Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Kempalakshmamma vs ) Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2019.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.223/2010
CLAIMANTS:
1) Smt.Kempalakshmamma
W/o late. M. Ramanna,
2) R.Prakasha
S/o late. M. Ramanna,
3) R. Nagesha S/o M. Ramanna,
4) R. Ananda S/o M. Ramanna.
5) R. Manjunatha S/o M.
Ramanna.
All are residing at No.33, Horamavu
Agara village, Horamavu post, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka.
Bengaluru 560 043.
(By Sri. R.A., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board, Bengaluru.
2 L.A.C. No.223/2010
2) Bengaluru Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB), Office of
Chief Engineer (K), 5th floor,
Cavery Bhavana, K.G. Road,
Bengaluru 560 009.
(By Sri. DB, Advocate for R-1)
(By Sri. KBJ, Advocate for R-2)
------
JUDGMENT
This reference made by the respondent No.1/Special Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as S.L.A.O. for short), KIADB, Bengaluru, under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A.Act for short).
.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent has acquired the land belongs to the claimants/petitioners bearing Sy.No.57/1A measuring 1 acre situated at Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka, Bengaluru. It was acquired for the purpose of establishing BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants.
The preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004, final notification was on 31.07.2006 and award passed on 12.11.2007.3 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.3. In the claim statement and in the reference, it is stated that land bearing Sy.No.57/1A totally measuring 3 acres 24 guntas of Horamavu Agara village. It is an ancestral property of the claimants. As per the panchayath parikakth dated 26.09.1986 in between father of the claimants namely Ramanna and his brothers, 1 acre 34 guntas including 3 guntas of kharab land allotted to the share of Ramanna. Said Ramanna died on 21.09.1995, thereafter the claimants have succeeded the land measuring 1 acre 34 guntas. Out of the said land, the claimants sold 9 guntas to one Chikkanna S/o late. Krishnappa through sale deed dated 25.10.2004 and retained 1 acre 22 guntas. On 28.08.2004 the claimants got a registered partition deed, accordingly 5 guntas of land allotted to the share of claimant No.1 and 14.4 guntas each allotted to the claimants 2 to 5. The names of the claimants entered in the revenue records in-respect of their share.
.4. It is stated that the Government of Karnataka was acquired the above said property bearing Sy.No.57/1A measuring 3 acres 30 guntas including property of the claimants under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIADB Act) and it was acquired for 4 L.A.C. No.223/2010 the purpose of BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants. It is stated that, the respondent has acquired the said property and passed an award and fixed the total compensation of Rs.18,05,175/- with statutory benefits. After passing an award, the claimants have filed objections before the respondent and stated that whatever the award amount passed by the respondent is very much lesser side to the prevailing market value. Neighbouring lands were sold for higher sum in auction sale conducted by the Government. The acquired land stands developed, the market value of the said land is much higher than the above said auction sale lands. Adjacent land in Sy.No.549 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas sold in auction sale for a sum of Rs.1,82,00,000/-. Market value of the acquired land is valued rupees more than Rs.1,82,00,000/-. The Government guideline value is much higher than the award passed by the respondent. It is stated that the claimants have received the compensation amount under protest and filed the reference, requested the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the claimants prayed for fixing the market value at of Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
5 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.5. After receipt of the reference from the respondent, this court registered the case and issued notice to both the parties. The claimants have appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel. During pendency of the case, the respondent No.2 impleaded by way of filing application. But the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed objections to the main.
.6. To prove their case by the claimants' side, the claimant No.2 examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. For respondent No.2' side the Asst. Executive Engineer examined as RW.1. Documents got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The respondent No.1 has not adduced oral evidence and got marked the documents.
.7. Heard the arguments.
.8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the reference u/s.18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent No.1/SLAO, is valid and in time?
2. Whether the Claimants prove that the market value of the property determined by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O. is not reasonable and adequate?6 L.A.C. No.223/2010
3. Whether the claimants are entitle for higher compensation to the acquired property? If so, at what rate?
4. What Order or Award?
.9. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.10. Point No.1:- So far as limitation relating to filing and maintaining of Section 18 of L.A. Act, the law is very clear and well settled. The petitioner/claimant has to file 18(1) application within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice upon him. Respondent has to refer the matter to the Civil Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of 18(1) application from the petitioner. If the respondent fails to make the reference, then the petitioner has to file this kind of petition within 3 years after expiry of said 90 days. In this context, I relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in ILR 1994 KARNATAKA 2337 (SC). 7 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.11. As per records, the respondent No.1 has acquired the property belongs to the claimants/petitioners bearing Sy.No.57/1A measuring 1 acre situated at Horamavu Agara village for the purpose of BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants. Preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004, final notification was on 31.07.2006 and award passed on 12.11.2007. As per the records, 12(2) notice issued on 30.05.2009 and claimants received the compensation amount under protest on 12.08.2009. Thereafter on 15-06-2009 and 14.09.2009, the claimants have submitted 18(1) application before the respondent No1. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondents' side has not at all denied the same. The respondents have not produced documents to show that, what is the date of service of 12(2) notice to the claimants. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, the claimants have filed 18(1) application on 14.09.2009 and it is within 90 days from the date of payment of award amount. They also filed 18(1) application on 14.06.2009 and it is within 90 days from the date of 12(2) notice. The respondent No.1 referred the case before this court on 28.10. 2010. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the reference made by the claimants under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act and reference submitted by the 8 L.A.C. No.223/2010 respondent No.1 before this court are in time. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
.12. Point No.2 and 3: These two points are inter- connected. For avoiding repetition of discussion, I have taken up these two points together for consideration.
.13. The claimants are contended that, the market value fixed by the respondent to the acquired property is not correct and not according to the prevailing market value. The respondent fixed the market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre, it is contrary to the Land Acquisition Act. They further contended that the Government guidelines value is much higher than the amount fixed by the respondent to the acquired land. They further contended that neighbouring lands were sold for higher sum than the award passed by the respondent. The acquired land is well developed, having all civic amenities. Market value of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification valued more than Rs.1,82,00,000/- per acre. Hence they prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.10,17,000/- per acre as awarded by the respondent No.1.
9 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.14. I have perused the above said contention of the claimants. The State has power to acquire the property of 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. In 18 reference while determining the enhancement of compensation, 3 methods of valuation are generally adopted namely opinion of experts, sales statistics method and capitalization method. In the case on hand, the claimants have not produced documentary evidence to decide the case on expert opinion. It is true that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired property was an agricultural land. PW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that acquired land was agricultural land. But to consider this case, on the basis of capitalization method, the claimants have not produced any oral and documentary evidence. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that to prove that they were growing crops and a bore-well in the acquired land, they have not produced any documentary evidence. The claimants are wanted to prove their case on the basis of statistical method. Let me see about the case.
10 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.15. I have perused the documentary evidence produced by the claimants. Ex.P.4 is the GPA dated 03.11.2011 executed by claimant No.1, 3 to 5 in favour of claimant No.3 to prosecute this case on their behalf. Ex.P.1 is the RTC extract for the year 2006-07 in-respect of acquired land bearing Sy.No.57/1A measuring total extent of 3 acres 34 guntas including 6 guntas of Kharab land of Horamavu Agara village. In column No.9 and 12 name of the claimant No.1 is shown in-respect of 5 guntas and claimant No.2 to 5 in-respect of 14.4 guntas each. Ex.P.2 is the mutation extract bearing No.46/2004-05. It reveals that the Khatha of the land bearing Sy.No.57/1A measuring 1 acre 22 guntas entered in the name of claimant No.1 for 6 guntas, in the name of claimants 2 to 5 for 14.4 guntas each. From perusal of the said document, it is clear that previously the acquired land belonged to one Ramanna, after his death, his wife and children i.e., claimants 1 to 5 succeeded the said property. The respondents are not disputed that the claimants were the owners of the acquired land.
.16. For enhancement of compensation to the acquired land, the claimants have produced several documents. Ex.P.3 11 L.A.C. No.223/2010 is the letter dated 11.05.2007 issued under RTI Act by the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. It was permitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru for accepting public auction of lands subject to result of Public Interest Litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is mentioned in Ex.P.3 that, certain lands were sold in public auction by the Government. Sl.No.3 of the said document mentioned about the land bearing Sy.No.549 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas belongs to the Bidarahalli/Kalkere village. It was sold in public auction sale for Rs.1,82,00,000/-. I have perused the Ex.P.5 of the village map of Kalkere village. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, acquired land is adjacent to the lands of Kalkere village and it is proved with Ex.P.5 of the village map. Therefore, he prayed for to be fixed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of Ex.P.3.
.17. I have carefully perused Ex.P.3 and found that the land is measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.549 of Bidarahalli/Kalkere village. In the public auction sale the 12 L.A.C. No.223/2010 said total extent of land sold for a sum of Rs.1,82,00,000/-. It means the said land sold @ Rs.3,500/- per guntas or Rs.1,40,00,000/- per acre. It is the General rule that the sale prices of comparable sales should be relied upon for calculating the market value will be applied when the sale transaction relied upon or auction sales. I am of the opinion that in public auction, generally the value of the properties bidding on competition to the higher than actual market value. From careful perusal of Ex.P.5 of the village map, Sy.No.549 of Kalkere village as mentioned in Ex.P.3 is not adjacent to the acquired land in question. It is true that both Kalkere and Horamavu Agara village boundaries are adjacent to each other. But the lands mentioned in Ex.P.3 i.e., Sy.No.549 is not adjacent to the acquired land of this case. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly stated that there is ¾ km distance from Horamavu Agara to Kalkere village. As per Ex.P.6 of village map the boundary of Horamavu Agara village is existed after 2 survey numbers from Sy.No.549. As per Ex.P.12 of Horamavu village map is also clear that the lands in Ex.P.3 are far distance from lands in question. More over, in the present case preliminary notification issued in the year 2004 but Ex.P.3 is for the year 2007. Hence, I am of the 13 L.A.C. No.223/2010 opinion that on the basis of Ex.P.3 market value of the acquired land cannot be considered.
.18. The claimants/petitioners have produced certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.03.2008 and got marked as Ex.P.8. This sale deed pertaining to site No.74, measuring 40 X 30 feet, being the portion of H.L. No.207/1, Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka. Sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deed as Rs.23,00,000/-. Conversion the same into sq. feet, it comes to Rs.1,916.66 sq. feet or Rs.76,66,666/- per acre. Acquired land in question was agricultural land. But this property is the site property. Ex.P.8 is not relates to the date of preliminary notification of this case. This document is for the year 2008. In the present case preliminary notification was on 03.08.2004. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ex.P.8 cannot be accepted for determination of market value as contended by the claimants.
.19. Ex.P.9 is certified copy of sale deed dated 03.08.2007 in-respect of 8 sites measuring 60 X 40 feet each situated at Meghalapalya Hamlet, Chelkere village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka. Total consideration to 14 L.A.C. No.223/2010 the 8 residential sites for Rs.86,94,000/-. It comes to Rs.450/- per sq. feet and Rs.1,96,02000/- per acre.
.20. The claimants contended that the acquired land is adjacent to the lands mentioned Ex.P.9. To prove the same, they have produced certified copy of village map of Chelkere village and got marked as Ex.P.10. I have carefully perused the said village map along with Ex.P.6 of village map of Horamavu Agara village. I am of the opinion that, location of the acquired land and Chelkere village are not adjacent to each other. The acquired land is far distance from Chelkere village. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.9 also not pertaining to the period of preliminary notification of this case for the year 2004. This document is for the year 2007. Hence, I come to the conclusion that on the basis of Ex.P.9 also cannot determine the market value of the acquired land.
.21. Ex.P.11 is the sale deed dated 16.01.2008 in- respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.118 situated at Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka. Consideration of the said sale deed mentioned as Rs.1,98,00,000/- , it comes to Rs.1,16,47,058/- per acre. Ex.P.12 is certified copy of the village map of 15 L.A.C. No.223/2010 Horamavu village. Ex.P.10 is certified copy of village map of Chalkere village and Ex.P.5 and 6 are the village maps of Kalkere and Horamavu Agara village. From perusal of location of the acquired property and property mentioned in Ex.P.11 of the sale deed, I am of the opinion that Horamavu and Horamavu Agara village are different villages and located in different places. The boundaries of both villages are adjacent to the same. Further I am of the opinion that the property mentioned in Ex.P.11 is not adjacent to the acquired property in question.
.22. It is admitted fact that preliminary notification issued in this case on 03.08.2004. Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.11 sale deeds are dated 13.03.2008, 03.08.2007 and 16.01.2008 respectively. These sale deeds are not pertaining to the date of preliminary notification of this case. The said sale transactions took place after lapse of about 3 years from the date of preliminary notification of the present case. Section 23 (1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, matter to be considered in determination of compensation and market value of the land shall be taken into consideration at the time of publication of preliminary notification. As stated above the preliminary 16 L.A.C. No.223/2010 notification published in this case on 03.08.2004. Exs.P.8, 9 and 11 sale deeds are for the year 2007 and 2008. More over, as discussed above the properties of Exs.P.8, 9 and 11 are not situated adjacent to the acquired land in question. They are far away from the acquired land. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ex.P.8, 9 and 11 cannot be considered in determining the compensation.
.23. Preliminary notification issued in this case on 03.08.2004, I am of the opinion that to prove the market value of the property as on the date of preliminary notification, the claimants have not produced the sale deeds pertaining to the year of 2004 or prior to the same. There is no explanation from the claimants that why they have not produced sale deeds as on the date of preliminary notification or prior to the preliminary notification. PW-1 in his cross examination stated that they have not produced any sale deeds pertaining to the village of Horamanu Agara Village as on the date of preliminary notification. I am opinion that, to substantiate the potentiality of the land under acquisition, the claimants have not produced relevant documents. 17 L.A.C. No.223/2010
.24. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.1 acquired the land bearing Sy.No. 40/1 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and Sy.No.41/1 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Horamavu Agara village. The above said 2 lands and land in question are acquired on same notification and for the same purpose. The respondent No.1 has passed an award and fixed market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre. The owners of the above said lands have filed objections and matter referred to this court in L.A.C. No.46/2011. After hearing on both sides, this court enhanced the market value of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.10,17,000/-. He further submitted that, the land in question and the land involved in L.A.C. No.46/2011 are one and the same. Both are having same potentiality, acquired under same notification and same purpose. Hence, the respondent No.1 has no objection for fixing market value of the acquired land at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre as per judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011. RW.1 in his examination-in-chief deposed about judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011 and to be considered this case on the basis of said judgment and award. To prove the said 18 L.A.C. No.223/2010 fact, the respondent has produced certified copies of the judgment and award dated 04.07.2012 passed by this court in L.A.C. No.46/2011 and got marked as per Ex.R.1 and R.2. From careful perusal of the judgment and award with case on hand, it is admitted fact that both lands were acquired for the same purpose i.e., for purpose of BWSSB Sewage Treatment Plants under same notification dated 03.08.2004. In both cases, the award amount passed at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre. After passing award by the respondent No.1, the land owners have filed objections before the respondent No.1 and matter referred to this court and numbered as L.A.C. No.46/2011. On 04.07.2012 this court passed judgment and award and enhanced the market value of the lands at Rs.25,00,000/- in- stead of Rs.10,17,000/- with all statutory benefits.
.25. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2, it is admitted fact that the land in question and lands in L.A.C. No.46/2011 are situated in the same village, both were acquired for the same purpose under same notification dated 03.08.2004. But in the said case, the claimants have not made an attempt and produced the documents for enhancement of compensation. 19 L.A.C. No.223/2010 They have not placed any documentary evidence for determination of compensation. In-spite of the same, this court passed the judgment and award and fixed the market value at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. In the case on hand, the claimants have placed sufficient materials (sale deeds) before this court for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, whatever the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011 cannot be considered and this court is to be considered on the basis of documentary evidence placed by the claimants. I have carefully perused the above said contention with judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.46/2011. It is true that in the said case the claimants have not placed the documents for enhancement of compensation on expert's opinion, statistical method and capitalization method. They have not produced any of the documents for enhancement of compensation. But on the basis of Ex.P.19 produced in the said case, this court determined the market value and fixed the compensation at Rs.25,00,000/-. Ex.P.19 is the resolution effected by the Price Advisory Committee headed by the jurisdictional District Commissioner. The said Committee held on 19.12.2006 and fixed the market value of the lands at Rs.25,00,000/- and 20 L.A.C. No.223/2010 which has been accepted by the respondent No.1. In the said case, this court held that the claimants have failed to prove their case for enhancement of compensation by producing documents. But taking into available documents on record as per Ex.P.19, this court passed the judgment and award and fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by their decision reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka 2336 (State of Karnataka by Special Land Acquisition Officer and others Vs.Mallappa and others), held that "the similar nature of the lands are adjoining villages acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose -held on facts-uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands which are similarly situated to the adjoining villages cannot be faulted, liable to be confirmed". The Hon'ble court clearly held that in the absence of documentary evidence, this court can consider the case on the basis of previous judgment and award. In this case, I have taken up Ex.R.1 and R.2 as a piece of the evidence for determining the market value.
.26. I have carefully perused the award dated 12.11.2007 passed by the respondent No.1. In page No.4 of 21 L.A.C. No.223/2010 the said award, it is mentioned that Advisory Committee was held meeting on 19.12.2006 for fixation of market value of the lands acquired by the KIADB and decided to fix the market value with the consent of Government and land owners. It was decided and fixed market value at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre for agricultural lands and Rs.46,00,000/- per acre for converted lands. The said market value was accepted by the Board and steps taken for payment of compensation. In page 7 of the award, it is mentioned that after considering statistical method, the Government has fixed guidance value of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. In para 8, it is further mentioned that on 19.12.2006 the Advisory Committee was held in the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban and discussed and finally decided that the market value of the lands at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural lands and Rs.46,00,000/- per acre to the converted lands. It is further mentioned that notice issued to the land owners under Sections 9 and 10 of L.A. Act, but they have not filed any objections. It is mentioned that on 05.12.2003, the Advisory Committee has decided to pay the compensation at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural land, said rate was fixed as per agreement under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act 22 L.A.C. No.223/2010 1966. It is noticed that in spite of rate fixed by the Advisory Committee, the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., has considered average price value of 3 years sale deeds prior to the preliminary notification and fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. As discussed above, the respondent No.1 himself accepted the market rate recommended by Advisory Committee at the rate of Rs.45,00,000/- per acre. Ex.P.7 is the notice dated 23.03.2007 issued by the respondent No.1 to the claimants and informed that they have acquired the lands for development of industries and board has been decided the market value of the agricultural lands for Rs.45,00,000/- per acre as consent price. If they agreed the same, they will produce documents within 15 days from the date of said notice. It is further informed that if the claimants have not agreed the market value, they will pass an order under Section 11 of L.A. Act. From considering the Ex.P.7 it is clear that the respondent No.1 has accepted the recommendation of committee for fixing market value at Rs.45,00,000/- per acre to the agricultural lands as a consent award. But while passing an award he has not considered the same and fixed market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre, which is very lower 23 L.A.C. No.223/2010 than the rate fixed by the Price Advisory Committee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the award passed by the respondent No.1 and fixed the market value at Rs.10,17,000/- per acre to the acquired land is not correct as per L.A. Act 1894.
.27. It is noticed that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired land was an agricultural and dry land. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted the same. It is further noticed that, as on the date of preliminary notification, acquired land was not within the jurisdiction of BMP or BBMP. RW-1 in his cross examination has admitted the suggestion put by the claimant side that within a distance of 2-3 kms from the acquired land, ring road, hospitals, college, schools and other basic infrastructures were existing as on the date of notifications. I am of the opinion that the claimants have lost their land and livelihood. Hence, sufficient compensation to be awarded to them is required. Therefore, from looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the acquired property and guidance value fixed by the Price Advisory Committee, to be fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,00,000/- per acre is just and 24 L.A.C. No.223/2010 necessary. It would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. (respondent No.1) is in-adequate and meager and it is to be enhanced. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the claimants are entitle for enhanced compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.10,17,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 and 3 in partly affirmative.
.28. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Reference made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, is partly allowed.
The claimants are entitle for market value of his acquired property at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.10,17,000/- per acre, as awarded by the respondent No1.
Further, the claimants are entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1)A of Land Acquisition Act @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced market value from the date of preliminary notification till the date of taking possession or the date of award whichever is earlier.25 L.A.C. No.223/2010
Further, the claimants are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. on the enhanced market value under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
Further, the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of acquired land and further interest @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
The amount already paid by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., if any, shall be deducted in the enhancement of the market value now awarded.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2019) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : R. Prakash
26 L.A.C. No.223/2010
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of RTC bearing Sy.No.57/1(A)
Ex.P.2 : Mutation register extract
Ex.P.3 : Letter dated 11.05.2007 to Revenue
Department
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Kalkere village map
Ex.P.5 :Certified copy of Kalkere
village map
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Horamavu Agara village
map
Ex.P.6(a) : Portion of Sy.No.57/1B2
Ex.P.7 : Legal notice dated 23.03.2007
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
13.03.2008
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
03.08.2007
Ex.P.10 :Certified copy of Village map
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
16.01.2008
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of Village map
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1: B.M. Nagendra Babu
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 and 2 : Certified copies of judgment and award in L.A.C. No.46/2011 (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
RACHENAHALLI Y DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF SHASHIDHARA KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.09.24 11:12:13 IST 27 L.A.C. No.223/2010