding Officer, the Claimant No.1 already received a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,22,737/- as per order dated 10.01.2014 and Claimant No.2 Smt. Rajani has received a cheque for a sum of Rs.65,150/- as per order 27.01.2014. Therefore, no separate order is required in this judgment as they have already received the compensation amount deposited by the Respondent. Hence, I answer point No.1 accordingly.
.25. Point No.2. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER This Composite Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and 27 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is partly allowed.
Claimant No.1 - M. Narasimhaiah is entitled for 00-
23 guntas minus 1500 sq. feet in
Site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of
Nagasandra village,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
The Claimant No.2 Smt.
Rajani is entitled for
compensation towards measuring 1500 sq.feet in site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
The Claimant No.1 is entitled for enhanced compensation for 20667 sq. feet in site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
It is made it clear that the Claimant No.1 is not entitled for enhanced compensation amount for 2880 sq. feet which is reserved for formation of road as per Ex.P-16 in Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village.
The Claimant No.1 and 2 ar entitled for all the statutory benefits as contemplated under L.A. Act 1894 and also decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211.
The Claimant No.1 and 2shall execute indemnity bond to the extent of compensation amount which are entitled to 28 receive the compensation amount so as to redeposit the claim amount in the event of any claim made by any other Claimants with one surety for the like sum.
Draw An Award
Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2017.) (G. BASAVARAJA) C/c II Additional C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTs:
P.W.1 : M. Narasimhaiah
P.W.2 : M. Chikkanjinappa
P.W.3 : M. Maruthi
P.W.4 : Smt. Rajani
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTs:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the order dated:
21-06-2005 in Writ Petition No.43415/2002 (LA-RES).
Ex.P.2 : Genealogical tree.
Exs.P.3 : Mutation register extracts.
and P.4
Exs.P.5 to : Records of right.
P.12
Ex.P.13 : Copy of the Office Memorandum
dated: 17-11-1992 of the Deputy
29
Commissioner, Bangalore.
Ex.P.14 : Copy of the order under Section 8(3)
dated:15-10-1989 of the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.
Ex.P.15 : Endorsement dated:15-02-1989 issued by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.
Ex.P.16 : Approved plan.
Ex.P.17 : Tax assessment register extract.
Ex.P.18 : Tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.19 : Certified extract of the register
wherein the sale deed dated:26-08- 1997 has been entered.
Ex.P.20 : Certified extract of the register wherein the sale deed dated:26-09- 2006 has been entered.
Ex.P.21 : Endorsement dated:06-08-2009 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North.
Ex.P.22 : Endorsement dated:11-08-2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, North Sub-Division, Bangalore.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of the order passed in Writ Petition No.17460/2005 (LA- RES) dated:05-10-2005.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil (G. BASAVARAJA), C/c II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore.30
13.02.2017 (Judgment pronounced in open court) Vide separate order ORDER This Composite Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is partly allowed.
Claimant No.1 - M. Narasimhaiah is entitled for 00-23 guntas minus 1500 sq. feet in Site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
The Claimant No.2 Smt.
Rajani is entitled for
compensation towards
measuring 1500 sq.feet in site
No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of
Nagasandra village,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
The Claimant No.1 is
entitled for enhanced
compensation for 20667 sq.
feet in site No.7 out of
Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra
village, Yeshawanthapura
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
It is made it clear that
the Claimant No.1 is not
entitled for enhanced
compensation amount for
31
2880 sq. feet which is reserved
for formation of road as per
Ex.P-16 in Sy.No.32 of
Nagasandra village.
The Claimant No.1 and 2
are entitled for all the
statutory benefits as
contemplated under L.A. Act
1894 and also decision of the
Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar
Vs. Union of India) reported in
(2001)7 SCC 211.
The Claimant No.1 and 2
shall execute indemnity bond
to the extent of compensation
amount which are entitled to
receive the compensation
amount so as to redeposit the
claim amount in the event of
any claim made by any other
Claimants with one surety for
the like sum.
Draw An Award
Accordingly.
C/c.II Addl.C.C. & Spl Judge,
Bangalore.