Bangalore District Court
S: 1. Sri Siddarooda Ashrama vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 14th Day of December, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. Bidari, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO. 31/2013 :
CLAIMANT S: 1. Sri Siddarooda Ashrama
Represented by its representative
Sri Shivananda Bharathi Swamiji
No.323, Sri siddarooda Ashrama
Mysuru Road, Bengaluru -39
2. Sri Balakrishna s/o late
D.N.Channappa
No.21/22, 5th Cross,
Bytarayanapura
Bengaluru -26
3. Smt.Vasantha w/o
Veeranjanappa,
Veerasagara, Atturu Post
Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
4. Smt.Vijulakshmi w/o Devaraju
Gopalagowda Badavane
Shivamogga, Shivamogga Dist
Cont'd..
-2- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
5. Sri Jayaram s/o late
D.N.Channappa
No.21/22, 5th Cross,
Bytarayanapura
Bengaluru -26
6. Smt.Geetha w/o Munegowda
Veerasagara, Atturu Post
Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
7. Smt.Pushpa w/o Suresh
r/o Mallathahalli, K.Gunte
Bengaluru.
8. Sri Prakash s/o late
D.N.Channappa
No.21/22, 5th Cross,
Bytarayanapura
Bengaluru -26
(Claimant No.1 by Kumar and
Kumar Associates, Advocates)
(Claimant Nos.2 to 8 by K.
Shreedhar Associates,
Advocates)
Vs.
Respondents:- 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB (Metro Railway Project)
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore.
2. Chief Manager (Land Acquisition
and Estate), BMRCL,
Shanthinagara, Bengaluru
(R1 by Sri P.V.C., Advocate)
(R2 by Sri N.M., Advocate)
Cont'd..
-3- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
: JUDGMENT :
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as SLAO), KIADB (Metro Railway Project), Bengaluru have made this reference u/ss.30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act).
.2. The brief facts of the case are:
The respondent No.1 for the benefit of respondent No.2 i.e., Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, has acquired the land to the extent of 1839.87 sq. mtrs., for purpose of Bengaluru Metro Rail Project, out of property No.323, L.A./ C.T.S.No.670 (Sy.No.36/1) situated at Gali Hanumantharaya Temple Ward No.41, within the limits of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (here-in-after referred as B.B.M.P.). During acquisition proceedings, preliminary notification under Sec.28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act 1966 (here-in-after referred as KIAD Act) in No.CI 462/ SPQ/2005, dt.17.1.2006 is being published in Karnataka State Gazette dt.17.01.2006. The final notification under Cont'd..
-4- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Sec.28(4) of KIAD Act in No.CI 692/SPQ/2007, Bengaluru dt.24.10.2007 has been published in the Karnataka Gazette dt.24.10.2007, for acquisition of above said property. The respondent No.1 i.e., Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB (Metro Rail Project), resorting to the provisions of L.A.Act and KIAD Act, has acquired the aforesaid land for Bengaluru Metro Railway Project and awarded an amount of Rs.10,57,87,208/- as compensation to the acquired land. The respondent No.1 after deducting an amount of Rs.1,19,85,691/- out of the quantified compensation amount, paid the remaining amount of Rs.9,38,01,517/- to claimant No.1 Sri Shivananda Bharati Swamyji, Siddarooda Ashrama, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru. The claimant No.2 to 8 herein did file writ petitions in W.P. No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P.No.46757-61/2012 against the S.L.A.O. and others. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru in the above said writ petitions, the S.L.A.O., has made this reference under Sec.30 and 31(2) of L.A.Act.
Cont'd..
-5- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
.3. This court on receipt of reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A.Act, from S.L.A.O., registered the same as L.A.C. No.31/2013 and issued notice to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notice, claimant No.1 to 8 and respondent No.1 and 2, have appeared through their respective counsel.
.4. Smt. Rukminiyamma D/o Narasimhaiah, who is one of the trustee of claimant No.1, has filed claim statement of claimant No.1 dt.25.09.2013, wherein, averred that the claimant No.1 is a Religious and Charitable Trust and was established in the year 1961, under a registered Trust Deed. The Trust has established a local branch/Mutt at Bengaluru. Subsequently, there were many changes in the constitution of the Trust and consequently on 20.8.2004 a revised Trust Deed was executed and registered. The property bearing Old Sy.No.9 (then Sy.No.36/1) and presently municipal Corporation No.323 L.A./C.T.S.No.670 (Sy.No.36/1) was purchased by claimant No.1 from one S.Ramanna and Cont'd..
-6- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
S.Venkatappa, under registered sale deed dt.16.10.1960 as per boundaries and measurement mentioned therein. Said S.Ramanna and S.Venkatappa had purchased said property under a registered sale deed from M.Puttaiah and Nanjappa. Thereafter, Sy.No.9 was re-surveyed and numbered interalia as Sy.No36/1. Thereafter, at the request of claimant No.1, the Deputy Commissioner, has issued a conversion order dt.16.4.1964, converting land to non-agricultural purpose, to an extent 01 Acre 25 guntas, which includes 15 guntas karab portion for the purpose of construction of middle school building and kalyana mantap, etc. Therefore, continuing the RTC, showing the land in Sy.No.36/1 as agricultural land does not arise at all. Subsequently, the property in question came within the jurisdiction of City Municipal Council (Kengeri) and thereafter, came within the limits of Bengaluru City Corporation. Thus the property became subject to the provisions of Municipal Corporation came within the fold of Bengaluru City Corporation during the year 1996-97. Consequently, provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cont'd..
-7- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
ceased to operate. The land was converted into non- agricultural purpose as aforesaid in the year 1964 itself, as such, it came to be assessed at the hands of Bengaluru City Corporation, close to 18 years back. As per the knowledge of claimant No.1, there are no agricultural lands, in Sy.No.36/1 within BBMP limits and it was the subject matter of acquisition by KIADB. The land in question was standing in the name of claimant No.1, in the City survey records. The respondent No.1 for the benefit of respondent No.2, has acquired property to the extent of 1839.87 Sq.Mtrs., in the aforesaid property of claimant No.1. Claimant No.1 has handed over the said acquired property, to respondent No.1. As aforesaid, the property in question was in possession and enjoyment of claimant No.1 as owner and claimant No.1 was paying taxes, cess, etc. Name of the claimant was recorded in the records of BBMP. The respondent after verifying the records of the acquired land, has disbursed the compensation amount in favour of claimant No.1. The claimants 2 to 8 have no manner of right, title and interest over the property Cont'd..
-8- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
comprised in property bearing No.323, City/L.A. No.670 (Sy.No.36/1), to the extent of acquired i.e., 1839.87 Sq.Mtrs. The claimants 2 to 8 have no manner of right, title interest over the acquired land. The claimants 2 to 8 in Writ Petition No. WP No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P.No.46757- 61/2012 filed against the S.L.A.O. and others., contending that they are entitled for 14 ½ guntas which is said to be karab land and comprised in Sy.No. 36/1. It is well settled principle that karab land does not belongs to any individual and karab land always belongs to the Government and if karab land is to be utilized as cultivable land, same could be only done after permission obtained from the competent authority and after paying premium/fine only in respect of "A" kharab. The claimants 2 to 8 have not produced any materials / documents in support of their claim. The claimants 2 to 8 are contending that their father H.Nanjappa was the original owner of the land. The claimants 2 to 8 have deliberately suppressed the fact of alienation made by Nanjappa and M.Puttaiah in favour of Sri S.Ramanna and Cont'd..
-9- : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
S.Venkatappa from whom claimant No.1 has purchased the property. Claimants 2 to 8 are making attempts to mislead the Court and to make wrongful gain. The claimants No.2 to 8 are harping upon an order passed by the Special Tahasildar in RRT 94/2004-05 dated 17.11.2007 and on the strength of said order contending that they have a right to the compensation. The revenue records are not the title deeds and such revenue entries will not confer any title on any party. The aforesaid proceedings before the Special Tahasildar are no way concerned in connection with the acquisition of the property in question in this reference. The claimants 2 to 8 have no manner of right to claim compensation of acquired land. The claimant No.1 called upon claimants 2 to 8 to prove their right in the acquired property, much less as claimed by them. The claimants 2 to 8 taking advantage of the fact that claimant No.1 is a Trust and are using political and muscle power to extort and derive wrongful gain, but in vain, hence, they are claiming alleged right in the acquired property on false grounds. These main grounds, among others urged in Cont'd..
- 10 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
the claim statement, prayer to dismiss the claim of claimants
2 to 8 with exemplary costs.
.5. The claimants 2 to 8 have filed common claim statement dt.5.9.2013, wherein, among others averred that a portion of land in Sy.No.36/1 of Divitigi - Ramanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk has been acquired. The Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk through order dt.17.11.2007, has decided the claim of the claimants No.2 to 8 holding that they are owners of 14 ½ gunta + kharab land proportionate. Claimants No.2 to 8 are entitled for compensation of acquired land, to certain portions belonging to them, in the acquired land and entitled to compensation to that extent which is already paid to claimant No.1. The area belonging to claimants 2 to 8 may be ascertained and direction be issued for payment of compensation. The aforesaid order of the Tahasildar, has become final as same has not been challenged by the claimant No.1. It is averred that father of claimants No.2 to 8 i.e., Nanjappa was owner of Cont'd..
- 11 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
entire extent and he sold certain extents to claimant No.1 and others, retaining a portion of the land which has been determined by the Tahasildar. Claimants 2 to 8, being the LRs of their father late Nanjappa, are legally entitled for compensation as aforesaid. Therefore, prayer to determine and apportion compensation of the acquired land, to the extent belongs to them in the aforesaid acquired land.
.6. The claimants 2 to 8, to substantiate their claim, have examined the claimant No.2 Balakrishna S/o late. D.N. Channappa, as PW.1. The claimant No.1, to prove its claim, has examined its one of the trustee namely Smt. Rukminiyamma as PW.2. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 67, Ex.P.12(a), Ex.P.21(a), Ex.P.24(a), Ex.P.25(a) and Ex.P.62(a) are marked on behalf of the claimants. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness RW.1 Narasimhappa who is a S.L.A.O./respondent No.1. The documents at Exs.R.1 to 11 are marked for the respondents. The court commissioner Sri. Nandeesh, surveyor, is examined as CW.1.
Cont'd..
- 12 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
The documents at Exs.C.1 to 6 are marked during his evidence.
.7. I have heard Sri. AR, the learned counsel for the claimant No.1 and heard Sri.KS the learned counsel for the claimants 2 to 8 and also heard Sri.RR, Advocate, on behalf of Sri. PVC, Advocate for respondent No.1. The argument of respondent No.2 taken as heard. The written argument is filed, on behalf of claimants 2 to 8. Perused the records and written argument.
.8. The points that would arise for consideration of this court are:
1) Whether the claimants 2 to 8 prove that the land to the extent of 14 ½ guntas with proportionate i.e., 0.09 guntas kharab land, belongs to their ownership was comprised in acquired property bearing No.LA/CTS No.670 (Sy.No.36/1) corresponding property No.323, situated in Galihanumantharaya temple ward of BBMP, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the claimants 2 to 8 prove that portion of their alleged land referred in point No.1, is being acquired by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 for Bengaluru Metro Rail Cont'd..
- 13 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
project along with property of claimant No.1 comprised in property bearing No.LA/CTS No.670 (Sy.No.36/1)? If so, they are entitle to receive the compensation, out of the compensation awarded to the acquired land and to what extent?
3) Whether the claimant No.1 proves that the entire acquired property measuring 1839.87 sq. meters comprised in LA/CTS No.670 corresponding property No.323 situated in Galihanumantharaya temple ward of BBMP, Bengaluru and it has right to receive the entire compensation amount awarded to the said property?
4) What order or award?
.9. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the negative, Point No.2 : In the negative, Point No.3 : In the affirmative, Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .10. POINTS 1 to 3: These points are inter-related, hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to Cont'd..
- 14 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
avoid repetition of facts. The PW-1 Balakrishna S/o late. D.N.Channappa, who is a claimant No.2, has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating most of the claim statement averments of claimants 2 to 8. The PW.1 has tendered his evidence for himself and on behalf of the claimants 3 to 8. The PW.2 Smt. Rukminiyamma D/o Narasimhaiah, who is one of the trustee of claimant No.1, has filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination, reiterating most of the claim statement averments of claimant No1. The RW.1 Narasimhappa S/o Krishnappa, who was working as S.L.A.O., in the respondent No.1 office, as on the date of deposing before the court, has filed an affidavit, in lieu of his chief-examination, supporting version of the respondent No.1 in the instant reference, with-regard to the manner of acquisition of the acquired land, in question and disbursement of the compensation amount, in-favour of Sri. Shivananda Bharathi Swamiji, on behalf of claimant No.1, by the then S.L.A.O., KIADB, as per agreement entered between them u/s. 29(2) of KIAD Act, subject to the conditions Cont'd..
- 15 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
narrated in the documents executed by the said Swamini on 01.08.2008.
.11. The PW.1 Balakrishna, among other facts, has stated in his chief-examination that the land bearing Sy.No.36/1 totally measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Divitigi- Ramanahalli (here-in-after referred as DR village), originally belonged to their family, stands in their names, out of which, certain extent of land was sold by their grand-father and remaining extent is belonged to them, which is being not sold in-favour of any one. He states that the claimant No.1 is one of such purchaser of certain lands from their family, but he is not an owner of entire extent of land. The PW.1 further states that there was a dispute between them and claimant No.1 in- respect of the land retained by their family, as such, the dispute in that regard is being decided by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka in RRT No.94/2004-05 dated 17.11.2007, wherein, it is held that they are the owners of remaining extent of land measuring 14 ½ guntas kharab Cont'd..
- 16 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
land and the claimant No.1 was also a party in the said proceedings. The PW.1 further states that the claimant No.1 has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid order of Special Tahsildar dated 17.11.2007, hence, the said order become final and it is binding on the claimant No.1 also. The PW.1 further states that certain portion in the aforesaid land is acquired for Metro Rail project, including their land, but the claimant No.1 knowing about the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2007, passed by the Special Tahildar, suppressing the said fact and without disclosing the rights of claimants 2 to 8 in the acquired property, illegally received the entire compensation of the acquired land, as such, they had preferred W.P. No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P. No.46757-61/2012, which have been allowed and remanded the matter to this court to decide claim of claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No.1 with-regard to the acquired land, in this reference. The PW.2 Smt. Rukminiyamma who is one of the trustee of claimant No.1 Trust, among others, has stated in her chief examination that the claimant No.1 is a Trust and Cont'd..
- 17 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
their institution is being established in the year 1961, under a registered Trust deed and subsequently, there were many changes in the constitution of the Trust with-regard to which the Revised Trust deed dated 20.08.2004 is being registered. The Ex.P.62 is an amended Trust deed dated 06.11.2003, registered in the Sub-registrar office, Bengaluru South Taluka, wherein, amendment has been brought into an original registered Trust Deed dated 30.12.1961 of Sri. Siddarooda Ashrama Trust. The Ex.P.62 evidences that Smt. Rukminiyamma who is a PW.2 is one of the trustee of the claimant No.1. The Ex.P.63 is an unregistered GPA dated 13.03.2011 executed by Sri. Shivananda Bharathi Swamiji, in-favour of PW.2 Rukminiyamma, authorizing her to take participations in the proceedings, with-regard to the properties of the claimant No.1, in Civil, Criminal and revenue courts, municipal or any authority, where the presence of claimant No.1 is necessary. This Ex.P.63 and oral evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P.62 evidences that the PW.2 is a holder of GPA holder of claimant No.1. The PW.2 Cont'd..
- 18 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Rukminiyamma, among other facts, has stated in her chief examination that the claimant No.1 institution has purchased the property bearing Sy.No.36/1 ( old Sy.No.9), present Municipal corporation No.323, CTS No.670 from one S. Ramanna and S. Venkatappa, under a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1960. The PW.2 states that S. Ramanna and S. Venkatappa the vendors of the claimant No.1 of the aforesaid properties had purchased the same from M. Puttaiah and Nanjappa, under a registered sale deed. The Ex.P.27 is an original registered sale deed dated 16.10.1960. The Ex.P.19 is a certified copy of Ex.P.27 and whereas, the Ex.P.19(a) is a translated copy of Ex.P.19. These Exs.P.27, 19 and 19(a) evidences that S. Ramanna and S. Venkatappa together have sold the land in the earlier valuations Sy.No.9, in-favour of claimant No.1, measuring towards East - North-south 176 sq. feet, towards West - North-south 304 feets and towards North
- East-West 83 feets and towards south - East-west 300 feets. The Ex.P.18 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960 and Ex.P.18(a) is a translation copy of Ex.P.18.
Cont'd..
- 19 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
These Exs.P.18 and 18(a) evidences that the land covered under the aforesaid Exs.P.19 and 19(a) is being sold by Nanjappa and Puttaiah, in-favour of S. Ramaiah and S. Venkatappa. The PW.1 in his chief-examination has stated that his grand-father Nanjappa did purchase the land to the extent of 4 acres 20 guntas through a registered sale deed dated 08.09.1958. The Ex.P.14 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 08.09.1958, and Ex.P.14(a) is a translation copy of Ex.P.14, where-under, Nanjappa has purchased the land to the extent of 4 acres20 guntas i.e., 4 ½ acres, in Sy.No.8 of DR village, from Puttaiah for a consideration amount of Rs.3,000/-. The PW.1 states that his grand-father sold 20 guntas land out of the land purchased in the aforesaid sale deed dated 08.09.1958 in-favour of Thimmegowda, through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1959. The Ex.P.15 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21.12.1959, where-under, Nanjappa has sold 1/2 acre i.e., 20 guntas land in Sy.No.8 of DR village, in-favour of Thimmegowda, for a consideration amount of Rs.2,000/-, out Cont'd..
- 20 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
of the property purchased under the sale deed marked at Ex.P.14. The PW.1 further states that Thimmegowda again re- conveyed 20 guntas land purchased by him in-favour of Nanjappa through a sale deed dated 13.10.1960. The Ex.P.16 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.10.1960 and Ex.P.16(a) is a translation copy of Ex.P.16, where-under, Thimmegowda re-sold ½ acre i.e., 20 guntas land in Sy.No.9, in-favour of Nanjappa for a consideration amount of Rs.1,000/-. The PW.1 has stated in his chief- examination that his grand-father Nanjappa and Patel Puttaiah together have sold 39 ½ guntas land in-favour of Sri. Seetarama Shantananda Swamy (here-in-after referred as Swamiji), through a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960, since Puttaiah was an absolute owner, hence, he joined his grand-father, to sell the said land in-favour of Swamiji. The Ex.P.26 is an original registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960, Ex.P.17 is a certified copy of Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.17(a) is a translation copy of Ex.P.17 respectively. These Exs.P.26, 17 and 17(a) evidences that Nanjappa and Puttaiah together Cont'd..
- 21 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
have sold the land to the extent of 140 feets North-South towards East, 140 feet North-south towards West, 300 feets East-west towards North and 315 feets East-West towards South, in Sy.No.9 of DR village, in-favour of Swamiji, for a consideration amount of Rs.5,000/-. The PW.1 further states that their grand-father Nanjappa and Puttaiah together have sold to the extent of 1 acre 1 gunta in-favour of S. Ramanna and S. Venkatappa, through a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960. The certified copy of relevant of sale deed and its translation are marked at Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.18(a) discussed above. The PW.1 further states that later, the said Ramanna and S. Venkatappa have sold 1 acre 1 gunta land in-favur of Swamiji, through the said sale deed, which has been marked at Ex.P.19 discussed above. The PW.1 states that his grand- father Nanjappa has sold the land to the extent of 0.7 ¾ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 and re-Sy.No.16/1. The Ex.P.20 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 25.06.1962 and Ex.P.20(a) is a translation copy of Ex.P.20. The Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.20(a) evidences that Nanjappa sold the land to the extent Cont'd..
- 22 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
of 105 feets and 25 feets in old Sy.No.8 of DR village, described therein for a consideration amount of Rs.6,000/-. The Ex.P.20(b) is a copy of rectification deed dated 25.06.1966 executed by Nanjappa in-favour of Puttaiah, with- regard to the properties sold under the aforesaid Ex.P.20. The PW.1 states that their grand-father Nanjappa sold 0.23 guntas in Sy.No.16/1, 0.22 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.17/1, in- favour of Md. Khasim and others through a registered sale deed dated 19.11.1962 and later, the said Md. Khasim sold the same to Abdul Gaffar through a sale deed dated 19.07.1965 and rectification deed dated 30.09.1966, has executed with-regard to the mistakes crept in the aforesaid sale deed, stating that the land sold in Sy.No.16/1 measuring 21 guntas and 23 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.17/1 and 0.02 guntas comes in Sy.No.36/1, hence, in all the land sold in the aforesaid sale deed and correction deed comes to 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas land. The Ex.P.21 is a certified copy of registered rectification deed dated 30.09.1966 and Ex.P.21(a) if a translation copy of Ex.P.21 corresponding to the property sold Cont'd..
- 23 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
under the aforesaid sale deed and rectification deed to the extent of 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas as discussed above. The PW.1 states that as per RTC of the year 2003-04, to the extent of 2 acres 0.5 guntas, which includes 25 guntas kharab land and balance cultivable land to the extent of 1 acre 21 guntas. The PW.1 stated in his chief-examination that Swamiji purchased the land on 3 occasions i.e., 39 ½, 1 acre 1 gunta and 4 guntas respectively. He states that Md. Khasim has purchased 1 acre 0.1/3 gunta, Hanumanthaiah purchased 0.07 ¼ guntas which are comprised in Sy.No.36, 16 and 17 as sold by his grand-father Nanjappa and total extent of all the aforesaid alienation, comes to 3 acres 17 ½ guntas, which was originally referred as sold in old Sy.No.09. He states that after re-survey, the land in new Sy.No.36/1 measures 2 acres 0.5 gunta, which includes 24 guntas kharab, remaining cultivable is 1 acre 21 guntas, out of which Swamiji purchased 39 ½ guntas, Hanumanthaiah purchased 7 ¼ guntas which comes to 1 acre 6 ¾ guntas and remaining extent of 14 ¼ guntas is retained by his grand-father and also Cont'd..
- 24 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 : proportionate kharab land. He states that this aspect has
been referred in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.47/1991-92 dated 18.06.1992. The PW.1 further states that the claimant No.1 i.e., represented by Swamiji suppressing all the aforesaid alienation took place, since life time of Nanjappa, the grand-father of PW.1 playing fraud has received entire compensation amount of Rs.9,38,01,517/-, awarded to the acquired land from the S.L.A.O., but the portion of land purchased by the grand- father of PW.1 as discussed above, remained un-sold, is also being acquired by S.L.A.O., for which the claimants 2 to 8 are entitle to receive the compensation to the extent of their acquired portion, as such, they did approach the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking their right to receive the compensation out of the compensation amount awarded to the acquired land. The PW.1 further states in his chief- examination that they are not claiming only kharab land, comprised in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, but the claimants 2 to 8 are claiming their right in-respect of the land measuring 14 Cont'd..
- 25 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
½ guntas remained un-alienated with proportionate kharab land and the compensation of portion of their said acquired land in this reference. The PW.1 further states that the claim of claimant No.1 is on the basis of conversion order dated 16.04.1964 to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas inclusive of 20 guntas of kharab land passed by the Deputy commissioner, does not convey title to the property. He states that the claimant No.1 has purchased the land lesser than 1 acre 1 gunta through a sale deed purchased from S. Ramanna and S. Venkatappa, under the circumstances, there is no conversion order in-respect of 39 ½ guntas purchased from his grand-father. The PW.1 states that in-fact the claimant No.1 had made wrong application showing more extent of land than what he had purchased, without looking into the title-deeds, the D.C., has granted conversion, to more extent of land, which will not enure to the benefit of claimant No.1 and the claimant No.1 is entitle to the extent for which he has got a title and remaining conversion land will necessarily comes to claimants 2 to 8 and Hanumanthaiah. The PW.1 to Cont'd..
- 26 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
show that Nanjappa is his grand-father got marked certified copy of an affidavit cum genealogical tree at Ex.P.1. This Ex.P.1 evidences that late. Nanjappa is a grand-father of claimants 2, 5 and 8 and father of these claimants late. Channappa is a son of late. Nanjappa and Rangamma is a mother of these claimants. The Ex.P.2 is a copy of memo submitted by PW.1 before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru for conducting survey and drawing sketch of the property. The Ex.P.3 is a certified copy of requisition, wherein, the Taluka surveyor, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru on 29.01.1996 did file the said requisition stating that he has surveyed the land in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, with-regard to 14 ¼ guntas on the spot as shown by the applicant. The Ex.P.4 is a certified copy of survey sketch issued by Taluka surveyor, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru, which evidences that as per the order of Taluka Tahsildar, in No.RRT(2) CR/85/95-96, stating that he has conducted survey of 14 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village and drawn the sketch mentioned therein as told by applicant Cont'd..
- 27 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
and also stating that presently the said extent of land is being used for school play ground as alleged by Swamiji. The RW.1 Narasimhaiah who was working as S.L.A.O., in the respondent No.1 office, as on the date of tendering his chief- examination evidence dated 11.08.2014, among other facts, has stated in his evidence that he is working as S.L.A.O., KIADB (Metro Rail project) in respondent No.1 office and on the basis of available records in the office of respondents, he is deposing in this case. The RW.1 among other facts has stated that the State Government has issued a preliminary notification u/s. 28(1) of KIAD Act dated 17.01.2006 for acquisition of the land to the extent of 1839.87 sq. meters for Metro project. He states that master's name was shown as anubhavadar, since acquired portion used as school play ground and after the aforesaid preliminary notification, the S.L.A.O., has held enquiry as per section 28(3) of L.A. Act and during enquiry proceedings Mr. Gangadhar appeared on behalf of the claimant No.1 and filed statement objections, stating that in the preliminary notification the name of Cont'd..
- 28 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
anubhavadar and khatedar has wrongly published, since the aforesaid acquired land absolutely belongs to the claimant No.1 and name of claimant No.1 is being recorded in the records of BBMP, pertaining to the said land and portion of the acquired land is a property belonged to claimant No.1 and it was being used as school play ground being run by claimant No.1. The RW.1 further states that the final notification u/s. 28(4) of KIAD Act dated 24.08.2007 has been issued and finally notification was issued in the name of claimant No.1 as khatedar and anubhavadar of the acquired land as its name is reflecting in the records. The RW.1 further states that the notice u/s. 28(6) dated 01.12.2007 was issued to the claimant No.1, to hand over possession of the acquired land, accordingly, the claimant No.1, has handed over possession of the acquired land and thereafter the S.L.A.O., has caused notice dated 09.07.2008 u/s. 29(2) of Act, to receive the compensation by producing documents at the agreed rate to the claimant No.1. The RW.1 further states that Swamiji on behalf of claimant No.1, pursuant to Cont'd..
- 29 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
the aforesaid notice appeared before the S.L.A.O., produced copies of title deeds, municipal records and executed an agreement u/s. 29(2) of KIAD Act, coupled with indemnity bond dated 01.08.2008 in-favour of S.L.A.O., agreeing to receive the compensation in full and final settlements with all benefits towards acquired land. The RW.1 further states that the L.A.O., after perusing the documents produced by Swamiji of the claimant No.1, on being satisfied, has disbursed the compensation amount, in-favour of Swamiji on 01.08.2008. The RW.1 further states that after disbursement of compensation to the claimant No.1, the claimants 2 to 8 have made an application on 17.11.2008, praying for payment of compensation of the acquired land. The Ex.R.2 is a certified copy of preliminary notification issued u/s. 28(1) of KIAD Act dated 17.01.2006, for acquisition of property, in question, along with other properties for the purpose of Bengaluru - Mysore Metro Rail project. The Ex.R.5 is a certified copy of final notification u/s. 28(4) of KIAD Act, issued in the Karnataka State Gazette notification dated Cont'd..
- 30 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
24.10.2007, where-under, among others, the land to the extent of 1839.87 sq. meters in property No.323 of BBMP and in CTS No.670 mentioned therein ordered for acquisition mentioned therein at sl.no.12, standing in the name of claimant No.1. The Ex.R.6 is a notice u/s. 28(6) dated 01.12.2007 issued by S.L.A.O., in the name of claimant No.1, to hand over the possession of aforesaid acquired land measuring 1839.87 sq. meters within 30 days of receipt of the said notice, otherwise, action would be aken in this regard, as per law . The Ex.R.7 is a notice dated 09.07.2008 issued by the S.L.A.O., in the name of claimant No.1, to receive the compensation amount awarded to the acquired land to the extent of Rs.9,38,01,517/- which is an amount after deducting the income tax awarded to the acquired land within 23.07.2008 by producing the documents of the acquired land mentioned therein, failure to which, the award will be passed u/s. 11 of L.A. Act 1894. The Ex.R.8 is a Metro package letter dated 07.07.2008, where-under, the compensation awarded to the acquired land has been mentioned. The Ex.R.9 is an Cont'd..
- 31 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
original indemnity bond dated 01.08.2008 executed by Swamiji on behalf of claimant No.1, where-under, consenting to receive the compensation amount awarded to the aforesaid acquired land executed the said documents in-favour of S.L.A.O., and received Rs.9,38,01,517/-. These documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1 evidences that the land to the extent of 1839.87 sq. meters, is being acquired for Bengaluru - Mysore Rail project and Swamiji executing the indemnity bond and agreement dated 01.08.2008 before the S.L.A.O., has received the entire compensation amount awarded to the aforesaid acquired land, consenting to receive package amount as contemplated u/s. 29(2) of KIAD Act. The oral evidence of witnesses and the documentary evidence discussed above, evidences that there is no dispute that property in question, to the extent of 1839.87 sq. meters is being acquired for formation of Bengaluru Mysore Metro project and Swamiji of claimant No.1 has received the entire compensation of the said acquired land. The Ex.P.23 is a certified copy of order dated Cont'd..
- 32 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
19.02.2013 in W.P. No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P. No.46757-61/2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Sri. Balakrishna and others Vs. State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Bengaluru and others. The perusal of Ex.P.23 evidences that as deposed by PW.1, the dispute had arose between claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No.1 with-regard to the entitlement of compensation amount of the aforesaid acquired land and whereas, the claimants 2 to 8 are claiming that the land to the extent of 14 ½ guntas with proportionate kharab, remained un-alienated, out of the property purchased by their grand-father late. Nanjappa, which was comprised in the acquired land and portion of their such land is also acquired, as such, they are entitle for compensation to that extent and the entire compensation received by Swamiji for claimant No.1 herein is not correct. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the dispute between claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No.1 with-regard to the entitlement of the Cont'd..
- 33 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
compensation and considering the dispute took place between claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No.1 in RRT No.1(dispute) 2004-05 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that the dispute between them with-regard to the entitlement of compensation of the acquired land between claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No.1 requires identity of acquired property and apportionment of compensation u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, hence, issued direction to the S.L.A.O., to make a reference to this court u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, for adjudication of the dispute between them, consequently, pursuant to the order therein, the S.L.A.O., has made the instant reference u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act. The relevant portion in the aforesaid W.P. No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P. No.46757-61/2012 reads as under:
"6. In the circumstances, there being no material to establish that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was informed of the litigation between the petitioners' and the 4th respondent, the endorsement dated 15.07.2009-Annexure "C" of the 2nd respondent directing the petitioners to approach the civil court cannot be sustained. Petitioners have been kept away from the compensation from the year 2009 onwards Cont'd..
- 34 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
hence, ends of justice would be met by directing the 2nd respondent to make a reference, within two weeks from today, to the civil court for adjudication over both identity of the properties and apportionment of compensation under sections 30 and 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while making it clear the civil court need not be influenced by any finings of fact recorded in this order while drawing its conclusions. In the event the civil court records a finding that the petitioners lands too has been acquired by the 2nd respondent, it is needless to state that the 4th respondent is directed to deposit the amount so determined together with interest @ 10% p.a., from 1.8.2008 up to the date of payment. If such reference is made, civil court is directed to conclude the proceeding within nine months of the parties entering appearance. The findings recorded on the conduct of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to be treated as advisory."
The claimant No.1 is claiming that the entire acquired property, in question, is belongs to it, accordingly, it has right to receive the compensation, consequently, received the compensation of the acquired land from the S.L.A.O. Per contra, the claimants 2 to 8 are claiming that portion of their alleged 14 ½ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, is also being acquired and they are entitle for compensation to that extent, Cont'd..
- 35 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
out of the compensation amount awarded to the acquired land, as such, it is for the claimant No.1 and claimants 2 to 8 to prove their respective contentions, since the claimants are standing on the footing of plaintiffs and their claim statements are analogous to a plaint in the suit and whereas, the statement accompanied in terms of section 19 of L.A. Act, transmitted by the respondents is analogous to written statements and the respondents are in a position of defendants in the suit. Sri. AR the learned counsel for the claimant No.1 referring to the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1 and evidence of court commissioner CW.1 and also referring to the documentary evidence and the sketch prepared by the CW.1, submits that the claimant No.1 has purchased around 2 acres 5 guntas, out of the property of grand-father of PW.1 Nanjappa in three different sale deeds, out of which there was 24 guntas kharab land remaining cultivable land was 1 acre 21 guntas, which has been later recorded in Sy.No.36/1. Late. Nanjappa during his life-time, itself has sold remaining portion, in-favour of different Cont'd..
- 36 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
persons under sale deeds which are on record and no portion or 14 ½ guntas or 14 ¼ guntas, whatsoever was not remaining and retained un-sold in the property purchased by late. Nanjappa, much less, as contended by the claimants 2 to 8. Sri. AR the learned counsel further submits that the claimant No.1 not only purchased 39 ½ guntas, much less, as contended by the claimants 2 to 8. This apart, Sri. AR the learned counsel for the claimant No.1 submits that the claimant No.1 got converted the land to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, in the year 1964 itself and constructed the school, kalyana mantap etc., for public purpose and commissioner's report to the extent that the land purchased by the claimant No.1 and alleged 14 ½ guntas of claimants 2 to 8 in Sy.No.36/1 over-lapse each other, is not correct to that extent and rest of the commissioner's report and evidence of CW.1, is supporting the case of claimant No.1, hence, prayed to hold that the claimant No.1 alone is entitle to receive the entire compensation amount of the acquired land and the claimant No.1 itself was an owner of Cont'd..
- 37 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 : the acquired land. Sri. AR the learned counsel for the
claimant No.1 further submits that since 1964, i.e., from conversion of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.36/1, it has lost its character as agricultural land as it was converted into non- agricultural purpose and since many years, the said property was within the limits of Bengaluru City Corporation, BBMP, consequently, the acquired land, in question, was being subject to tax as property within the limits of BBMP and the City Survey Rules were applied to the acquired land, in question and the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1964 were not applicable to the land, in question, since, the conversion of the land in the year 1964, as such, the question of 4 ¼ guntas remaining in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, much less, as contended by claimants 2 to 8 does not arise. Sri. AR the learned counsel for the claimant in support of the argument that movement, agricultural land in question converted into non-agricultural purpose and included within the jurisdiction of BBMP, as such, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, provisions ceases to be applied to the land Cont'd..
- 38 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
in question and the revenue officers i.e., Tahsildar and Asst. Commissioner, in proceedings with-regard to the mutation entries and entries in the record of rights of the property in question cannot confer title to the land in question and the order passed by the Revenue Officers under Ex.P.5, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are not conferring the title of the property in question, in-favour of claimants 2 to 8, has placed the reliance on the ruling reported in (1) ILR 2005 KAR 60 (in the case of J.M. Narayana and others Vs. Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, By its Commissioner Officer, Bengaluru and others; (2) 2006(4) Karnataka Law Journal 330 (in the case of Smt. Papamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and others; (3) ILR 1998 KAR 1 (S.C.) (in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Keshav Ram and others) and (4) AIR 1994 SC 1496 (in the case of Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others). Per contra, Sri. KS the learned counsel for the claimants 2 to 8, referring to the oral and documentary evidence on record submits that the claimant No.1, suppressing the dispute took place before Cont'd..
- 39 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, has executed an indemnity bond and agreement on 01.08.2008, and received the entire compensation amount of the acquired land, though the revenue authorities have held that the claimants 2 to 8 are the owners to the extent of 14 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, as same has reached finality as the claimant No.1 has not appealed against said order, as such, the claimants 2 to 8 are entitle for compensation to the extent of portion of their acquired land comprised in Sy.No.36/1. These all facts also being stated in the written argument filed on behalf of the claimants 2 to 8. The RW.1 Narasimhappa, among other facts, has stated in the chief examination that the acquired land i.e., subject matter of the acquired land is covered under sale deed marked at Ex.P.26 and the said property has been phoded and assigned as re-Sy.No.36/1 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas in extent, wherein, 39 ½ guntas of land of western side belongs to the claimant No.1 and adjacent to the said land, on eastern side, the extent of 21 guntas of land sold by fore-father of claimants 2 to 8 to one Hanumanthaiah under a Cont'd..
- 40 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
registered sale deed dated 25.06.1962 is existing and adjacent to the said portion on eastern side, the fore-father of the claimants 2 to 8 has sold 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.8 of DR village, to G. Mohammed Khasim and others. The RW.1 further states that G. Mohammed Khasim and others have sold the entire extent of 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas to Abdul Hazai Lathif and others under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1965 marked at Ex.P.23 mentioned as re-Sy.No.16/1 measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.17/1 measuring 22 1/3 guntas, thus totally measuring 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas of land, later-on, the registered rectification deed dated 30.09.1966 is being executed. The RW.1 further states that the re- Sy.Nos.16/1 and 17/1 totally measures 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas is being corrected as Sy.No.16/1 measuring 21 guntas, Sy.No.17/1 measuring 22 1/3 guntas and Sy.No.36/1 measures 0.02 guntas, totally measuring 1 acre 5 1/3 guntas. The RW.1 further states that as per the aforesaid documents stated by him, the fore-father of claimants 2 to 8 has sold the entire extent of 1 acre 21 guntas land in Cont'd..
- 41 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, abutting to Bengaluru Mysore road, they have not retained any portion of the land in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, abutting to Bengaluru Mysore road. These pieces of oral evidence of RW.1 being corroborated by the aforesaid documentary evidence i.e., sale deeds and rectification deed discussed above in the body of the judgment. The RW.1 further states that the acquired land and other adjacent properties of DR village, were included in the jurisdictional of the then Bengaluru city Corporation and presently in BBMP jurisdiction, since long and BBMP assigned corporation khata No.323 and collecting tax from the claimant No.1. Sri. KS the learned counsel for the claimants 2 to 8 in-many-words, during oral argument, submits that where the claimant No.1, had purchased 39 ½ guntas land in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, then how it is possible for the claimant No.1, to get conversion of land to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in the said survey number and further submits that the Deputy Commissioner, has no power to grant the title to the excess property than one belongs to Cont'd..
- 42 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
claimant No.1 and this fact is also stated in the written argument filed on behalf of the claimants 2 to 8. The Ex.P.9 is a certified copy of order dated 17.11.2017 in the case No.RRT(1) Dispute 94/2004-05 passed in the court of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru, wherein, among others, it is ordered to continue the names of claimant Nos.2, 5 and 8 and their mother Rangamma jointly to the extent of 14 ¼ guntas in RTC pertaining to Sy.No.36/12 of DR village. The Ex.P.8 is a certified copy of order sheet in case No.RRT(1)Dis 94/2004-05 on the file of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka. The dispute as evidenced through Exs.P.8 and 9 is with-regard to the change of khata in-respect of the land in Sy.Nos.16/1, 17/1 and 36/1 of DR village and the claimant No.1 is the plaintiff and claimants 2, 5, 7 and their mother Rangamma and others are the defendants in the said proceedings. The Ex.P.5 is certified copy of order dated 18.06.1992 in R.A. No.47/1991-92 passed in the court of Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-division, Bengaluru in the appeal filed u/s. 136(2) of KLR Act 1964, which was Cont'd..
- 43 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
preferred by the claimant No.2 herein Balakrishna against the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, represented by R.1, Kengeri Hobli, with-regard to the order passed in MR No.1/90-91 dated 07.05.1991, holding that the said claimant No.2 and family members, are having interest to the extent of 1 ½ guntas only in Sy.No.36/1 instead of 14 ¼ guntas much less as claimed by them. The Ex.P.10 is a RTC extract pertaining to Sy.No.36/1 land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas which includes 24 guntas kharab of DR village, in the year 2011-12. The Ex.P.22 is a certified copy of order dated 16.09.1997 in W.P. No.9702/1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. This Ex.P.22 evidences that the claimant No.1 did prefer the said Writ petition against the order dated 18.06.1992, passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru Division. The Ex.P.22 evidences that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru quashed the annexure 'E' and annexure 'F', which were challenged with-regard to the order in R.A. 47/1991-92 passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluka Cont'd..
- 44 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
dated 18.06.1992 and the order mutation entry dated 07.05.1991, discussed above and further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the competent authority u/s. 129 of KLR Act, shall allow the petitioner therein who was claimant No.1, an opportunity to contest the claim of respondent No.3, who is claimant No.2 herein and thereafter adjudicate the controversy in accordance with law. As already discussed above the S.L.A.O., has made the instant reference u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, before this court, as per order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the aforesaid W.P. No.43920-21/2012 (LA-KIADB) and W.P. No.46757-61/2012. The Ex.P.67 is a certified copy of conversion order dated 16.04.1964 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District on the application, moved by the claimant No.1 for conversion land measuring 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, for the purpose of construction of middle school, kalyana mantapa etc., for education and public purpose. The Ex.P.67 evidences that the D.C., Bengaluru Urban District, after receiving the report Cont'd..
- 45 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
from the competent authorities, mentioned therein, on the requisition made by the claimant No.1, has converted the land to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, for the purpose discussed above, on the request of the claimant No.1. The Ex.P.67 also evidences that the D.C., Bengaluru Urban District, in the said order, sanctioned the conversion order to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein and in the said order itself as per the condition No.2 granted 15 guntas phoot kharab land comprised in Sy.No.36/1 in-favour of claimant No.1, at upset price of Rs.1,000/- per acre and permitted to be appropriated for building purpose. Therefore, it is worth to quote the condition No.2 imposed by the D.C., Bengaluru Urban District, in the order marked at Ex.P.67, which reads as under:
"2. The phut kharab of 15 guntas comprised in the area of converted land is granted to the applicant at on upset price of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) per acre and permitted to be appropriated for building purpose"
Cont'd..
- 46 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
.12. The CW.1 Nandeesha, surveyor, was appointed as court commissioner, in his chief-examination, has stated with-regard to conducting of survey of the disputed area as per the order of the court and on 09.01.2015 going over the spot, conducted the survey, measured the land, prepared the sketch and submitted the report. The CW.1 has also narrated in his chief-examination with-regard to the manner and method of conducting survey and submitting report with necessary documents and sketch. The Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6 are marked during evidence of CW.1. The Ex.C.1 is a mahazar drawn on the spot while CW.1 conducted the survey and measurement of disputed land on 09.01.2015 on the spot in between 11.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., of the land in Sy.No.36/1, BBMP No.323. The Ex.C.2 is a sketch prepared and submitted by CW.1. The Ex.C.2 evidences that in the sketch CTS No.670 is being shown with letters ABCDEFA. The Ex.C.2 sketch evidences that the land in question in Sy.No.36/1 is being marked with letters ABGHIFA and as per the records of the city Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, is coming Cont'd..
- 47 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
within the limits of BBMP and its measurement is 2 acres 5 guntas, phoot kharab 24 guntas and available cultivable property is 1 acre 21 guntas. The CW.1 has shown the acquired property measuring 1839.87 sq. meters in CTS No.670, for Bengaluru Mysore Metro-Rail project with blue colour and remaining property acquired in the said CTS No.670 is shown falling within the boundaries shown with orange colour measuring 5608.03 sq. meters. The Ex.C.2 evidences that no measurement is mentioned in Ex.P.4 sketch in which the claimants 2 to 8 claims 14 ¼ guntas as belongs them in Sy.No.36/1 has not shown with measurement and no sub-division i.e., phoded in Sy.No.36/1 has not been effected, hence, the boundaries of the said land has not been demarcated. The Ex.C.2 also evidences that as per Exs.P.13, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 sale deeds and on verification of the said sale deed and verification of the boundaries in the sale deeds marked at Ex.P.17 with measurement of CTS No.670 as per the city survey records, one overlaps other. The CW.1 has stated in his chief Cont'd..
- 48 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 : examination with-regard to all these facts. The Ex.C.3,
Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 are the replies given by the court Commissioner, to the memo of instructions of the respondent No.1, the claimants 2 to 8 and claimant No. 1 respectively. The Ex.P.6 is a certified copy of relevant portion of register of enquiry of city Survey pertaining to CTS No.670 of BBMP. This Ex.P.6 evidences that its total extent is 7447.9 sq meters. The Ex.P.6 also evidences that Swamiji is confirmed as holder of vide sale deeds dated 07.10.1960 and 18.05.1963 and also evidences that payment of conversion fine is exempted as it is utilized for public purpose, vide DCS memo No.OM BDB.ALNSR.505 dated 16.04.1964. The Ex.P.28, Ex.P.29, Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32 are the khata extracts dated 23.10.2002, 12.01.2005, 01.01.2009 and 14.08.2013 in- respect of BBMP property No.323 issued by BBMP in the name of Swamiji the claimant No.1, wherein, the total extent of the said site is shown as 9324 and PID number is assigned as PID No.41-1-323. The Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.33 are the khata extracts issued by BBMP in the name of claimant No.1 with-
Cont'd..
- 49 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
regard to the property No.323, PIS No.41-1-323. These documentary evidence coupled with Ex.C.6 and Ex.P.67 and oral evidence of PW.2 and RW.1 leads to the unmistakable fact that since converted in the year 1964, the property comprised in Sy.No.36/1, was converted into non-agricultural land it was coming earlier within the limits of Bengaluru City corporation, later, in the limits of BBMP, accordingly, the said property is being numbered as 323 and CTS No.670, as such, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant No.1, the said property has lost its character as agricultural land and for all purpose, as it was converted into non- agricultural purpose, to build kalyana mantap, educational institutions for public purpose, on request of the claimant No.1. The tax paid receipts with-regard to the aforesaid property No.323 and PID No.41-1-323, are marked at Exs.P.34 to 53. The tax mentioned in Exs.P.34 to 53 is being paid to the authorities concern, in the name of claimant No.1, including tax paid to the BBMP, in-respect of the property in question. The two encumbrance certificates for the period Cont'd..
- 50 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
from 01.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 and from 01.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 together are being marked at Ex.P.54, in respect of the property in question. The Ex.P.60 is a property register extract pertaining to CTS No.670, which is also standing in the name of Swamiji i.e., claimant No.1. The oral evidence of PW.2, CW.1, RW.1 is being corroborated by the above discussed documentary evidence to the effect that the property in question since 1964 had lost its character as agricultural land and it was converted into non-agricultural purpose, much less, as discussed above, mentioned in Ex.P.67. Though the claimant No.1 and claimants 2 to 8 have filed objections to the commissioner's report, but they have not adduced cogent evidence to prove that the commissioner's report submitted by the CW.1 is liable to be set aside. Per contra, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, except observations of CW.1, in Ex.C.1, to the extent that the acquired property in question and the alleged land measuring 14 ¼ guntas of claimants 2 to 8 over-lapses each other, in the Cont'd..
- 51 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 : place shown at blue colour in Ex.C.2 map, rest of
commissioner's report and evidence of court commissioner i.e., CW.1 and reports submitted by him, is acceptable, as such, the objections filed by the claimant No.1 and claimants 2 to 8 to the commissioner's report are hereby rejected and the commissioner's report and evidence of CW.1, to the extent as discussed above is being accepted, as though CW.1 is being cross-examined, on behalf of claimant No.1 and claimants 2 to 8 nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve or discard his evidence and reports submitted by him to the extent as discussed above. There is no gain to see that the commissioner's report is a piece of evidence along with other oral and documentary evidence available on record to adjudicate the dispute involved between the parties and the commissioner's report shall not be a sole document to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in a given case.
.13. The contention of the claimants 2 to 8 and oral argument of Sri. KS the learned counsel for the claimants 2 to Cont'd..
- 52 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
8 and the written argument submitted by the claimants 2 to 8 to the extent that the claimants 2 to 8 become owners of the land to the extent of 14 ½ guntas or 14 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, is not acceptable under law, since the revenue officers including Tashildar and Asst. Commissioner, have no power to adjudicate with-regard to the title of the claimants 2 to 8 in that regard and it is only the civil court which has got power to adjudicate the same. At the same time, the contention of the claimants 2 to 8 is that the claimant No.1 had purchased the land to the extent of 39 ½ guntas in Sy.No.36/1 and it is not possible to get, it converted land to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas, in such, survey number, is impossible to believe and also not correct, for the reasons that the D.C., Bengaluru Urban District in Ex.P.67 conversion order has granted 15 guntas phoot kharab comprised in Sy.No.36/1 of DR village. Admittedly, the evidence on record evidences that the total extent of Sy.No.36/1 of DR village, was 2 acres 5 guntas which incudes 24 guntas kharab land and as such, remaining cultivable Cont'd..
- 53 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
land available in the said survey number was 1 acre 21 guntas. As per the provisions contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, the Deputy Commissioner is competent to grant phoot kharab comprised in particular survey number on conditions mentioned therein, as such, as per the condition No.2 mentioned in Ex.P.67 conversion order, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly granted 15 guntas phoot kharab comprised in Sy.No.36/1, in-favour of claimant No.1 along with its land measuring 39 ½ guntas comprised in the said survey number. This apart, as deposed by RW.1 and as evidenced through different sale deeds discussed above and the oral evidence of PW.1, CW.1 and documentary evidence pertaining to the acquired property in question, evidences that after conversion of the land comprised in Sy.No.36/1 long back in the year 1964 it has lost its character as agricultural land and for all purposes, it was included in the limits of Bengaluru City corporation, later, in the CTS records of BBMP, consequently, the property was given number as 323 and later CTS No.670 and PID Cont'd..
- 54 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
No.41-1-323 of BBMP, accordingly, the claimant No.1 was paying tax of the said property, as such, at any stretch of imagination, there is no possibility of alleged 14 ½ guntas or 14 ¼ guntas remaining in Sy.No. 36/1 of DR village, as retained by the fore-father of claimants 2 to 8 and it belongs to the claimants 2 to 8. Thus, the evidence on record proves that the claimants 2 to 4 failed to prove that 14 ½ guntas with proportionate kharab land belongs to them, was comprised in acquired property bearing CTS No.670 (Sy.No.36/1) corresponding to the property No.323 in Gali Hanumantharaya temple ward of BBMP and portion of it is being acquired by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 for Metro Rail Project, much less, as contended by the claimants 2 to 8, as such, the claimants 2 to 8 are not entitle to receive the compensation, out of the compensation awarded to the acquired property in question. Per contra, the evidence on record proves that the entire acquired property measuring 1839.87 sq. meters in CTS No.670 corresponding to the property No.323 situated in Gali Hanumantharaya temple Cont'd..
- 55 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
ward of DR village, Bengaluru was exclusively belongs to the claimant No.1 and it has right to receive the entire compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O.,to the said land and accordingly, the claimant No.1 has received the compensation of the said acquired land from the S.L.A.O., by executing necessary documents as discussed above in the body of judgment. Hence, I hold points 1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 in affirmative, for consideration.
.14. POINT NO.4: In view of my finding on the aforesaid mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the S.L.A.O., KIADB (Metro Rail Project), Bengaluru u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act 1894 is allowed, to the extent of claimant No1 Sri. Siddarooda Ashrama, represented by its representative Sri. Shivananda Bharathi Swamiji, Mysore road, Bengaluru.
The claimant No.1 Sri. Siddarooda Ashrama, represented by its representative Sri. Shivananda Bharathi Swamiji, Mysore road, Bengaluru, is entitle Cont'd..
- 56 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
to receive the amount of Rs.9,38,01,517/- (Rupees Nine crores thirty eight thousands one thousand five hundred and seventeen only) out of gross compensation amount of Rs.10,57,87,208/- (after deducting an amount of Rs.1,19,85,691/- towards income tax), awarded to the acquired property to the extent of 1839.87 sq. meters for the purpose of Bengaluru -Mysore railway project bearing property No.323, LA/CTS No.670 (Sy.No.36/1) situated at Gali Hanumantharaya temple ward No.41 within the limits of BBMP and the said claimant has already received the compensation amount of Rs.9,38,01,517/- from the S.L.A.O., as such, at this stage, nothing is payable to the claimant No.1 under this judgment and award.
The claim of the claimants 2 to 8 made in this reference is hereby rejected.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 14th day of December, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari) II Addl. C.C. and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Cont'd..
- 57 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
PW-1 : Balakrishna
PW.2 : Rukminiyamma
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of affidavit
Ex.P.2 : Copy of endorsement issued by
Tahsildar
Ex.P.3 : Copy of requisition by Surveyor
Ex.P.4 : Copy of survey sketch
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of order dated
18.06.1992 in RA No.47/1991-92
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Survey tippani
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of survey prati
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of order sheet in RRT
No.94/2004-05
Ex.P.9 : Copy of final order dated 17.11.2007
in RRT No.94/2004-05
Ex.P.10 : RTC extract
Ex.P.11 : Mutation register extract
Cont'd..
- 58 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
19.11.1962
Ex.P.12(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.12
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
14.07.1965
Ex.P.13(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.13
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
8.9.58
Ex.P.14(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.14
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
21.12.1559
Ex.P.15(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.15
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
13.10.1560
Ex.P.16(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.16
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
06.10.1560
Ex.P.17(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.17
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
06.10.1560
Ex.P.18(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.18
Cont'd..
- 59 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
16.10.1560
Ex.P.19(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.19
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
25.06.1962
Ex.P.20(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.20
Ex.P.20(b) : Copy of report dated 25.06.1966 Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of rectification deed dated 30.09.1966 Ex.P.21(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.21 Ex.P.22 : Order copy dated 16.09.1997 in W.P. No.9702/1996 Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of order dated 19.02.2013 in W.P. No.439201/21 Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.05.1963 Ex.P.24(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.24 Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.09.1958 Ex.P.25(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 : Original registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960 Ex.P.27 : Original registered sale deed dated 06.10.1960 Cont'd..
- 60 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.P.28 : Khata certificate issued by BBMP dated 23.10.2002 Ex.P.29 : Khata certificate issued by BBMP dated 12.01.2005.
Ex.P.30 : Khata certificate issued by BBMP dated 12.01.2005.
Ex.P.31 : Khata extract dated 01.01.2009 Ex.P.32 : Khata certificate dated 14.08.2013 Ex.P.33 : Khata extract dated 14.08.2013 Exa.P.34-53: Tax paid receipts Ex.P.54 : Encumbrance certificate from 01.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 Ex.P.55 : Mutation register extracts (4 in numbers) Ex.P.56 : Copy of conversion endorsement photo Ex.P.57 : Notice dated 01.12.2007 issued by KIADB Ex.P.58 : Notice copy issued by KIADB dated 09.07.2008 Ex.P.59 : Certified copy of RTC Ex.P.60 : Copy of register khata in city Sy.No.670 Cont'd..
- 61 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.P.61 : Certified copy of house, land
khadaya Akara patti for period of
1984-85
Ex.P.62 : Trust deed dated 30.12.1961
Ex.P.62(a) : Signature of claimant No.2 on
Ex.P.62
Ex.P.63 : Notarised GPA dated 13.03.2001
executed by Swamiji
Ex.P.64 : RTCs (2 in numbers) from 19.02.2001
to 18.06.2008
Ex.P.65 : RTCs (2 in numbers) from 18.06.2008
to 16.02.2009
Ex.P.66 : RTCs (2 in numbers) from 16.02.2009
to 2012
Ex.P.67 : Certified copy of order
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : Narasimhappa
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : RTC extract
Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of Preliminary
notification dated 17.01.2006
Ex.R.3 : True copy of notice dated 23.01.2006
Cont'd..
- 62 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.R.4 : Copy of JMC dated 30.07.2007
Ex.R.5 : True copy of final notification dated
24.10.2007
Ex.R.6 : Notice dated 01.12.2007
Ex.R.7 : Notice dated 09.07.2008 (Section
29(2) of KIAD) Act
Ex.R.8 : Metro package letter dated
07.07.2008
Ex.R.9 : Indemnity bond dated 01.08.2008
Ex.R.10 : Agreement letter dated 01.08.2008
Ex.R.11 : Consent letter dated 01.12.2008
5. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COURT
COMMISSIONER :
CW.1 : Nandeesh
6. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COURT
COMMISSIONER:
Ex.C.1 : Mahazar
Ex.C.2 : Sketch
Ex.C.3 : Reply notice to the memo of
instructions
Cont'd..
- 63 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Ex.C.4 : Reply notice to the memo of
Instructions
Ex.C.5 : Reply notice to the memo of
Instructions
Ex.C.6 : Copy of City survey enquiry list (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
Cont'd..
- 64 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
(Judgment pronounced in open
court)
Vide separate order
ORDER
The reference filed under
Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 is allowed.
The claimant Appayyanna
is entitle to receive the
compensation amount of
Rs.16.28,792/- deposited in this
reference, awarded to the
acquired land in this reference,
with accrued interest on the said
deposit amount.
The claimant shall have to
execute an indemnity bond with
one surety, undertaking to re-
deposit the compensation
amount either in this court or in
any other courts, if ordered to do
so, which amount he is going to
receive in this reference.
Draw award accordingly.
II Additional C.C. and
Sessions
Judge, Bangalore
Cont'd..
- 65 - : L.A.C. No.31/2013 :
Cont'd..