In L.A.C. No.04/2004 vs ) The Slao And Estate Officer on 24 May, 2022

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

In L.A.C. No.04/2004 vs ) The Slao And Estate Officer on 24 May, 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)

Dated this the 24 th day of May, 2022.

PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M., M.Com., LL.M.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.

LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.4/2004 C/w LAC Nos.76,
77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185,
226, 227, 228 of 2003,
L.A.C. No.14, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330,
331, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338 of 2004
L.A.C. No.30, 31, 38, 43, 44, 275, 276 of 2005

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.04/2004:

C. Rangaswamy
S/o Chikkanna
Muneswara Estate
Peenya, Yeshwanthpura Hobli
Bengaluru North Taluka

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.76/2003:

1) Smt. Savithramma,
Since dead by her LR's
1(a) Smt. Vishalamma
W/o late Krishnappa,
D/o Late Savithramma,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Yemalur Village, H.A.L. Post,
Bengaluru.
1(b) Sri. Krishnamurthy
S/o late Savithramma
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No. 764, 2nd Cross,
2

S.R.S. Road, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

1(c) Sri. Y. Venkatesh
S/o late Savithramma
Since deceased by his LR's
1(c-i) Sri. Navin Kumar,
S/o late Y. Venkatesh
Aged about 23 years.
Residing at D.No. 764,
Dhanush Nilaya, 2nd Cross,
1st Stage, 2nd Block, S.R.S. Road, Peenya,
Bengaluru- 560 058.
1(c-ii) Smt. B.S. Uma
W/o late Y. Venkatesh
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at D.No. 764, Dhanush Nilaya, 2nd Cross,
1st Stage, 2nd Block, S.R.S. Road, Peenya,
Bengaluru- 560 058.

1(d) Smt. Meenakshi
W/o Nataraj,
D/o late Savithramma
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Yemalur Village, H.A.L. Post,
Bengaluru.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.77/2003:

Muniyappa
Since dead by LRs
P.M. Munichikkanna
S/o late. Muniyappa
Aged about 28 years
Residing at Peenya village
Bengaluru North Taluka
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.78/2003:

V. Narasimhaiah
S/o late. Veerappa
3

R/at Siddarodha Ashram
Peenya village, Bengaluru North Taluka

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.79/2003:
[

C.R. Ramaiah
Since dead by LRs
1(a) Smt. Jayamma
W/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
Aged about 82 years
R/at Peenya village
Bengaluru -560 058.
1(b) Smt. Yashodha
D/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
W/o Ramachandrappa
Aged about 60 years
R/o Venkatapura village, Koratagere Taluk
Tumkur District
1(c) Smt. Meena
D/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
W/o Mallesh
Aged about 56 years, R/at Peenya village
Bengaluru -560 058.
1(d) Smt. Manjula Devi
D/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
W/o Gagabyraiah
Aged about 52 years
Residing at T. Dasarahalli
Bengaluru -560 057.
1(e) Sri. Arun Kumar
S/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
Aged about 50 years
R/at No.320/A, 1st Cross
I Block, Peenya
Bengaluru -560 058.
1(f) Smt. Saroja R
D/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
Since dead by her LRs
1(f)(i) Smt. R. Savitha
D/o Saroja R & Ramachandraiah D
W/o Nataraj Kumar S
4

Aged about 45 years

1(f)(ii) Smt. Chandrika R
D/o Saroja R & Ramachandraiah D
W/o Ravi Kiran T
Aged about 43 years
Both are residing at
No.707, 18th Main road, 8th B Cross, MEI Layout
Nagasandra, Bengaluru -560 073.
1(g) Smt. R. Savithri
D/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
W/o D. Ganga Byraiah
Aged about 57 years
R/at No.682/1, 8th B Main road
MEI Layout, Nagasandra,
Bengaluru -560 073.

1(h) Sri C.R. Hariprasad
S/o late. C.R. Ramaiah
Aged about 51 years
R/at No.595/1, Tumkur Road
Near Govt. School
Peenya 1s Block, Peenya Small Industries
Bengaluru -560 058.
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.80/2003:

P.N. Kaggalaiah
S/o late. Narasappa
Aged about 39 years
No.534, II Block, Peenya
Bengaluru -560 058.
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.81/2003:

1) Hanumakka
w/o late. C. Hanumaiah is dead
Represented by her LR claimant No.2

2) P. H. Narasimhamurthy
S/o late. C. Hanumaiah
Aged about 52 years
No.691, II Block, Peenya
5

Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.82/2003:

M. Chowdappa

Since dead by LRs

1) Smt. Janamma
W/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 70 years

2) Earappa
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 48 years

3) Chikkagiriyappa
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 42 years
4) P.C. Ranganna
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 36 years

All are residing at Peenya villagesban -58.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.83/2003:

M. Chowdappa

Since dead by LRs

1) Smt. Janamma
W/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 70 years

2) Earappa
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 48 years

3) Chikkagiriyappa
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 42 years
6

4) P.C. Ranganna
S/o late. Chowdappa
Aged about 36 years

All are residing at Peenya village
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.85/2003:

Erappa
S/o late. Appanna

Since dead by LRs

1) Smt. Gangamma
W/o late. Erappa
Aged about 60 years

2) Raju
S/o late. Erappa,
Aged about 35 years

3) Venkatesh
S/o late. Erappa,
Aged about 29 years

All are residing at Peenya village,
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.180/2003:

Smt. Padma
W/o late. Lokanath
Aged about 32 years
Residing at Peenya village,
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.181/2003:

Jogappa
S/o Byrappa
7

Since dead by LRs

1) Sri. Siddagangappa
S/o late. Jogappa
Aged about 49 years

2) Shankar
S/o late. Jogappa
Aged about 47 years

3) Smt. Venkatalakshmamma
W/o late. Krishnamurthy
Aged about 38 years

4) Ramaswamy
S/o late. Jogappa
Aged about 36 years

All are residing at Peenya village
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluka.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.183/2003:

Sri. B. Venkataramana

Since dead by his LR's

1(a) M. Manjula
Aged about 50 years,
W/o late B. Venkataramana

1(b) Smt. Shruthi
Aged about 29 years,
D/o late B. Venkataramana

Both are residing at No.1606/2,
Shruthi Nilaya,
Peenya 1st Stage, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru-Tumkur Road(NH-4)
Bengaluru-560 058.
8

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.184/2003:

Smt. Akkamma

Since dead by LRs

1(a)Shankar
Aged about 45 years
S/o late. Akkachamma
R/at No.358, 2nd main, Peenya I Block
Bengaluru -560 058.

1(b) Basavaraju
Aged about 43 years
S/o late. Akkachamma
R/at No.358, 2nd Main
Peenya I Block, I stage
Bengaluru -560 058

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.185/2003:

1) Munichikkanna

Since dead by LRs

1(a) P.M. Nagaraju
Aged about 47 years
S/o late. Munichikkanna

1(b) P.M. Shivakumar
Aged about 29 years
S/o late. Munichikkanna

2) P.C. Hanumantharayappa
S/o late. Chowdappa
Residing at Peenya
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.226/2003:

1) Sri. M. Munivenkatappa
9

Since dead by LR's

1(a) Smt. Siddalingama
W/o late M. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 68 years.

1(b) Sri. M. Srinivasa
S/o late M. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 39 years.

1(c) Sri. M. Lakshmikantha
S/o late M. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 37 years.

1(d) Smt. Padmavathi
D/o late M. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 32 years.

All are residing at No. 822,
New extension, Near S.R.S. Road,
1st Cross, 1st Stage, 2nd Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

2) Sri. M. Muniyappa
Since dead by his LR's

2(a) Smt. Gangamma
W/o late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 53 years.

2(b) Sri. Arun Kumar
S/o late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 33 years.

2(c) Smt. Hemavathi
D/o late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 36 years.

2(d) Smt. M. Lalitha
D/o late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 31 years.
10

2(e) Smt. M. Vasanthi
D/o late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 29 years.

All are residing at No. 384,
1st Stage, 1st Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.227/2003:

R. Doraiswamy

Dead by LRs
1(a) D. Vajravelu
Aged about 53 years
S/o late. Doraiswamy
R/at No.8, 3rd cross,
I Block, Peenya P.O.
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.228/2003:

Smt. Channamma
Since dead by LRs
1) Mahesh P.S.
Aged about 41 years
S/o late. M. Shivalingappa

2) Basavaraju P.S.
Aged about 39 years
S/o late. M. Shivalingappa

3) Smt. Puttamma
Aged about 60 years
W/o late. M. Shivalingappa

All are Residing at No.297,
Annapoorna, 7th Main, 3rd Cross
1st stage, 1st Block, near RTO Driving Track
Peenya PO
11

Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.14/2004:

Dodda Narasaiah
S/o late. Narasappa
Lakshminarasimha Nilaya
# 364/5, 5th Main, 2nd Cross,
Post office Road, peenya
Bengaluru -560 058

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.323/2004:

Sri. T. Ramachandra
Aged about 56 years
S/o late. Thatappa
Residing at No.165
18th Cross, 10th Main, M.C. layout
Vijyanagar
Bengaluru -560 040.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.324/2004:

Papanna
Aged about 75 years
S/o late. Tumbadi Chikkanna
II Block, Peenya
Bengaluru Tumkur Road
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.325/2004:

1) Sri. B. Venkataramana
Since dead by his LR's

1(a) M. Manjula
Aged about 50 years,
W/o late B. Venkataramana
12

1(b) Smt. Shruthi
Aged about 29 years
D/o late B. Venkataramana

Both are residing at No. 1606/2,
Shruthi Nilaya,
Peenya 1st Stage, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru-Tumkur Road (NH-4),
Bengaluru-560 058.

2)Smt. Akkachamma
65 years
W/o late. Mariyappa
R/at I Block, Peenya
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.326/2004:

Chikkamuniyappa
Since deceased by his LR's

1(a) Sri. M. Raja
Aged about 51 years
S/o late. Chikkamuniyappa

1(b) Sri. Anand
Aged about 36 years
S/o late. Chikkamuniyappa

Both are R/at No.377
6th Cross, 7th Main,
1st Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru -560 058.

1(c) Smt. Anjinamma
Aged about 40 years
D/o late. Chikkamuniyappa,
13

W/o Siddagangappa,
Chunchenahally, Kortagere Taluk
Tumkur District.

1(d) Smt. Gowramma
Aged about 38 years
D/o late. Chikkamuniyappa
W/o Veerabhadrappa
No. 356/3, 1st Block,
7th Cross, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

1(e) Smt. Anusuya
Aged about 34 years,
D/o late. Chikkamuniyappa,
W/o Narasimharaju,
No. 302/6, 7th Main,
1st Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

1(f) Smt. Anandamma
Aged about 32 years,
D/o late. Chikkamuniyappa,
W/o Hanumanthappa,
No. 223/2, 1st Block,
7th Main, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

1(g) Kum. Lakshmi
Aged about 28 years
D/o late. Chikkamuniyappa
No. 223/2, 1st Block,
7th Main, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.327/2004:

R. Umashankar
40 years
S/o late. Revanna
14

IV Block, Bengaluru Tumkur road
Peeya
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.328/2004:

B.Venkataramana
Since dead by his LR's

1(a) Smt. M. Manjula
Aged about 50 years,
W/o late Venkataramana

1(b) Smt. Shruthi
Aged about 29 years
D/o late Venkataramana

Both are residing at No. 1606/2,
Shruthi Nilaya,
Peenya 1st Stage, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru-Tumkur Road (NH-4)
Bengaluru-560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.329/2004:

1) Sri. C. Muniraju, 55 years

2) Sri. M.C. Vijayakumar
40 years

both are sons of late. Patel Channappa
R/at No.570, "Shivakrupa"
ward No.11, Kuvempu road
II Block, Peenya PO
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.330/2004:

Narasimhamurthy
15

Aged about 45 years
S/o late. Chikkanarasimhaiah
R/at Kuvempu road, II Block, Peenya PO
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.331/2004:

Smt. Akkachamma
Aged about 65 years
W/o late. Mariyappa
R/at I Block, Peenya
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.334/2004:

Sri. M. Narasimhamurthy

Since dead by LRs

1) Sri. M.N. Ravishankar - Son - 52 years

2) Sri. M.N. Ramakrishna- Son - 50 years
Since dead by his LR's

2(a) Smt. Sukanya S.K.,
W/o late Ramakrishna M.N.
Aged about 55 years.

2(b) Sri. N.R. Prahlad,
S/o late Ramakrishna M.N.,
Aged about 34 years.

Both are residing at No. 764,
Pradhvaya Nilaya,
1st Cross, S.R.S. Road,
1st Stage, 2nd Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

2(c) Smt. Prathima
W/o Raghu K.S.,
16

D/o M.N. Ramakrishna M.N.,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No. 206,
Kamadhenu Nilaya,
Kamala Residency Apartment,
S.R.S. Road, 1st Stage,
2nd Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru- 560 058.

3) Sri. M.N. Dwarakanath - son - 46 years

4) Sri. Lakshmikanth - 42 years

5) Sri. Sachidanand - 38 years

6) M.N. Ramesh - 36 years

7) Sri. M.N. Vasudeva Murthy - 34 years

8) Sri. M.N. Raghavendra - 32 years

All are sons of deceased M. Narasimhamurthy

9) Smt. Kamalakshamma - 62 years
W/o late.M. Narasimhamurthy

claimants 1, 3 to 9 are residing at
No.515, Harinivasa
Sri. Anjaneya Temple Street
II Block, Peenya P.O.
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.335/2004:

1) Sri. M. N.N. Murthy
S/o late. M.Nanjundaiah

2) Smt. Puttaramakka
W/o late. M. Nanjundaiah
Aged about 62 years
17

Both are residing
at Ramakrishna Nilay, II Block
Kuvempu road, Peenya PO
Bengaluru 58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.336/2004:

1) Sri. S. Devanand
Aged about 45 years

2) Sri. S. Jivan Kumar
Aged about 35 years

Sons of late. T. Srinivasan
R/at No.349, 7th Cross, I Block
Ward No.1, eenya PO
Bengaluru Tumkur road
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.337/2004:

M. Narasimhamurthy

Since dead by Lrs:

1) Sri. M.N. Ravishankar - Son - 52 years

2) Sri. M.N. Ramakrishna- Son - 50 years

3) Sri. M.N. Dwarakanath - son - 46 years

4) Sri. Lakshmikanth - 42 years

5) Sri. Sachidanand - 38 years

6) M.N. Ramesh - 36 years

7) Sri. M.N. Vasudeva Murthy - 34 years

8) Sri. M.N. Raghavendra - 32 years
18

All are sons of deceased M. Narasimhamurthy

9) Smt. Kamalakshamma - 62 years
W/o late.M. Narasimhamurthy

claimants 1 to 9 are residing at
No.515, Harinivasa
Sri. Anjaneya Temple Street
II Block, Peenya P.O.
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.338/2004:

D. Muniyappa

Since dead by LRs

1) M. Gopi @ Gopal,
Aged about 42 years
S/o late. Muniyappa

2) P.D. Venkataramaiah
S/o Pete Dasappa, Brother

3) Akkamma
Aged about 65 years, Sister

4) Muniyamma
Aged about 58 years, Sister

5) D. Venkatesh
Aged about 56 years, Brother

6) D. Govindaiah
Aged about 54 years, Brother

7) D. Muniraju @ Chikkamuniyappa,
Aged about 40 years, Brother

8) Lakshmamma
Aged about 62 years, Sister
19

9) Jayamma
Aged about 52 years, Sister

All are residing at No.565
Peenya, Bengaluru - Tumkur Road
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.30/2005:

Smt. Puttamma
Since dead by his LR's

1(a) Sri. P.N. Shivaramaiah (Door No. 2)
Aged about 74 years

1(b) Sri. P.N. Ramalingaiah (Door No. 3)
Aged about 68 years

1(c) Sri. P.N. Basavalingaiah (Door No. 1)
Aged about 66 years

1(d) Sri. P.N. Neelakanta (Door No. 6)
Aged about 62 years

1(e) Sri. P.N. Channakeshava (Door No. 5)
Aged about 60 years

1(f) Sri. P.N. Sadashiva (Door No. 4)
Aged about 58 years

Sl. No. 1(a) to (f) are the sons of the
deceased claimant Puttamma who
who are all residing separately At
House No. 279, 7th Main, 3rd Cross,
1st Block, BBMP Ward No. 38, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560 058.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.31/2005:

Smt. Chowdamma
20

Since dead by LRs

Sri. Chikkachowdappa

Since dead by his LRs

1) Smt. Kamakka
W/o late. Chikkagowdappa

2) Sri. P.C. Muniraju
S/o late. Chikkachowdappa

3) Sri. P.C. Suresh
S/o late. Chikkachowdappa

All are residing at
Peenya village
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.38/2005:

The Vice Principal
Government Pre Univesity College
Peenya
Bengaluru -58.

CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.43/2005:

Sri. Chikkachowdappa P.M.

Since dead by LRs

1) Smt. Kamakka
W/o late. Chikkagowdappa

2) Sri. P.C. Muniraju
S/o late. Chikkachowdappa

3) Sri. P.C. Suresh
S/o late. Chikkachowdappa

All are residing at
Peenya village
21

Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.44/2005:

Smt. Poornima S.K. Singh
W/o Sri. Santosh Kumar Singh
Aged about 44 years
No.6, II Cross,
Subedarpalya
Yeshwanthpura
Bengaluru -560 022.

Presently residing at

No.8A, Waltair Park
Visakhapatnam-530 003.
A.P.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.275/2005:

Shivalingaiah

Since dead by LRs

Ramakrishna
S/o late. Shivalingaiah
Aged about 47 years
Residing at Peenya village
Bengaluru -560 058.

CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.276/2005:

1.V. Kumbaiah
Since dead by his LR's

1(a) Sri. V.K. Parthasarathy
S/o late V. Kumbaiah
Aged about 59 years,

1(b) Sri. V.K. Narasimhamurthy
22

S/o late V. Kumbaiah,
Aged about 57 years,

Both are residing at No. 19,
22nd cross, Muneshwara Block,
Pipeline, Mallasandra,
Dasarahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 057.

1(c) V.K. Prabhamani
D/o late V. Kumbaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No. 515, Hari Nivasa,
2nd Block, Peenya,
Bengaluru- 560 058.

1(d) V.K. Sarvamangala
D/o late V. Kumbaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No. 1208, 2nd Cross,
Prashanthnagar, Pipeline,
Dasarahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 057.

1(e) Sri. V.K. Suresh
S/o late V. Kumbaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No. 22,
22nd cross, Muneshwara Block,
Pipeline, Mallasandra,
Dasarahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 057.

(Sri. MNR/PR Advocates)

RESPONDENTS:

1) The SLAO and Estate Officer
NH-7, K.R. Circle
Bengaluru -560 001.

2) The Executive Engineer
23

National Highway No.4
PWD Building, K.R. Circle
Bengaluru -560 001.

3) The Project Director
And Deputy General Manager
National Highway Authorities of India
MSR Enclave, Dasarahalli-Sy.No.13, 14 Kms
Bengaluru - Tumkur Road
Bengaluru -560 073.

(R-1 & R-2 - DGP)
(Sri. SJP, Advocate for R-3)

COMMON JUDGMENT

All these references are made under Section 18 of L.A.

Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A Act for short) by the

respondent No.1, S.L.A.O./BDA, Bengaluru.

.2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, NH-4, Bengaluru

has acquired the lands belonging to the claimants/petitioners

situated at Peenya village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru

North Taluka, Bengaluru for the purpose of widening of NH-4.

Preliminary notification was Gazetted on 31.05.1991 and final

notification was Gazetted on 16.09.1993. The award was

passed on 20.10.1995. The L.A.O. has fixed the market value

at Rs.170/- per sq. meter in-respect of NAK lands and

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in-respect of dry lands. Being
24

aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the L.A.O., the above

claimants have filed the application under Section 18 of L.A.

Act. In pursuance to the said applications, the respondent

has sent the following reference to this Court under Section

18 of L.A. Act.

L.A.C. No. Extent CTS No.
sq. meters
4/2004 2404 1118
76/2003 127 1139
77/2003 94 963
78/2003 125 4218
79/2003 76 935
80/2003 118 1140
81/2003 76 953
82/2003 95 959
83/2003 88 962
85/2003 35 1129
180/2003 71 1153
181/2003 108 1152
183/2003 70.5 out of 282 1174
184/2003 70.5 1174
185/2003 70.09 932
226/2003 120 1123
227/2003 116 1120
228/2003 110 1122
14/2004 129 1121
323/2004 400 1103
324/2004 50 937
325/2004 332.5 1119
25

326/2004 60 1151
327/2004 11 1309
328/2004 223 1119
329/2004 42.5 1272
330/2004 23.06 933
331/2004 99 1119
334/2004 33 1272
335/2004 52 1272
336/2004 89 1168
337/2004 35 946
338/2004 60.50 940
30/2005 30.25 956
31/2005 92 961
38/2005 133 896
43/2005 90 960
44/2005 116 1173
275/2005 92 1124
276/2005 48 1125

.3. The claimants have contended that the compensation

awarded in-respect of the lands is below the actual market

value. Further they have stated that the valuation given to the

malkies in the acquired portion of the lands and details of the

malkies were also much less than the actual market value

and existing malkies. The compensation that has been

awarded for structures is less than the market value and so,

the reference has been made to the court
26

.4. The respondent No.3 in L.A.C. No.76/2003,

77/2003, 78/2003, 79/2003, 85/2003, 180/2003,

181/2003 has filed objections stating that for the

purpose of widening of National Highway No.4, several

lands situated in Peenya village was sought to be

acquired by the Executive Engineer, National Highways

Division. The SLAO after conducting spot inspection of

the acquired lands on 8th June 1995 fixed the

compensation for NAK at Rs.170/- per sq. meters. The

compensation for structures was valued based on the

report on structures prepared and submitted by the

Executive Engineer, National Highways Division,

Bengaluru by taking into consideration the S.R. Rates

prescribed for the year 1990-91. It is stated that the

compensation was fixed in accordance with Sections 23

and 24 of the said Act. It is stated that the claim made by

the claimant is exorbitant. It is stated that the claimant

except for claiming higher compensation has not

produced even an iota of evidence in substantiating her

claim. It is stated that the onus is on the claimant to
27

show that she is entitled to enhancement of

compensation. The SLAO has fixed the compensation as

per the prevailing market value as on the date of

preliminary notification. It is stated that the valuation of

structure was done by the SLAO based on the inspection

report which is in accordance with law. It is stated that

the claimant has not produced any evidence to establish

that the value of the structures was much higher than

what has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer. Hence, payed for dismissal.

.5. To substantiate the case of the Claimants, in all

examined 45 witnesses as PWs.1 to 45. in L.A.C.

No.78/2003, one witness has been examined as PW.1. In

L.A.C. No.77/2003, one witness has been examined as

PW.1. In L.A.C. No.30/2005, one witness has been

examined as PW.1. In L.A.C. No.41/2005, one witness

has been examined as PW.1. In L.A.C. No. 38/2005, one

witness has been examined as PW.1. In L.A.C.

No.14/2004, one witness has been examined as PW.1

and got marked the documents as per Ex.P-1 to 90. In
28

L.A.C. No.14, 5 documents have been marked as Ex.P.1

to 5. In L.A.C. No.77/2003, one document has been

marked as Ex.P.1. In L.A.C. No.44/2005, 27 documents

have been marked as Ex.P.1 to 27. In L.A.C. No.78/2003,

one document has been marked as Ex.P.1. PW.22 and

PW.44 are removed and placed in L.A.C. No.32/2007 and

33/2007 as delinked from the case. Ex.P.36 and 90 are

removed from L.A.C. No.4/2004 and placed in L.A.C.

No.32/2007 and 33/2007 respectively as L.A.C. No.32

and 33 of 2007 are delinked from L.A.C. No.4/2004

.6. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written

arguments filed by both sides.

.7. 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/S.L.A.O. is not
reasonable and adequate?

3. Whether the claimants are entitle for
higher compensation to the acquired
property? If so, at what rate?

4. What Order or Award?
29

.8. My findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the partly affirmative
Point No.3 : In the partly affirmative
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the
following:-

R E A S ON S

.9. Point No.1:- From the records along with

reference sent by the L.A.O., it is clear that the General award

was passed on 28.02.2004.

L.A.C. Number Date of service Date of filing Date of receipt
of notice under application of reference
Section 12(2) U/s.18
4/2004 02.08.2002 14.08.2002 04.12.2002
76/2003 02.08.2002 13.11.2002 19.12.2002
77/2003 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 19.11.2002
78/2003 02.08.2002 06.11.2002 24.01.2002
79/2003 02.08.2002 06.11.2003 24.01.2003
80/2003 02.08.2002 12.11.2003 24.01.2003
81/2003 02.08.2002 12.11.2002 24.01.2003
82/2003 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 19.12.2002
83/2003 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 19.12.2002
85/2003 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 19.12.2002
180/2003 02.08.2002 30.10.2002 04.07.2003
181/2003 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 04.07.2002
183/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 04.07.2002
30

184/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 04.07.2002
185/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 04.07.2003
226/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 31.07.2003
227/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 31.07.2003
228/2003 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 31.07.2002
14/2004 02.08.2002 01.10.2002 04.12.2002
323/2004 02.08.2002 28.12.2002 05.08.2004
324/2004 02.08.2002 28.12.2002 05.08.2004
325/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 20.10.2004
326/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 05.08.2004
327/2004 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 05.08.2004
328/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 05.08.2004
329/2004 02.08.2002 22.11.2002 05.08.2004
330/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 05.08.2004
331/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 05.08.2004
334/2004 02.08.2002 22.11.2002 05.08.2004
335/2004 02.08.2002 22.11.2002 05.08.2004
336/2004 02.08.2002 18.11.2002 05.08.2004
337/2004 02.08.2002 22.11.2002 05.08.2004
338/2004 02.08.2002 02.11.2002 05.08.2002
30/2005 02.08.2002 16.11.2002 27.10.2004
31/2005 02.08.2002 25.10.2002 27.10.2004
38/2005 02.08.2002 22.11.2002 27.10.2004
43/2005 02.08.2002 30.10.2002 27.10.2004
44/2005 02.08.2002 20.09.2002 27.10.2004
275/2005 23.08.2002 25.10.2002 02.09.2005
276/2005 23.08.2002 02.11.2002 05.09.2005
31

.10. From the above table, it is clear that the claimants

in the above cases have filed the application under Section 18

of L.A. Act, within 90 days from the date of service of notice.

.11. The award notice to the claimants was issued on

02.08.2002. From the above table, it is seen that the

respondent has sent the reference within 3 years 90 days

from the date of receipt of application. Hence, the references

sent by the L.A.O. in all cases are valid and within the period

of limitation. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the

affirmative.

.12. Point No.2: The preliminary notification has been

published on 30.05.1991. As per Ex.P.5 award, it is seen that

the L.A.O. has fixed Rs.170/- per sq. meters for NA lands and

for dry lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. It has come in

evidence that there are number of commercial complex and on

either side of National Highway. There are number of

industries, factories and the said areas are within Bengaluru

City Corporation. The L.A.O. has in the award stated that

there are no vacant lands. From Ex.P.20 it is seen that in-

respect of acquisition in the year 1988 for widening of road at

Chikkasandra village which is at a distance of 1 km far away
32

from the land acquired in this case, this court has fixed

market value at Rs.500/- per sq. yard or Rs.166/- per sq.

feet. So it is clear that the L.A.O. has not taken into

consideration potential value of the land. The market value

fixed by the L.A.O. is in-adequate and on the lower side.

Hence, the point No.2 for consideration is answered in the

affirmative.

.13. Point No.3:

AIR 1988 Supreme court 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas

Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another).

Wherein their Lordship have held that:

"(1) A reference under Section 18 is not an
appeal against the award and the court
cannot take into account the material relied
upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his
Award unless the same materials is produced
and proved before the court.
(2) So, also the Award of the Land Acquisition
Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of
the trial court open or exposed to challenge
before the court hearing the Reference. It is
merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition
Officer and the material utilized by him for
making his valuation cannot be utilized by the
court unless produced and proved before it. It
is not the function of the court to sit in appeal
against the Award, approve or disapprove its
reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify
or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land
Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate
court.
33

(3) The court has to treat the reference as an
original proceeding before it and determine
the market value afresh on the basis of the
material produced before it.
(4) The Claimant is in the position of a
plaintiff who has to show that the price
offered for his land in the award is inadequate
on the basis of the materials produced in the
court. Of course the materials placed and
proved by the other side can also be taken
into account for this purpose."

.14. The evidence of PWs.1 to 7 discloses that at the

time of acquisition, the area was full of commercial

establishment industrial premises including residential

premises around the area. PW1 has stated that big industries

like WIPRO, Ingersoll Rand, Triveni, ISRO, Karmobiles,

Kirloskar Electric Company, Dynametic Technologies, Fouress

Engineering, Central Machine Tools, Bharath Fritz Werner

and there are other 3000 industries around Peenya; that

there are several nationalized Banks like Canara Bank, Vijaya

Bank, State Bank of India, Central Bank of India, State Bank

of Mysore, Punjab National Bank etc; that the BMTC 9 th Depot

is situated within the proximity of I km distance and there are

several senior and junior colleges both technical and non-

technical Acharya Institute of Technology, Industrial Training

institute, FTI, KLE, Dental college etc., so many apartments
34

have grown up abutting to National Highway at Peenya, they

are platinum city, Gruhalakshmi Apartments, KIADB

quarters, SRS quarters etc, totally Peenya is the one of the

biggest industrial center in Asia Continent. Even before the

acquisition all most all the factories have come up, all those

factories were in existence, these facts prove that this area

was fully developed industrially commercially at the time of

acquisition of the land in question. The acquired land

therefore suited not only commercial purpose but also

industrial purpose.

.15. The claimants have not produced any map of the

area of documents to show that the said establishment

existed at the time of preliminary notification. Subsequent

development cannot be taken into consideration while

determining the market value.

.16. The award discloses that the acquired land consist

of structures and there are no vacant land. It also discloses

that the acquired lands are within the Bengaluru City

Corporation Limits. However, the award does not disclose that

there are industries situated near the acquired area. The

lands being situated within Corporation Limits and are
35

abutting National Highways the lands have potentiality for

commercial purpose.

.17. The claimants have stated that the L.A.O. has not

properly valued the cost of the building which was in

existence at the time of passing the award. The basis for

determining the compensation for building obtained from the

Executive Engineer, National Highway No.4 is not proper. The

Executive Engineer had failed to take notice of the potential

value of the building and the valuation made is against the

prevailing standard rates of the Government notification

issued from time to time. So, they have got valued the

building by separate approved valuer who has valued based

on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. They have

produced the assessment report and sketch prepared by

approved value.

.18. In L.A.C. No.4/2004 the claimant C. Rangaswamy

has been examined as PW1. From the General award, the

details of acquired property

Corp CTS Extent Type Land Malkies Structure
No. No. Sq. m Value Rs. Rs.
Rs.
3/1, 1118 3842 NAK 6,53,140 46,453 17033
1,69,237
36

.19. The reference has been sent to an extent of 2404

sq. meters plus building. In the award, it is mentioned that

Sri. Rangaswamy S/o Chikkanna, Bharat, Basant Singh

Narang S/o Prakash are khathedars. In the application

under Section 18 the claimant has mentioned the extent as

3842 sq. meters. However, in his evidence the claimant has

stated that the land acquired totally measures 2404 sq.

meters. So, the extent of reference is confined to 2404 sq.

meters.

.20. PW.1 has stated that the above property is his

ancestral property and has been converted for non-

agricultural purpose in the year 1977. He has constructed

RCC roof building measuring 106.78 sq. meters and AC sheet

roof building measuring 123.10 sq. meters. He has let out the

same for running hotel and commercial establishment.

.21. PW.1 has stated that the award fixed by the L.A.O.

is inadequate, insufficient, arbitrary and one sided. He has

stated that the L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of

building which was in existence at the time of passing of

award. The Executive Engineer had failed to take notice of

the potential value of the building. So, he got valued the
37

building by approved valuer based on the schedule rate of

PWD. Ex.P.22/53 is the valuation report prepared by H.G.

Ramegowda. As per report, the valuer has taken the land

value at Rs.16.96 per sq. meters based on sale deed executed

by T. Radhakrishna in-respect of Industrial plot No.173. In

the report the valuer has valued land at Rs.40,77,184/-,

building at Rs.3,59,787/- and malkies at Rs.46,453/-.

.22. During cross-examination the claimant has denied

that the buildings were illegally constructed and that he has

not leased any building.

.23. It is relevant to note that the valuation report is not

corroborated by any document with regard to the extent and

type of building. The award does not specify the extent of

RCC roof and AC sheet roof. PW.1 has also not produced

assessment extract to know the type of building.

.24. In L.A.C. No.76/2003, Krishnamurthy legal heir

of claimant Smt. Savithramma has been examined as PW.42.

From the General award, the details of acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
480 1139 127 21,590 49,620
38

.25. PW.42 has stated that his mother died long back.

Thereafter, all the LRs were brought on record and are

together claiming compensation. The above property

constructed by his father Yalakki Narasimhaiah and he

constructed the commercial building abutting to the NH-4

and after the death of his parents, LRs were living in joint

possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute

owners. He has stated that the market value fixed by the

L.A.O. is not correct.

.26. To corroborate his contention, he has examined

Ramegowda as PW.31 and got marked valuation report as per

Ex.P.53. He valued land at Rs.16.96 per sq. meter. He valued

the RCC building at Rs.2,264 per sq. meters, ACC and

Mangalore tiled at Rs.1,585/- per sq. meter based on the rate

in 1990-91. He has calculated the compensation for land at

Rs.2,15,392/- and building at Rs.72,301/-. The valuation

report is not supported by any of the document with regard to

extent and type of building.

.27. The claimant P.M. Munichikkanna in L.A.C.

No.77/2003 has been examined as PW.1. From the General

award, It is seen that the details of the acquired property
39

Khanesh CTS No. Extent Type Land Building/
umari Sq. m. Value structure
No. Rs. value
Rs.
128 963 94 NAK 15,980 24,105

.28. He has stated that the claiming compensation of

Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet as sital value and Rs.8,00,000/- for

building which was in existence as on the date of preliminary

notification. He has produced valuation report as per Ex.P.1

marked in L.A.C. No.77/2003. The valuation has been

prepared by C. Suryanarayana Shetty. It is stated in the

report that he has inspected the acquired land on 14.06.2002

and 15.06.2002. He has valued the land at Rs.1692 based on

sale deed executed by T. Radhakrishna. He has calculated the

compensation for land at Rs.1,59,424/- and for building at

Rs.53,816, in total Rs.2,13,240/-.

.29. During cross-examination, PW.46 has stated that

Suryanarayana Shetty has expired. Death certificate has not

been produced. So, the valuation report cannot be accepted.
40

PW.1 has not produced any document with regard to the type

of building and extent.

.30. In LAC No. 78-2003 the claimant Narasimhaiah

has been examined as P.W. 1. From the General Award it is

seen that the details of the acquired property

Khaneshu CTS Extent Land Building Trees
mari No. No. Sq. m. Value /
Rs. structure
value
Rs.
280 1218 125 21,250 33,048 8246

.31. P.W. 1 has stated that he is absolute owner of the

above property the amount awarded by the LAO is meager. As

on the date of preliminary notification the sital value is about

Rs. 1,000/- sq. ft. and the value of the building is about Rs.

3,00,000/-. He has produced valuation report as per Ex.P. 1

in LAC No. 78/2003. The valuation has been prepared by Sri.

C. Suryanarayana Shetty. It is stated in the report that he has

inspected the land on 14-06-2002 and 15-06-2002. He has

valued the land at Rs. 1692/- based on sale deed executed by

T. Radhakrishna. He has valued the structure based on the

schedule rates of PWD on 1990-91. He has calculated the

compensation of land at Rs. 2,12,000/- and for the building
41

at Rs. 58,613/-. During cross examination P.W. 1 has stated

that in the acquired land there was one stone building, one

tiled building and one AC sheet roof building. It is elicited that

the buildings were 60-70 years. His evidence discloses that

Suryanarayana Shetty has expired. Death certificate of valuer

has not been produced and so valuation report cannot be

relied. P.W. 1 has not produced any document with regard to

the extent and type of building.

.32. In L.A.C. No.79/2003, Arunkumar the legal heir of

claimant has been examined as PW.45. From the General

award, it is seen that the details of acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
205 935 76 12,920 54,524

.33. PW.45 has stated that his father C. Ramaiah

(claimant) died on 21.10.2007 leaving behind his Lrs. He has

stated that the valuation made by L.A.O. is not proper and is

claiming compensation at Rs.2,000/- per sq feet. He has not

produced valuation report pertaining to his property. He

admits that he has not produced conversion order.
42

.34. Claimant in L.A.C. No.80/2003 has been

examined as PW.23. From the General award, the details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
352 1140 118 20,060 68,537

.35. PW.23 has stated that he acquired the property

under partition deed dated 15.12.2000. Ex.P.58A is the sale

deed dated 16.08.1938. Ex.P.59 is the sale deed dated

28.08.1941. Ex.P.60 is the partition deed. Ex.P.61 is the City

Survey sketch. Ex.P.62 is the City Survey Enquiry report.

Ex.P.63 is the award. The title of claimant is not in dispute.

The L.A.O. has acquired portion of land measuring 118 sq.

meters. The property acquired by the respondent was

consisting of commercial building to the front side of the road

and residential to the back side and it was facing the Highway

road. As on the date of acquisition the market value of the

site attaching to the main road was more than Rs.5,000/- per

sq. feet. The above said property was consisting of ground

floor and first floor. In the ground floor 3 commercial shops

were there and out of 3 shops, two shops were let out for
43

retail business purpose and one was let out for clinic purpose.

He was getting monthly income from 3 shops Rs.7,500/- and

in the 1st floor, the 3 residential accommodation were let out

and fetching a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. The built up area

of the property was approximately 1300 sq. feet and the

building life was more than 60 years. When the possession of

the property was taken the building was 20 years old and it

valued at Rs.9,00,000/-.

.36. PW.23 has stated that he lost monthly rent of

Rs.13,500/- every month and it will come to Rs.1,62,000/-

per year. If it is calculated to 20 years, it will come to more

than Rs.33,00,000/-. The market value of the property was

Rs.63,50,000/-. The SLAO has passed the award

unreasonably and unjust compensation of Rs.2,15,941/- for

acquisition of 118 sq. meters of his land. The basis for

determining the compensation for building obtained from the

Executive Engineer is not just and proper. So, he got a

separate approved Engineer to assess the correct valuation of

the building based on the schedule rate of the PWD.

.37. In support of his contention, he has produced

valuation report pertaining to his property as per Ex.P.37
44

prepared in the year 2003. From Ex.P.37, it is seen that the

valuer visited the spot on 12.04.2003 and valued the property

on prevailing market rate. He has valued the ground floor at

Rs.3,12,500/- and 1st floor at Rs.2,50,000/-, in total

Rs.5,62,500/- in-respect of property measuring 1750 sq. feet.

The valuation report is prepared by N.D. Devaraj. He visited

the spot on 12.04.2003 for the purpose of assessing correct

value on 1990-91.

.38. During cross-examination PW.23 admits that he

has not produced documents for having received rent; that he

has not produced the income tax returns as he is not having

income. He has examined valuer as PW.28 to corroborate his

contention.

.39. N.D. Devaraj is examined as PW.29. He has stated

that he inspected the property bearing CTS No. 1140, situated

at Peenya village and found that the property was consisting

of two storied building with a built up area of 625 sq. feet

each in ground floor and first floor. The building is built on a

well laid size stone masonry with the super structure built

with brick masonry in cement mortar, plastered and painted

on both the sides of the walls, the flooring is of cement
45

concrete, rolling shutters and honne/sal wood for joineries,

steel grills with glass panes for windows frames and shutters.

Basic civic amenities are available in the locality. The

building is more than 20 years old and has a future estimated

life of about 20 years against proper repairs and maintenance.

Considering the type of construction, age of the building, the

valuation of the building after depreciation works out to

Rs.5,62,500/- as on 12.04.2003.

.40. During cross-examination PW.29 admits that he

has not produced any documents to show that he is registered

valuer. In this case he has valued only the structure. At the

time of valuation, he has not examined the sanctioned plan.

He has stated that the front portion was used for commercial

purpose and the back portion was used for residential

purpose. On perusal of Ex.P.37, the basis of valuation is the

prevailing market rate. The detail calculation with regard to

valuation is not produced. The valuation ought to have been

made on the date of preliminary notification. As the valuation

is made on prevailing market rate, the same cannot be relied

for fixing the market value of the acquired land.
46

.41. It is to be noted that the claimant has not produced

any document with regard to the type and nature of the

structure.

.42. The claimant in L.A.C. No.81/2003 has been

examined as PW.24. From the General award, it is seen about

details of acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
191 953 76 12,920 44,653

.43. PW.24 has stated that he is the owner of the above

property. After the death of his father, he has been enjoying

the said property as absolute owner. Ex.P.64 is the sale deed

dated 12.08.1957. Ex.P.65 is the property card. Ex.P.66 is

the survey sketch. Ex.P.67 is the survey enquiry report.

Ex.P.68 is the award. Ex.P.69 is the death certificate of

Hanumakka. The title of the claimant is not in dispute.

Ex.P.24 has stated that major portion of the property has

been acquired, which consist of commercial building facing to

the National Highway road and as on the date of acquisition

of the said property, the market value of the said site
47

attaching to the main road was more than Rs.5,000/- per sq.

feet.

.44. PW.24 has stated that the L.A.O. has not properly

valued the cost of the building, which was in existence at the

time of passing the award. He got appointed a separate

approved Engineer to assess the correct valuation of his

building based on the schedule rate of the PWD and the

valuer has given his report.

.45. To corroborate his contention, he has produced

valuation report as per Ex.P.38. From Ex.P.38, it is seen that

N.D. Devaraju, Civil Engineer has given valuation report

pertaining to the building of the claimant. The said report

discloses that he visited the spot on 12.04.2003 and the basis

of valuation is prevailing market rate. He has valuated the

ground floor of the building at Rs.3,25,000/-.

.46. N.D. Devaraj is examined as PW.30. He has stated

that on 12.04.2003 he inspected the spot and found that the

property was consisting of single storied building with build

up area of 650 sq. feet of ground floor. The building is built

on a well laid size stone machinery with the super structure

built with brick machinery in cement mortar, plastered and
48

painted on both the sides of the walls, the flooring is of

cement concrete rolling shutters and honne/sal wood for

joineries, steel grills with glass panes for windows frames and

shutters. He has stated that the basic civil Amenities are

available in the locality. The building is more than 20 years

old and has a future estimated life of about 20 years against

proper repairs and maintenance. Considering the type of

construction, age of the building, valuation of the building,

after depreciation works out to Rs.3,25,000/- as on

12.04.2003 and he prepared a report to that effect on

14.04.2003.

.47. During cross-examination he admits that PW.24

has not produced documents to show that he is registered

valuer. It is elicited that he valued the property on the basis of

comparable sale method and sale deeds pertaining to

neighbouring lands. In the present case, he has valued only

for building. He has stated that at the time of valuation, he

has not seen sanctioned plan. He has stated the building is

commercial land. During the year 1993 for construction of 1

sq. meters, cost would be Rs.150/-. He has identified the

valuation report as per Ex.P.38.
49

.48. During cross-examination PW.24 has admitted that

he has not produced the documents to show that land is

converted land. He has stated that the land is situated within

the gramathana. With regard to document relating to

permission of construction, he has stated that his advocate

knows. He has not paid property tax as he has no income.

He has not produced rental receipt. From the report, it is

seen that valuation is made in the year 2003 based on the

market value. The acquisition in the present case has taken

place in the year 1991 and so, the valuation made is not as on

the date of acquisition and so, it cannot be looked into. The

claimant has not produced document with regard to the

nature and extent of structure.

.49. Ranganna S/o late. Chowdappa (claimant) in

L.A.C. No.82/2003 and L.A.C. No.83/2003, has been

examined as PW.35. From the General award, the details of

acquired property (L.A.C. No.82/2003):

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building
mari No. Sq.m Rs. value
Rs.
129 959 95 16,150 1,94,467

(L.A.C. No.83/2003):
50

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
129/A 962 88 14,960 62,220

.50. PW.35 has stated that the above property is an

ancestral property of his family. PW.35 has stated that he is

one of the LRs of claimant No.1(c) in the above case. He is the

owner of the above property to an extent of 88 sq. meters

situated at Peenya village. After the death of his father, LRs

are entitled to equal share and claiming equal compensation.

He has stated that land has not been properly valued, the cost

of the building which was in existence at the time of passing

compensation for building obtained from the Executive

Engineer is not just and proper. The L.A.O. has failed to take

notice of the potential value of the building and that the

valuation made therein is highly illegal, incorrect and

arbitrary and against prevailing standard rate of the

Government notification issued from time to time. He got

valued the building by approved valuer to assess the correct

value of the individual building based on the schedule rate of
51

the PWD as on 1990-91. To corroborate his contention,

PW.35 has not produced valuation report.

.51. Venkatesh (Legal heir) S/o late. Claimant

Gangamma in L.A.C. No.85/2003 has been examined as

PW.41. From the General award, the details of acquired

property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
246 1129 35 5,950 22,618

.52. PW.41 has stated that he is the owner of the above

property with structure situated at Peenya village. After the

death of his father, his mother and other LRs are entitled to

the share. He has stated that the award passed by L.A.O. is

inadequate; that with regard to the building, valuation has

not been properly done. Though the Executive Engineer is

competent to determine the market value of the buildings, he

has failed to take notice of the potential value of the building.

He got appointed a separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91.
52

.53. Ex.P.54 is the valuation report prepared by

Ramegowda. Ex.P.71 is same as Ex.P.54 valuation report. The

report of the valuer discloses that he has inspected the land

on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002. For the purpose of assessing

correct value on 1990-91, he has based his valuation on

schedule of rates of PWD. He has valued the land at

Rs.59,360/- and building value at Rs.39,942/-. Ex.P.72 are

the 2 photos along with negative pertaining to this claimant's

property.

.54. During cross-examination PW.41 has stated that

his property is situated at a distance of 100 meters from NH-

4. The photos have been taken in the year 2005. He does not

know Ramalingegowda. He has given evidence on 05.10.2021

and has stated that Ramegowda was not well. So, he could

not been examine regarding acquisition in the present case.

Ramegowda valuer has been examined as PW.32. In his

evidence he has stated with regard to valuation made by him

with regard to this claimant property as per Ex.P.54. The

photographs are taken in the year 2005. As the date of

preliminary notification is 30.05.1991 a lot of changes would
53

have taken place from 1991 to 2005 and so Ex.P.72 cannot

be relied for assessing the market value.

.55. The claimant Padma in L.A.C. No.180/2003 has

been examined as PW.37. The memo has been filed adopting

deposition of PW.28.

.56. From the General award, it is seen about details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS Nos. Extent Land Value Building/
mari Nos. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
266, 265, 1153, 273 46,410 4,91,497
112 1152, 1151

.57. PW.37 has stated that the property bearing

Khaneshumari No. 266, CTS No. 1153 to an extent of 71 sq.

meters along with structure is her ancestral property and she

got it under the partition deed. Ex.P.85 is the partition deed.

From the said document, it is seen that claimant Padma has

been allotted D schedule property. From the schedule D

property it is seen that Khaneshumari and CTS numbers are

not mentioned. However, from 19 particulars sent by the

L.A.O. it is seen that compensation amount has been paid to

her. So, she is entitled for enhanced compensation if ordered
54

to an extent of 71 sq. meters. Ex.P.84 is the partition deed.

Ex.P.86 is demand register extract.

.58. Ex.P.87 is the death certificate of Munibyraiah.

Ex.P.88 is the death certificate of Lokanath. Ex.P.89 is the

death certificate of Jogappa. Munibyraiah is one of the

parties to the Partition deed. Jogappa is grand father of the

claimant. Lokanath is one of the beneficiaries in the partition

deed. Ex.P.86 is the demand register extract. The document

stands in the names of Munibyraiah and Jogappa. Schdule D

property No.45 has been allotted to the claimant. There is no

dispute with regard to the title. The claimant has stated

during cross-examination that National Highway is near to

her property and she knows Ramegowda, when he came for

survey. Ex.P.85 is the valuation report prepared by

Ramegowda. She has got the building valued by approved

valuer as per the PWD rates. Ex.P.85 is one page report.

From the report, it is seen that valuation is made as per rates

of the PWD as on 1990-91. The report does not disclose the

date when he inspected the spot. Ramegowda has been

examined as PW.28. In his evidence he has not stated that he

has prepared valuation report pertaining to this case. So, the
55

valuation report is not in accordance with law and the same

cannot be relied to fix the market value of the acquired land.

.59. The claimant Siddagangappa in L.A.C.

No.181/2003 has been examined as PW.43. The reference

has been sent in-respect of Khaneshumari No. 265, CTS No.

1152. From the General award, it is seen about details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
266, 265, 1153, 273 (total) 46,410 4,91,497
112 1152, 1151

.60. The reference is sent in-respect of Khaneshumari

No. 265 - 1152, extent 273 sq. meters. The claimant has

been paid compensation in-respect of 108 sq. meters plus

building.

.61. PW.43 has stated that Khaneshumari No. 266, CTS

No. 1153 is totally measuring 160.80 sq. meters. The above

property is an ancestral property and his father was kartha of

the joint family. He has stated that his father had constructed

5 shops which were commercial buildings in the said property

and his father died on 08.08.1987. He has stated that a part
56

of the above said land and building measuring 108 sq. meters

has been acquired. The compensation awarded is meager. He

has stated that the Executive Engineer has failed to take

notice of the potential value of the building and that the

valuation made by him is incorrect. He got separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91.

.62. To corroborate his contention, he has produced

notice dated 18.07.2005 as per Ex.P.77. From the notice, it is

seen that in-spite of receiving compensation, he has not

vacated the land and building. So, he has been directed to

vacate the premised within a week. Ex.P.78 is the notice

under Section 9(1) of L.A. Act. Ex.P.79 is the notice under

Section 12(2) of L.A. Act. Ex.P.80 is the property register

extract. The property stands in the name of Jogaiah. Ex.P.81

is the City Survey Field Book. Ex.P.82 is the enquiry register

of Urban Survey. Ex.P.83 is the Form-9 in-respect of building

site and holding certificate in-respect of CTS No. 1153

measuring 168.8 sq. meters. As portion of the property only

is acquired, the claimant is entitled to receive enhanced

compensation to an extent of 108 sq. meters if ordered.
57

.63. PW.43 has stated that the valuation made by the

Executive Engineer is not correct. In this regard he has

examined valuer Ramegowda as PW.33 and has produced

valuation report as per Ex.P.55. He has stated that he has

fixed for RCC at Rs.2,264 per sq. meters and for ACC and

Mangalore tiled structure at Rs.1585 based on the rates for

the year 1990-91.

.64. He has valued the compensation fixed for land at

Rs.4,63,000/- and for building at Rs.5,57,333/-

.65. During cross-examination PW.43 pleads ignorance

about the date when report was prepared. To the question

whether he would examine Ramegowda, he has stated that he

does not know Ramegowda.

.66. The claimant has not produced any document with

regard to the type of structure.

.67. The claimant B. Venkataramana in L.A.C.

No.183/2003 has been examined as PW.2. The reference has

been sent in-respect of Khaneshumari No. 278A, CTS No.

1174. From the General award, it is seen about details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
58

value
Rs.
278A, B, C, 1174 282 47,940 87,745
D

.68. PW.2 has stated that he is the absolute owner of

the land with building. After the death of his father, he has

been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He

gave property for rent to run commercial establishment and

was getting rent of Rs.2,500/- p.m. A part of the above said

land as well as the building measuring 282 sq. meters (out of

which his share is property measuring 70.5 sq. meters) have

been acquired for the purpose of formation of service roads on

either side of the National Highway No.4. He has received his

share of Rs.82,677/- i.e., 1/4th share of total award amount.

He has sought for enhancement of compensation and to make

apportionment of the amount equally for all the Co-parceners,

wh are entitled for 1/4th share in the property. This claimant

is entitled for compensation to an extent of 1/4th of the

enhanced amount if ordered.

.69. PW.2 has stated that the L.A.O. has awarded

meager amount and the valuation fixed by the Executive

Engineer for determining the market value of the building is
59

not correct and against the prevailing standard rates of the

Government notification. He got appointed a separate

approved Valuer to assess the correct valuation of his building

based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. He has

filed assessment report with sketch prepared by approved

valuer.

.70. Ex.P.51 is the valuation report prepared by

Suryanarayana Shetty. He has stated that he inspected the

property on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002. He has valued on

1990-91 based on the rates of PWD. He has valued the

compensation for the land measuring 70.5 sq. meters at

Rs.1,19,563/- and building at Rs.69,128/-. PW.29 has stated

that Suryanarayana Shetty is his colleague and now he is

bed-ridden. He has identified the signature of Suryanarayana

Shetty on the report.

.71. During cross-examination PW.2 admits that he has

not produced conversion order and he is not having

permission or completion certificate with regard to structure.

He is not having rental agreement nor rental receipt for

having received the rent. He has stated that he is not income

tax payee. He has not produced income tax returns. The
60

claimant has not produced any documents with regard to the

type of structure.

.72. General Power of Attorney holder M. Gopal of

claimant Akkachamma is examined as PW.11 in L.A.C.

No.184/2003.

From the General award, it is seen about details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
278A 1174 282 47,940 87,745

.73. The reference has been sent in-respect of

Khaneshumari No. 278C, CTS No. 1174. This case is

connected to L.A.C. No.183/2003. As per the statement

under Section 19 the amount of award is Rs.3,30,709/- and

this claimant has received Rs.82,677/-. PW.11 has stated that

the property bearing Khaneshumari No. 278, CTS No. 1174 of

Peenya village measuring 20 X 80 feet was acquired by

claimant under the family partition deed. The claimant

received the award amount under protest. He has stated that

the amount awarded by the L.A.O. is meager. Though he has

stated that valuation made by Executive Engineer is not
61

correct with regard to the structure, the claimant has not

produced the valuation report. As the claimant has received

only 1/4th of compensation awarded, the LRs of the claimant

are entitled for 1/4th of the enhanced compensation if

ordered.

.74. P.M. Nagaraju the legal heir of claimant No.1 is

examined as PW.20 in L.A.C. No.185/2003. The reference is

sent in-respect of Khaneshumari No. 158E, CTS No. 932

measuring 70.09 sq. meters, for land a sum of Rs.2905.

.75. From the General award, it is seen about details of

acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
158E 932 70.09 2,905 -

.76. He has stated that the above property is an

ancestral property. Khatha of the property stands in the

name of his father and his brother i.e., claimant No.2

Hanumantharayappa and they are entitled to equal share.

His father had constructed shops and commercial building in

the said property. A part of land and building measuring 3 sq

has been acquired. The award passed by the L.A.O. is in-
62

adequate and that the Executive Engineer has failed to take

notice of the potential value of the building and that the

valuation made by him is incorrect. He got separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. To corroborate his

contention, he has not produced valuation report. Ex.P.34 is

the death certificate of his father Munichikkanna, who died on

17.07.2008.

.77. PW.28 Ramegowda in his evidence has stated that

he has inspected the land and has prepared valuation report,

for the reasons best known to him the report has not been

produced.

.78. During cross-examination PW.20 admits that he

has not produced conversion order. He has not produced the

documents relating to construction of shop like building

permission or completion certificate. He admits that he has

not produced rental agreement and rental receipt. The L.A.O.

has not awarded any compensation towards structure. The

claimant has not produced any document with regard to type

of structure and existence of building in the acquired land.

So, he is not entitled for compensation in-respect of structure.
63

.79. M. Munivenkatappa and his brother M. Muniyappa

are claimants 1 and 2 in L.A.C. No.226/2003.

Siddalingamma W/o Munivenkatappa (Lr of claimant No.1)

has been examined as PW.7.

.80. From the General award, the details of acquired

property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
427 1123 120 20,400 -

.81. PW.7 has stated that after purchase by her father-

in-law, they have constructed a shop building and residential

house in the rear portion and the same was let out. She has

stated that the valuation fixed by the L.A.O. is not correct. To

corroborate her contention, she has not produced any

documents. Ramegowda, valuer has been examined as

PW.28. He has stated that he filed valuation report in this

case. For the reasons best known to him, the valuation report

has not been produced.

.82. During cross-examination, PW.7 admits that she

has not produced conversion order. She has not produced

building permission or completion certificate like wise she has
64

not produced any rental agreement or rental receipt. It is

elicited that she is not income tax payee. The L.A.O. has not

awarded any compensation towards structure. The claimant

has also not produced any documents with regard to the type

of structure and the existence of building in the acquired

land. So, they are not entitled for compensation in-respect of

structure.

.83. B. Vajravelu the legal heir of claimant Doraiswamy

is examined as PW.8 in L.A.C. No.227/2003. From the

General award, the details of acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
239 1120 169.06 28,740 51,784

.84. The reference is sent in-respect of 116 sq. meters.

The claimant has been paid compensation for 116 sq. meters

plus building.

.85. PW.8 has stated that the above property was

purchased by his father from Kamashettappa and after the

purchase of the property from his father, he has constructed

shop premises and he has been in possession and enjoyment

of the said property as the owner.
65

.86. He has stated that after the deed of partition, they

have constructed two shops building and the residential

house in the rear portion and they have let out the same. A

part of the above said land as well as the building measuring

169.06 sq. meters have been acquired for the purpose of

formation of service roads on either side of the National

Highway No.4. The award passed by L.A.O. is inadequate. He

has stated that the Executive Engineer has failed to take

notice of the potential value of the building and that the

valuation made by him is incorrect. He got separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91 as per Ex.P.26.

From Ex.P.26, it is seen that valuation report is prepared by

Ramegowda. In the report, it is stated that he has inspected

the land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 for the purpose of

assessing correct value on 1990-91 based on schedule of

rates of PWD. He has valued the land at Rs.1,74,688/- and

building value at Rs.1,63,255/- for 103 sq. meters. The

valuation is made as per SR rates of 1990-91.

.87. During cross-examination PW.8 admits that he has

not produced conversion order and building permission order.
66

He has stated that he has paid income tax. But he has not

produced the documents. He denies that valuation report is

created for the purpose of this case. The claimant has not

produced any documents with regard to the extent of land

acquired. As the reference and the compensation paid is only

to an extent of 116 sq. meters. The claimant is entitled for

enhanced compensation to an extent of 116 sq. meters if

ordered.

.88. General Power of Attorney holder Shivalingappa of

claimant is examined as PW.14 in L.A.C. No.228/2003.

Ex.P.31 is the Special power of attorney. From the General

award, the details of acquired property:

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
240 1122 110 18,700 96,352

.89. PW.14 has stated that the above property was

purchased by his mother on 22.08.1956 under the registered

sale deed vide Reg. No.4005 of 1956-57. After the purchase,

his mother had constructed 3 shop building in the ground

floor with a residential house in the rear portion and office
67

accommodation in the 1st floor and let out all the shops and

office accommodation in the said building.

.90. He has stated that with regard to the building,

valuation has not been properly done. Though the Executive

Engineer is competent to determine the market value of the

buildings, he has failed to take notice of the potential value of

the building and that the valuation made therein is highly

illegal, incorrect and arbitrary and much against the

prevailing standard rates of the Government notification

issued from time to time. He got appointed a separate

approved valuer to assess the correct value of the building

based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91.Ex.P.32

is the valuation report prepared by Ramegowda. From the

valuation report it is seen that the valuer has inspected the

land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 for the purpose of

assessing correct value on 1990-91. The land rates applied

are based on the rate adopted to khata No.A/173 for 854.88

sq. meters on 11.10.1989 by Special Land Acquisition Officer.

He has valued the land at Rs.1,11,809/- and building at

Rs2,81,529.
68

.91. During cross-examination it is elicited from PW.14

that the structure might have been constructed about 30-40

years back. He has not produced any documents to show that

the building is RCC structure.

.92. The claimant Doddanarasaiah has been examined

as PW.1 in L.A.C. No.14/2004. From the General award,

details of the property acquired

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
240/1 1121 299 50,830 2,30,127

.93. The reference has been sent in-respect of 129 sq.

meters. The statement under Section 19 the compensation

awarded at Rs.3,20,000/- to an extent of 129 sq. meters plus

building. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation

only to an extent of 129 sq. meters if ordered.

.94. PW.1 has stated that he is the absolute owner of

the property, having purchased the same under registered

sale deed dated 31.01.1973. After the purchase he has

constructed a RCC roofed with dressed stone building

measuring 45 X 25 feet and let out 4 shops in the ground

floor and 4 office accommodation in the 1st floor. He has
69

constructed commercial building in the rear portion of the

said property and let out the same. The said building was

constructed in the year 1983. He has stated that a part of the

said land measuring 129 sq. meters and the building

including ground floor and 1st floor measuring 165.31 sq.

meters has been acquired for the purpose of formation of

service roads. He has stated that the award passed by the

L.A.O. is meager and the L.A.O. has not properly valued the

cost of building. The Executive Engineer has failed to take

notice of the potential value of the building. He has got

appointed a separate approved valuer to assess the correct

value of the building based on the schedule rate of the PWD

as on 1990-91.

.95. To corroborate his contention, he has relied upon

the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed dated

31.01.1973. The title of the claimant is not dispute. So, it is

not necessary to discuss the same. Ex.P.2 is the letter dated

16.10.2007 written by Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM,

Bengaluru confirming that he has taken power sanction to the

building. From Ex.P.2 it is seen that there is no details with

regard to the extent of building. The claimant has produced
70

lease agreement dated 01.09.2003 executed by him in-favour

of one K. Ramaswamy, Proprietor as per Ex.P.3. The award in

the case has been passed in the year 1998. So, this

document is not relevant for determining the market value of

the property. Ex.P.4 is the photographs of the building. Ex.P.5

is the negative. The claimant has not stated that as to when

photographs have been taken.

.96. During cross-examination he admits that he has

not produced any documents in-respect of building

certificate/ completion certificate. The claimant has not

produced any documents with regard to the extent and type of

structure.

.97. The claimant Ramachandra is examined as PW.18

in L.A.C. No.323/2004. From the General award, It is seen

that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khanesh CTS No. Extent Land Building/ Malkies
umari Sq. m. Value structure
No. Rs. value
Rs.
286 1103 400 68,000 983 100

.98. PW.18 has stated that he is the owner of the

property totally measuring 5986 sq. feet with built up area of

15 square RCC roof and 10 square feet with built up area of
71

15 sq. RCC roof and 10 SQ. AC sheet building out of which,

commercial site measuring 4875 sq. feet abutting to National

Highway and industrial site measuring 55,986 sq. feet on the

rear portion of the above said property have been acquired. A

part of the building measuring 400 sq. meters have been

acquired. The award passed by L.A.O. is inadequate.

.99. PW.18 has stated that the L.A.O. has not properly

valued the cost of the building, which was in existence at the

time of passing the award. Hence, he got valued the separate

approved valuer to assess the correct value of the building

based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. To

corroborate his contention, he has not produced valuation

report. He has not produced any document with regard to

extent and type of building.

.100. The legal heir Suresh S/o claimant Papanna is

examined as PW.9 in L.A.C. No.324/2004. From the General

award, It is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
203B 937 50 8,500 22,448
72

.101. PW.9 has stated that the above property was

allotted to brother of claimant which was the ancestral

property. After purchase of the property by Thumbadi

Chikkanna he had constructed a residential building and he

had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the said

property with the joint family members as an absolute owner

till his death and thereafter his father. Land measuring 60 sq.

meters has been acquired. The award passed by L.A.O. is

inadequate. He has stated that the L.A.O. has not properly

valued the cost of the building, which was in existence at the

time of passing the award. Hence, he got property valued by

separate approved valuer to assess the correct value of the

building based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-

91. He has produced valuation report as per Ex.P.27. The

said report is prepared by Suryanarayana Shetty. In the

report, it is stated that he has inspected the land on

14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 for the purpose of assessing

correct value on 1990-91. He has valued the land at

Rs.64,448/- and building at Rs.43,117/-. However,

Ramaswamy valuer examined as PW.28 has stated that he

and Suryanarayana Shetty his colleague had gone to the spot
73

on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 and inspected each and every

properties. Sri. Ramaswamy has not identified the signature

of Suryanarayana Shetty in the report Ex.P.27. No document

is produced with regard to type of structure.

.102. PW.9 admits that he has not produced building

permission and that he is not income tax payee.

.103. The claimant B. Venkataramana is examined as

PW.16 in L.A.C. No.325/2004. From the General award, It

is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
1/1 1119 1937 3,29,290 26,829
(trees)

.104. The reference is sent only in-respect of 332.5 sq.

meters.

.105. PW.16 has stated that the above property is the

joint family property and part of the land totally measuring

1937 sq. meters, out of which, his share is 223 sq. meters has

been acquired for the purpose of formation of service road.

Out of which 1/4th share of property has been acquired. He

is claiming enhancement of compensation amount and to
74

make apportionment of amount equally for 1/4th share. The

award passed by L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that the

L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building, which

was in existence at the time of passing the award. Hence, he

got property valued by separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91. To corroborate his contention, he has

not produced valuation report. He admits that he has not

produced any notification issued by the Government

including Sy.No.1/1 as semi urban, urban, town or

municipality. He has not produced any document with regard

to type of building. This claimant is entitled to enhanced

compensation only to an extent of 332.5 sq. meters if ordered.

.106. The legal heir C.M. Raja S/o claimant

Chikkamuniyappa is examined as PW.26 in L.A.C.

No.326/2004. From the General award, It is seen that he is

the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
266 1151 60 10,200 -
75

.107. PW.26 has stated that the above property was

allotted in the partition to his father Chikkamuniyappa. After

the partition, his father had constructed the shop building

and a residential building in the rear portion and let out the

same and was getting rent of Rs.3,500/- per month in-respect

of shop premises and he was getting rent of Rs.2,000/- per

month from the residential house. He has stated that the

L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building, which

was in existence at the time of passing the award. Ex.P.43 is

the death certificate of Chikkamuniyappa and Ex.P.44 is the

ration card. It discloses the names of heirs of deceased

claimant. He has stated that the award passed by L.A.O. is

inadequate. Hence, he got property valued by separate

approved valuer to assess the correct value of the building

based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. He has

produced assessment report with sketch as per Ex.P.40 and

41. Ex.P.42 is the khatha extract, which stands in the name

of his father Muniyappa. Ex.P.40 is the valuation report given

by Ramegowda. It is seen that he has inspected the land on

15.06.2002 and has prepared the report on the basis of the
76

rates adopted in khatha No.A/1. He has valued the land at

Rs.1,40,768/- and building at Rs.1,15,184/-.

.108. During cross-examination PW.26 admits that he

has not produced conversion order, building permission and

completion certificate. He has not produced the rental

agreement or rental receipt. He has stated that he is not

income tax assessee. No document is produced with regard to

the type of structure.

.109. The claimant R. Umashankar has been examined

as PW.12 in L.A.C. No.327/2004. From the General award,

It is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
363 1309 11 1,870 -

.110. PW.12 has stated that the above property was

purchased by him under sale deed dated 19.02.1987. After

purchase of the said property he has reconstructed the

building into commercial shops and has been in physical

possession and enjoyment of the same. He has stated that a

part of the above said land as well as the building measuring

68 sq. meters have been acquired. But as per the reference
77

only 11 sq. meters has been acquired. The claimant has not

led any evidence to show that 68 sq. meters has been

acquired. He has stated that the L.A.O. has not properly

valued the cost of the building, which was in existence at the

time of passing the award. Hence, he got property valued by

separate approved valuer to assess the correct value of the

building based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-

91 as per Ex.P.29. Ex.P.29 is the valuation report prepared by

Ramegowda. As per valuation report, the valuer Ramegowda

has inspected the land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 and

prepared the report on the basis of rate adopted to khatha

No.A/173 dated 11.10.1989. He has assessed the value of the

land at Rs.1,41,667/- and building at Rs.1,89,112/-. The

valuation is made in-respect of 83.53 sq. meters. The land

acquired in the present case is only 11 sq. meters.

.111. During cross-examination, PW.12 admits that he

has not produced conversion order, building permission and

completion certificate. He has not produced the rental

agreement or rental receipt. He has stated that he is not

income tax assessee. He has not produced any document

with regard to the nature and extent of structure.
78

.112. The claimant Venkataramana has been examined

as PW.17 in L.A.C. No.328/2004. From the General award,

It is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
1/1 1119 1937 3,29,290 26829
(trees)

.113. The L.A.O. has sent the reference in-respect of

223 sq. meters.

.114. PW.17 has stated that the above property

measuring 84 x 22 + 56 / 2 was allotted to him in panchayath

palupatti. A part of the above said land as well as the

building measuring 1937 sq. meters have been acquired. Out

of which his share is 223 sq. meters. It is stated that the

award passed by the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that

the L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building,

which was in existence at the time of passing the award.

Hence, he got property valued by separate approved valuer to

assess the correct value of the building based on the schedule

rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. To corroborate his
79

contention, he has not produced the valuation report. During

cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited.

This claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation only to an

extent of 223 sq. meters if ordered.

.115. The claimant C. Muniraju has been examined as

PW.4 in L.A.C. No.329/2004. From the General award, It is

seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
418 1272 99.07 16,842 1,77,875

.116. The L.A.O. has sent the reference in-respect of

42.5 sq. meters.

.117. PW.4 has stated that the above property

measuring 20 x 27 is an ancestral property of his joint family.

He got the said property under the registered partition deed.

After the partition, he has constructed 2 shops building and

the residential house in the rear portion and has let out the

same. A part of the above said land as well as the building

measuring 48 sq. meters have been acquired. He is claiming

enhancement of compensation of 1/3rd share. He has stated

that the award passed by the L.A.O. is inadequate and the
80

L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building, which

was in existence at the time of passing the award. Hence, he

got property valued by separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91. PW.28 Ramegowda valuer has produced

the valuation report as per Ex.P.47 along with enclosure. As

per the report the valuer visited the spot on 14.06.2002 and

15.06.2002. He has assessed the value of land at Rs.88,226/-

and that of building Rs.2,60,768/-.

.118. During cross-examination, PW.4 admits that he

has not produced conversion order, building permission and

completion certificate. He has not produced the rental

agreement or rental receipt. He has stated that he is not

income tax assessee. He has not produced any documents to

show that his property measuring 48 sq. meters. He has not

produced document to show that the building is RCC. The

claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation to an extent of

42.5 sq. meters if ordered.

.119. The claimant P.N. Narasimhamurthy has been

examined as PW.21 in L.A.C. No.330/2004. From the
81

General award, It is seen that he is the owner of the property

bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
696 933 23.06 3,920 15,404

.120. In the reference the Khaneshumari number has

been wrongly mentioned as 214 instead of 696. PW.21 has

stated that the above property is an ancestral property of his

joint family. He got the said property under the registered

partition deed. A part of the above said land as well as the

building measuring 23.6 sq. meters have been acquired. The

award passed by the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that

the L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building,

which was in existence at the time of passing the award.

Hence, he got property valued by separate approved valuer to

assess the correct value of the building based on the schedule

rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. He has produced valuation

report as per Ex.P.35. From Ex.P.35, it is seen that valuation

report has been prepared by Ramegowda. The valuer has

inspected the land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 and

prepared the report on the basis of rate adopted to khatha
82

No.A/173 dated 11.10.1989. He has assessed the value of

land at Rs.39,110/- and building at Rs.27,369/-. During

cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited. He

has not produced document with regard to the type of

structure.

.121. The claimant M. Gopal, SPA holder of claimant

has been examined as PW.15 in L.A.C. No.331/2004. From

the General award, It is seen that he is the owner of the

property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
1/1 1119 1937 3,29,290 26,829
(trees)

.122. The L.A.O. has sent the reference in-respect of 99

sq. meters and compensation has been paid only in-respect of

99 sq. meters and the compensation has been paid only in-

respect of 99 sq. meters. PW.15 has stated that claimant in

L.A.C. No.331/2004 and L.A.C. No.184/2004 is her father's

sister and she had given SPA as per Ex.P.33.

.123. PW.15 has stated that the above property he got

in the family partition. A part of the above said land as well as
83

the building measuring 282 sq. meters have been acquired.

He has stated that the award passed by the L.A.O. is

inadequate. The L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the

building, which was in existence at the time of passing the

award. Hence, he got property valued by separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. He has not

produced valuation report.

.124. During cross-examination, PW.1 pleads ignorance

as to when the land bearing survey number 1/1, in numbered

as CTS No. 1119. He admits that he has not produced any

notification issued by the Government including Sy.No. 1/1

as semi urban, urban, town or municipality. He admits that

at the time of requisition, Sy.No. 1/1 was vacant land. He has

not produced any documents to prove the extent and title of

building. The claimant will be entitled to enhanced

compensation only to an extent of 99 sq. meters if ordered.

.125. The claimant M. N. Ramakrishna has been

examined as PW.27 in L.A.C. No.334/2004. From the

General award, It is seen that he is the owner of the property

bearing
84

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
418 1272 99.07 16,842 1,77,875

.126. The L.A.O. has sent the reference in-respect of 33

sq. meters.

.127. PW.27 has stated that he and his brother got the

above said property under the Registered Partition Deed

among the members of the joint family. He and his brother

M.N. Vasudevamurthy entitled equal share in the said

property. After the deed of partition, they have constructed 2

shops in the ground floor and commercial establishment in

the first floor and has let out the same. Ex.P.45B is the

partition deed. Schedule C and h has fallen to his share and

the share of his brother Vasudevamurthy. So, they are

entitled for compensation amount. He has stated that CTS

Number is wrongly mentioned. So, he has produced

rectification deed as per Ex.P.45. From the rectification deed,

it is seen that CTS Number has been corrected as 1271 and

1272, panchayath khatha No.360/A totally measuring 20 X

50 feet. Ex.P.47 is the assessment register extract measuring
85

to an extent of 20 X 50 feet and Anubhavadar is mentioned as

Narasimhamurthy.

.128. A part of the above said land as well as the

building measuring 48 sq. meters have been acquired for the

purpose of formation of service roads. The claimants herein

are claiming enhanced compensation of 1/3rd share. The

award passed by the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that

the L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the building,

which was in existence at the time of passing the award.

Hence, he got property valued by separate approved valuer to

assess the correct value of the building based on the schedule

rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. He has produced valuation

report as per Ex.P.46. Ex.P.46A is the valuation report

prepared by Ramegowda. From Ex.P.46A, it is seen that he

has inspected the land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 and

prepared the report on the basis of rate adopted to khatha

No.A/173 dated 11.10.1989. He has awarded the land at

Rs.88,226/- and building at Rs.2,37,149/-.

.129. During cross-examination, it is elicited from

PW.27 that the land acquired is gramathana land. He has

stated that he has given evidence in-respect of 110 sq. meters
86

which comes within the limits of BBMP. He denied the

suggestion that the land is not situated within the area of

industrial or commercial area. The claimant has not placed

document to show that his land measuring 110 sq. meters

acquired. He received compensation to an extent of 33 sq.

meters. The claimants M.N. Ramakrishna and M.N.

Vasudevamurthy are entitled each equal share in the

enhanced amount if ordered in-respect of 33 sq. meters of

acquired land.

.130. The claimant M. N. N. Murthy has been examined

as PW.5 in L.A.C. No.335/2004. From the General award, It

is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
418 1272 99.07 16,842 1,77,875

.131. The L.A.O. has sent the reference in-respect of 52

sq. meters.

.132. PW.5 has stated that the above said property is

an ancestral property of his joint family. He got the above said

property under the Registered Partition Deed among the

members of the joint family. After the deed of partition, he has
87

constructed 2 shops in the ground floor and 2 commercial

shops in the first floor and has let out the same. Ex.P.45 is

the rental agreement and Ex.P.46 are the 2 photos. The

rental agreement is dated 04.09.1998. It is subsequent to the

acquisition in this case. In the absence of any corroborative

evidence or document only on the basis of rental agreement

value of the land cannot be fixed. A part of the above said

land as well as the building measuring 110 sq. meters have

been acquired for the purpose of formation of service roads.

He has stated that the award passed by the L.A.O. is

inadequate. He has received the compensation only to an

extent of 52 sq. meters. So, he is entitled for enhanced

compensation to an extent of 52 sq. meters if ordered.

.133. PW.5 has stated that the L.A.O., has not properly

valued the cost of the building, which was in existence at the

time of passing the award. Hence, he got property valued by

separate approved valuer to assess the correct value of the

building based on the schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-

91. PW.28 Ramegowda has produced the valuation report as

per Ex.P.48. He has valued the land at Rs.88,226/- and

building at Rs.2,60,768/-.
88

.134. In the cross-examination PW.5 admits that the

rental agreement has been signed by his mother and tenant.

He admits that he has not produced rental receipts and

licence. He admits that he obtained permission to use

property for commercial purpose, he has not produced any

documents in this regard. He has stated that he has paid

income tax, but he has not produced any documents. He has

not produced any document to show that the structure is

RCC.

.135. The claimant S. Devanand has been examined as

PW.6 in L.A.C. No.336/2004. From the General award, It is

seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
285 1168 89 15,130 46,196

.136. PW.13 has stated that the above said property is

the property of claimant T. Srinivasan. After his father death,

he and his brother are entitled to equal share. His father

purchased the property and thereafter he has constructed

building for commercial purpose. His father died on

29.10.2001. A part of the above said land as well as the
89

building measuring 89 sq. meters have been acquired for the

purpose of formation of service roads. The award passed by

the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that the L.A.O. has

not properly valued the cost of the building, which was in

existence at the time of passing the award. Hence, he got

property valued by separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91. To substantiate the same, he has not

produced the valuation report as per Ex.P.30. He admits

during cross-examination that he has not produced rental

receipts and permission to put up construction. From

Ex.P.30 it is seen that the valuer has visited the spot on

14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002. He has valued the land at

Rs.1,50,944/- and building at Rs.2,01,496/-.

.137. The claimant Ramesh has been examined as

PW.19 in L.A.C. No.337/2004. From the General award, It is

seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
360B 946 35 5,950 -
90

.138. PW.19 has stated that the above said property is

an ancestral property of his joint family. He got the above said

property under the Registered Partition Deed among the

members of the joint family. In the said property, he and his

brother M.N. Sachidanana are entitled for equal share.

Ex.P.45B is the partition deed, schedule G and F have fallen

to the share of claimant Ramesh and Sachidananda

respectively. So, they are entitled for equal share. A part of

the above said land as well as the building measuring 48 sq.

meters have been acquired for the purpose of formation of

service roads. He has not produced any materials to show 48

sq. meters has been acquired. He has stated that the award is

inadequate. The L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of

the building, which was in existence at the time of passing the

award. Hence, he got property valued by separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. PW.28 Ramegowda

valuer has stated that he has inspected the land and prepared

valuation report. To substantiate the same, he has not

produced the valuation report. In the cross-examination

nothing substantial has been elicited. So, the claimant failed
91

to prove that 48 sq. meters has been acquired he is entitled to

enhanced compensation to an extent of 35 Sq. meters.

Claimant Ramesh and Sachidananda are equally entitled to

enhanced compensation if ordered in-respect of 35 sq. meters.

.139. The legal heir P.D. Venkataramanaiah S/o late.

Pete Dasappa has been examined as PW.10 in L.A.C.

No.338/2004. From the General award, It is seen that he is

the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
209 940 60.50 10,285 49,719

.140. PW.10 has stated that the above said property

was purchased by his father Pete Dasappa from one

Doddagangappa under a registered sale deed dated

15.05.1930. After the purchase of said property, his father

had constructed a residential building and he had been in

possession and enjoyment of the said property with the joint

family members. A part of the above said land as well as the

building measuring 60.50 sq. meters have been acquired for

the purpose of formation of service roads. The award passed

by the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has stated that the L.A.O. has
92

not properly valued the cost of the building, which was in

existence at the time of passing the award. Hence, he got

property valued by separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91. To substantiate the same, he has

produced the valuation report as per Ex.P.28. From Ex.P.28, it

is seen that Ramegowda has prepared the valuation report

and he has inspected the land on 14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002

and prepared the report on the basis of rate adopted to

khatha No.A/173 dated 11.10.1989. He has awarded the land

at Rs.1,59,424/- and building at Rs.1,48,990/-. During cross-

examination PW.10 has stated that construction has been

made long back. In support of the said construction, he has

not produced any documents. He has not produced any

documents with regard to nature and type of structure.

.141. In LAC No. 30/2005 the Basavalingaiah LR of

claimant Puttammma has examined as P.W.1 from the

General Award.

Khaneshu CTS Extent Land Building Trees
mari No. No. Sq. m. Value /
Rs. structure
value
Rs.
194 956 30.25 5,142 59,872 -
93

.142. P.W. 1 has stated that the above property is a self

acquired property of his father after the death of his father

Khata has been transferred to the name of his mother

Puttamma. He has stated that the amount awarded by the

LAO is meager and they are claiming compensation of Rs.

2,000/- per Sq. ft. He has stated that the executive engineer

has failed to take notice of the potential value of the building.

He has got appointed approved valuer to assess the correct

value of the building based on the schedule rate of Public

Works Department as on 1990-91. To substantiate the same

P.W. 1 has failed to produce the valuation report. The

claimant has fail to produce any document to show the extent

and type of structure in the acquired land.

.143. The legal heir C. Muniraju S/o late. P.M. Chikka

Chowdappa has been examined as PW.38 in L.A.C.

No.31/2005. From the General award, It is seen that he is

the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
127 961 92 15,640 1,13,413
94

.144. PW.38 has stated that the above said property is

an ancestral property of his family and all claimants are

entitled for equal share in the compensation. He has stated

that the award passed by the L.A.O. is inadequate. He has

stated that the L.A.O. has not properly valued the cost of the

building, which was in existence at the time of passing the

award. Hence, he got property valued by separate approved

valuer to assess the correct value of the building based on the

schedule rate of the PWD as on 1990-91. To substantiate the

same, he has not produced the valuation report. In the cross-

examination, he has stated that there are 12 shops in the

property. The said shops were constructed in the year 1971.

He has denied the suggestion that as per Ex.P.57, there is no

mentioning of shops

.145. The legal heir C. Muniraju S/o late. P.M. Chikka

Chowdappa has been examined as PW.39 in L.A.C.

No.43/2005. From the General award, It is seen that he is

the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
158D 960 90 15,300 -
95

.146. PW.39 has stated that the above said property is

an ancestral property of his family and all claimants are

entitled for equal share in the compensation. He has stated

that in the acquired portion, there were commercial shops in

the ground floor and commercial establishment in the first

floor and the same was let out. He has stated that the L.A.O.

has not properly valued the cost of the building, which was in

existence at the time of passing the award. Hence, he got

property valued by separate approved valuer to assess the

correct value of the building based on the schedule rate of the

PWD as on 1990-91. He has stated that the award passed by

the L.A.O. is in-adequate. To substantiate the same, he has

produced the valuation report as per Ex.P.57. Sri.

Ramegowda valuator has prepared the report. As per the

report, he has inspected the spot on 14.06.2002 and

15.06.2002. He has valued the land at Rs.48,420.

.147. During cross-examination PW.39 has stated that

Ramegowda had given the report to his father and till date of

cross-examination he had kept the report with him.
96

.148. The Principal of Government Pre-University

College has been examined as PW.1 in L.A.C. No.38/2005.

From the General award, details of property acquired

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
1 896 133 22,610 10,602

.149. PW.1 Smt. Manjula Kumari has stated that the

above property was acquired and her predecessor has filed

claim statement seeking compensation at Rs.1,000/- per sq.

feet. The award passed by the L.A.O. is in-adequate. To

corroborate her contention, the value of the land is at

Rs.1,000/-. She has relied upon evidence of claimant in

L.A.C. No.4/2004.

.150. The claimant Poornima S.K. Singh has been

examined as PW.1 in L.A.C. No.44/2005. From the General

award, the details of property acquired

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
281 1173 116 19,720 -
97

.151. PW.1 has stated that her mother-in-law on

account of her love and affection towards her has settled the

'A' schedule property under the registered settlement deed

dated 28.01.1988. A portion of 'A' schedule property to an

extent of 116 sq. meters has been acquired. She has filed the

application under Section 18(3) seeking for reference. The

property is situated in commercial and industrial area and

market value of the 'B' schedule property is not less than

Rs.15,00,000/-. To corroborate her contention, she has

produced General Award as per Ex.P.1. Notice under Section

12(2) as per Ex.P.2. Settlement deed as per Ex.P.3. Khatha

certificate as per Ex.P.4. Tax paid receipts as per Ex.P.5 to 9.

From the statement under Section 19 it is seen that claimant

has received the compensation. So, there is no dispute with

regard to her title and discussion on this aspect does not

arise.

.152. The claimant Ramakrishna has been examined as

PW.40 in L.A.C. No.275/2005. From the General award, It

is seen that he is the owner of the property bearing

Khaneshu CTS No. Extent Land Value Building/
mari No. Sq. m. Rs. structure
value
Rs.
98

240 1124 92 15,640 -

.153. PW.40 has stated that his father owned the above

property and after the death of his father, he has become the

absolute owner of the said property to an extent of 92 sq.

meters, which has been acquired. The award passed by the

L.A.O. is inadequate. So, he and other owners have got

appointed a separate approved valuer to assess the correct

value of the buildings based on the schedule rate of the PWD

as on 1990-91. Ex.P.58 is the valuation report prepared by

Ramegowda. From the report, it is seen t hat valuer

Ramegowda has visited the land on 14.06.2002 and

15.06.2002 and has fixed the value on the basis of schedule

rates of PWD. He has valued the land at Rs.49,496/- and

building value at Rs.66,712/-. The respondent has failed to

cross-examine the witness. This claimant has failed to

produce any documents to corroborate the existence of

building in the property which has been acquired. The valuer

Ramegowda has been examined as PW.28. His evidence does

not disclose that he has prepared valuation report. So,

Ex.P.58 valuation report cannot be relied.
99

.154. Sri. V. Kumbaiah LR of claimant has been

examined as P.W. 3 in LAC No. 276/2005. From the

General Award it is seen that the details of the acquired

property.

Khaneshu CTS Extent Land Building Trees
mari No. No. Sq. m. Value /
Rs. structure
value
Rs.
242 1125 48 8,160 - -

.155. P.W. 3 has stated that the above property was

purchased and after purchase he has reconstructed a shop

building and residential house in the rear portion. He has let

out the shop and residential house. He is getting rent of Rs.

3000/- per month from the shop and Rs. 2500/- from the

residential house. A part of the said property measuring 48

sq. mt. has been acquired. The award passed by the LAO is

inadequate.

.156. He has stated that the executive engineer has

failed to take notice of the potential value of the building. He

has got appointed approved valuer to assess the correct value

of the building based on the schedule rate of Public Works

Department as on 1990-91. To substantiate the same P.W. 1

has produce the valuation report as per Ex.P. 52.
100

.157. Ex.P. 52 valuation report has been prepared by

Suryanarayana Shetty . The report discloses that the valuer

inspected the land on the 14-06-2002 and 15-06-2002. He

has valued the land at Rs. 81,408/- and building at Rs.

30,523/-.

.158. P.W. 28 Ramegowda has stated that he and

Suryanarayana Shetty were colleagues. He and

Suryanarayana Shetty have visited the acquired land to

assess the valuation and in this regard he has also prepared

valuation report. It is stated that Suryanarayana Shetty is

bedridden. So he has identified the report Ex.P. 52 and the

signature of the Suryanarayana Shetty at Ex. P 52(a).

.159. P.W. 3 during cross examination admits that the

building is an old building and he has not produced the

building permission. He has stated that he has paid the tax

towards the building but no documents has been produced.

The LAO has not awarded any compensation towards

structure. This claimants has not produced any corroborative

document to show that building has been acquired. This

claimant is not entitled for compensation towards building.
101

.160. PW.28 Ramegowda has stated that he is retired

Superintending Engineer, PWD, Government of Karnataka.

After the retirement, he has enrolled as a Register Valuer to

assess the value of the properties. He and his colleague C.

Suryanarayana Shetty inspected each and every properties

mentioned below. The properties under valuation are in a

well developed commercial area constructed earlier with

different specification explained in detail under each

assessment of their properties.

.161. The names of the owners and description of their

properties are mentioned below:

LAC Case No. Name Property No.
CTS No.
4/2004 C. Rangaswamy 1118
183/2003 B. Venkataramana 1174
184/2003 Akkachamma 1174
185/2003 P.C. Munichikkanna 900
Since dead by LRs
226/2003 Munivenkatappa 1123
Since dead by LRs
227/2003 Doraiswamy 1120
since dead by LRs
228/2003 Channamma 1122
since dead by LRs
324/2004 Papanna 937
since dead by LRs
326/2004 Chikkamuniyappa 1151
since dead by LRs
327/2004 Umashankar 1245
102

329/2004 Patel Channappa 1271
since dead by LRs
330/2004 P.H. 993
Narasimhamurthy
334/2004 M. Narasimhamurthy 1271
since dead by LRs
335/2004 M. Nanjundaiah 1272
since dead by LRs
336/2004 T. Srinivasa 1168
since dead by LRs
337/2004 M. Narasimhamurthy 946
since dead by LRs
338/2004 D. Muniyappa 940
since dead by LRs
30/2005 Putamma 956
since dead by LRs
276/2005 V. Kumbaiah 1125
32/2007 M. Rangaswamy and 1169
others
33/2007 R. Rangaswamy 1127
149/2007 C. Narasimhamurthy 1101
14/2004 Doddanarasaiah 1121

.162. He has stated that the award passed by the

L.A.O. is in-adequate and in sufficent as on the date of

preliminary notification. While determining the market value

of the land and building, the L.A.O. has not considered the

sale transaction took place which are similarly and identically

situated in that area on the date of preliminary notification or

earlier to the said notification. They have gone to the

concerned office of the Sub Registrar and obtained certified
103

copies of the sale deeds pertaining to the lands situated to the

said area. He has stated that differences are shown in the sale

transactions, while determining the market value of

comparable lands which are similarly and identically situated,

the sale consideration shown in the sale transaction which is

on higher side has to be preferred to determine the market

value of the land. So, the land rate adopted on the sale deed

executed by T. Radhakrishna and N.A. Abraham in-favour of

Harshed C. Vasa pertaining to khatha No. 173, Peenya 1 st

stage, Bengaluru to fix the rate of Rs.1,696/- per sq. meters

in the said area as on the date of preliminary notification.

.163. Ex.P.9 is the said sale deed. From Ex.P.9 it is

seen that sale is made in-respect of immovable property and

industrial shed which includes structures and machinery. As

the sale consideration includes consideration for machinery

the market value per sq. meters fixed on the basis of this sale

deed is not correct.

.164. During cross-examination PW.28 admits that he

has not produced documents to show that he is registered

valuer. In his letter head, registered number has been

mentioned. He has stated that when he inspected the land is
104

mentioned in his affidavit, but he does not remember the date

now. The report has been prepared on the basis of inspection

made by them. He admits that valuation has been made as

on the date when he had inspected the land.

.165. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bombay

Suburban District Municipal Corporation Vs. Vishanji Virji

Mepani in Appeal No.700 of 1993 C/w case dated 06.06.1996

has observed the following:

"As far as the evidence of experts is
concerned as noticed they visited the
acquired land in the year 1990. Their
evidence also does not render any
assistance as the same lacks objectivity
required of a professional. The material
date for determination of the compensation
was of the year 1972 and experts in these
cases have visited and inspected the
property in the year 1990"

.166. PW.28 has inspected the land of the claimants on

14.06.2002 and 15.06.2002. The award is of the year 1995

and the acquisition is of the year 1991. Many changes would

have taken from 1991 to 2002. So, Court has to be very

cautious in relying an such report.

.167. It is elicited from PW.28 that for preparing report

he inspected the land, took measurement, particulars of the

boundaries, details of building with regard to details of
105

building flooring, woodwork, roofing and type of construction

facilities provided. It is elicited that there is no sanction plan

in number of buildings. He has stated that building are old

buildings; that on the basis of the statement of owners,

sanction plan and materials used in the construction, he

valued the land. It is elicited from PW.28 that construction

has taken place prior to the preliminary notification and

during the year 1991, all these lands are commercial lands

and there was no agricultural lands. He admits that he has

not produced any documents that all the lands were

commercial and no agricultural operation took place; that

value of the land in-respect of agricultural land is lower than

the land used for commercial purpose and for industrial

purpose; that sale deeds relied upon by him are in-respect of

commercial and industrial lands. He denied the suggestion

that report has been prepared on the say of claimants and not

on factual situation of the land.

.168. The respondent No.3 has filed Written arguments

stating that in some of the cases it is admitted the fact that

the approved valuer has not been examined, which ultimately

deems the valuation report irrelevant. It is stated that in
106

many of the cases claimants have claimed compensation for

structures when there were no structures existing on the

acquired lands. According to Section 60 of the Indian

Evidence Act, if oral evidence refers to the opinion of the

experts or to the grounds on which the opinion is held, it

must be the evidence of the person who holds the opinion. In

the cases where valuer has not been examined. The author of

the opinion has not been examined and there is no proof as to

the genuineness of the opinion, it cannot be relied upon. Only

in L.A.C. cases referred to in page 100, 101 the valuer has

been examined.

.169. It is stated that as per the report prepared by the

valuer, it is admitted that the lands acquired were inspected

by the valuer on 14th June 2002 and 15th June 2002 for the

purpose of assessing the market value of the property as on

the date of publication of preliminary notification 30 th May

1991. It is stated that valuation report is of no assistance to

this Court since the same is completely inconsequential.

.170. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SLAO and another Vs.

Siddappa Omanna Tumari and others 1995 Supp (2) SCC

168 has made the following observation:
107

"It has become a matter of common occurrence
with the claimants who seek enhanced
compensation for their acquired lands from
Court to produce the reports of valuation of their
lands in Court purported to have been prepared
by the experts. No doubt, courts can act on
such expert evidence in determining the market
value of the acquired lands, but the Court
having regard to the fact that experts will have
prepared the valuation reports produced in the
Court and will depose in support of such reports,
at the instance of the claimants, must with care
and caution examine such experts and evidence
given in support thereof. Whenever valuation
report made by an expert is produced in Court,
the opinion on the value of the acquired land
given by such expert can be of no assistance in
determining the market value of such land,
unless such opinion is formed on relevant
factual data or material, which is also produced
before the Court and proved to be genuine and
reliable, as any other evidence."

.171 The general award does not disclose the type and

nature of the structure. Burden is upon the claimants to

prove whether RCC roof or AC roof or Mangalore tiled

structure was acquired. The valuation report is not

accompanied by any document with regard to extent and type

of structure. In view of the above discussion, the valuation

reports cannot be relied for fixing the market value of the land

acquired.
108

.172. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Periya & Parekanni

rubbers Ltd Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1990 SC 2192

has held that:

" ---- Therefore, the transaction relating to the
acquired lands of recent dates or in the
neighborhood lands that possessed of similar
potentiality or fertility or other advantageous
features are relevant pieces of evidence. When
the Courts are called upon to fix the market
value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the
best evidence of the value of the property is the
sale of the acquired land to which the claimant
himself is a party, in its absence the sale of the
neighbouring lands.

.173. It is well settled that the land and building are

construed as one unit and the value of the entire unit must be

determined with all its advantages and its potentialities and it

has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision

reported in Rathanlal Tandan Vs. State of U.P. (1997) 2 SCC

page 161, that the claimant is not entitled to the assessment

of the value of the land and building separately and

compensation on both and if the value of the land is assessed,

value of the building cannot again be separately assessed. The

assessment of the building should be based on either the rent

received from the property with suitable multiplier or the
109

value of the building. The claimant is entitled to

compensation on either of the two methods, but not both.

.174. In the case on hand, except the oral evidence of

claimants there is no cogent evidence with regard to rent

which the claimants have received from the structures. In the

absence of any satisfactory evidence regarding the rental

value of the structure, it is not possible to assess the market

value by adopting the capitalization method.

.175. The claimants have stated that market value of

the acquired property was Rs.2,000/- per sq. feet at the time

of acquisition. There is no evidence to substantiate the same.

So, the claim of claimants that market value of the acquired

land was at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq. feet cannot be

accepted.

.176. The other evidence placed by the claimants are the

certified copies of the sale deeds.

.177. Sale deed dated 04.10.1989 is executed by

Radhakrishna and V.A. Abraham in-favour of Smt. Harshat C

Vara with respect to the industrial plot bearing No.173

situated at Peenya 1st stage, Bengaluru measuring 8750 sq.

feet for a valuable consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- as per
110

Ex.P.9. From Ex.P.9, it is seen that sale is made in-respect of

immovable property and industrial shed, which includes

structures and machinery. As per the sale deed the value is

Rs.1,696/- per sq. meters or Rs.157.62 per sq. feet. As the

sale transaction includes the consideration for machinery,

this sale deed can not be considered as exemplar for

determination of market value of the acquired land.

.178. The claimant has relied upon the lease cum sale

agreement dated 28.05.1988 executed by KIADB in-favour of

M/s. Associated Business Corporation represented by its

Partner Sri. Deepak Mallik with respect to the industrial plot

bearing Nos.9A, 9B, 8G, 8H formed in Sy.No. 93 of Peenya

Industrial area, Bengaluru measuring 246.675 sq. meters for

a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3,96,000/-. He has stated

that as per the lease cum sale agreement, the sale transaction

of said property is valued at Rs.1,605/- per sq. meter which is

the highest value for the year 1988-89.

.179. Ex.P.10 is the said document. On perusal of the

said document, it is seen that the lease cum sale agreement

in-respect of building measuring 14.60 meters towards North-

South and 8.05 meters towards East-West. The lease sum
111

sale agreement is for a period of 5 years. It contains Clause

that after 5 years lessor fixed the price of the property, at

which, it will be sold to the lessee. The claimants have not

produced the price fixed by the lessor. The said lease cum

sale agreement cannot be relied as exemplar for fixing the

market value of the land.

.180. The claimant has relied upon sale deed dated

04.07.1989 executed by the Executive Member, KIADB in-

favour of H.R. Saluja S. Sri. Sandagarmal, proprietor of M/s.

Bengaluru Engineering Industries in-respect of Industrial plot

bearing No.4A, formed in Sy.No. 12 and 32 of Peenya village

measuring 110.39 Sq. meters for a sale consideration of

Rs.1,38,447/-. Ex.P.11 is the said sale deed. According to

PW.1, the sale transaction of the said property is valued at

Rs.1254 per sq. meters or Rs.116.54 per sq. feet, which is

second highest value in the year 1989-90. The said value is

relevant for fixing the market value in the present case.

.181. PW.1 has relied upon sale deed dated 12.09.1990

executed by A.J. Rathnam Philip and Samual & Samual

represented by the Trustees of Emmanual Church, Bengaluru

in favour of Lalitha Singh W/o Samual Singh with respect to
112

the site bearing khatha No.511, House list No.19/1, situated

at Peenya village, Bengaluru and site bearing No. 299, House

list No.3/1 situated at Dasarahalli, Bengaluru measuring

139.40 sq. meters or 1500 sq. feet for a valuable sale

consideration of Rs.1,02,000/-. Ex.P.12 is the said sale deed.

From the said document, it is seen that it consists of property

measuring 12 X 30 feet along with 1 sq. AC sheet house. The

sale transaction is valued at Rs.732/- per sq. meters or

Rs.66.02 per sq. feet. This value is less than the value per sq.

feet when compared to the value per sq. feet in-respect of sale

deed dated 04.07.1989. Ex.P.11 is referred above.

.182. PW.1 has relied upon sale deed dated 07.09.1989

executed by K.A. Kantharaj S/o Adinarayana Shetty in-favour

of P.R. Rajan with respect to site bearing No.A-185, situated

at Peenya 1st stage, Peenya Industrial state measuring 813.10

sq. meters or 8750 sq. feet for a valuable sale consideration of

Rs.5,25,000/-. Ex.P.13 is the sale deed in-respect of above

property. From the sale deed it is seen that it consists of land

with building. The land is measuring 8750 sq. feet. The

building which is built in 7550 sq. feet. The sale transaction

of the property is valued at Rs.645/- per sq. meters or
113

Rs.59.94 per sq. feet. This value is less than the value per

square feet when compared to the value per sq. feet in-respect

of sale deed dated 04.07.1989 Ex.P.11 referred to above.

.183. PW.1 has relied upon sale deed dated 07.01.1990

executed by KSSIDC represented by its Managing Director H.

Basavaiah, in-favour of S.L. Narayanasa, with respect to the

Industrial site bearing No.C-279, 1 st stage, Peenya Industrial

Estate, Bengaluru measuring 144.76 sq. meters for valuable

consideration of Rs.99,778/-. Ex.P.14 is the said sale deed.

From the document, it is seen that schedule consists of

factory building. Vacant land measuring 460.41 sq. meters

covered area of 144.76 sq. meters measuring 9.40 X 15.40

meters compound bounded by a Wall and having the following

buildings in the compound (A) Block of latrine and urine

measuring together with the fittings listed separately and

attached here with schedule at Industrial Estate Peenya 1 st

stage, Bengaluru. Industrial shed bearing No.C-279

measuring 29 meters X 15.90 Meters. The claimant has stated

that as per sale deed the property is valued at Rs.645/- per

sq. meters or Rs.64.36 per sq. feet, which is valued in the year

1989-90. This value is less than the value per sq. feet when
114

compared to the value per sq. feet in-respect of sale deed

dated 04.07.1989 Ex.P.11 referred to above.

.184. PW.1 has stated that while determining the

market value the market value of comparable lands which are

similarly and identically situated, the sale consideration

shown in the sale transactions which is on higher side has to

be preferred.

.185. In support of the said contention, he has relied

upon the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 4240

(Agricultural Produce Market Committee, by its Secretary and

another Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Cum L.A.O., Chikkodi

and others), wherein our Hon'ble High court has held that:

"When there are more than one sale
transaction, the Court has to consider the
sale transactions, which is more proximate
in point of time to the land acquired."

.186. It is also held when there is difference in the sale

consideration shown in the above sale transactions, while

determining the market value of compensation. The lands

which are similarly situated, the sale consideration shown in

sale transactions which is on the higher side has to be

generally preferred while determining the market value of the

land acquired.
115

.187. In (2012)5 SCC 432 Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs.

State of Punjab, the Hon'ble S.C. has held that:

"where the land is being compulsorily taken
away from a person, he is entitled to highest
value which similar land in the locality is
shown to have fetched in a bonafide
transaction".

.188. PW.1 at page 8 in L.A.C. No.4/2004 has stated

that when the land and building is situated abutting to NH-4,

the extra 50% weightage shall be included while determining

the market value of the land and building.

.189. Ex.P.15 is the letter dated 09.11.2012 of the

Superintending Engineer, National Highways Circle,

Bengaluru. Along with the letter rates to be adopted for

valuation of structure has been enclosed.

.190. In page 3 Sl. No.3 it is mentioned:

"Extra rate of 50% for shop sites in shopping
area and corner site of main roads (20 x 100)
feet with BTS route".

.191. The acquired lands are abutting the National way.

In view of Ex.P.15 additional rates have to be given to the

acquired land.

.192. The claimants have stated that the Government of

Karnataka by order dated 08.07.1985 has fixed the minimum
116

value for residential and commercial site and the same has to

be followed. In support of their contention, they have

produced Government of Karnataka order dated 08.07.1985

along with Government circular dated 08.07.1985. For

Yeshwanthpura localty, the minimum commercial value is

fixed at Rs.500/- per sq. yard. The acquired lands in Peenya

village are situated near to Yeshwanthpura. The rates for

Peenya village are not included in the list.

.193. The claimants have contended that the

respondent has committed error in treating the land as

agricultural land; the land in question has potential value as

building site as it comes within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike and so compensation has to be fixed

treating the same as non-agricultural, industrial and

commercial land. From the award, it is seen that the

claimants have been paid compensation as NA lands.

.194. The claimants have relied upon the judgment in

L.A.C. No.112/1991 as per Ex.P.20. From the judgment, it is

seen that preliminary notification was issued on 01.02.1988

for acquisition of land in Sy.No. 7 of Chokkasandra village,

Yeshwanthpura for widening f NH-4 in between 10 to 12 kms
117

(Bengaluru to Nelamangala). The L.A.O. had fixed the market

value at Rs.60,000/- per acre. This Court on reference after

inquiry had fixed the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.500/- per sq. yard as on the date of preliminary

notification.

.195. The Court in L.A.C. No.112/1991 had relied upon

the sale deed dated 17.05.1985 under which property situated

at T. Dasarahalli measuring 47.35 sq. meters with structures

which also abuts the National Highway was sold for

Rs.33,000/-. As the sale deed includes land, structures. No

separate market value is fixed for structures in L.A.C.

No.112/1991.

.196. In the present case the lands have been acquired

for the purpose of formation of service roads on either side of

NH-4 in between 10 to 12 kms at Peenya, Bengaluru.

Preliminary notification has been published in the Gazette

dated 30.05.1991. If the judgment in Ex.P.20 is relied an

escalation in the market value of 10% for period of 3 years 3

months has to be given. Then market value would be

Rs.662.5 per sq. yard (500 + 150 + 12.5) based on Ex.P.20

judgment.
118

.197. From the award as per Ex.P.5, it is seen that the

lands in the present case is within Corporation limits and is

situated in Bengaluru - Tumkur National Highway. The

evidence of claimants discloses that the land acquired in

Ex.P.20 is situated 1 km from Peenya village and it does not

come within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City Corporation.

Hence the potential value of land and building in the present

case is higher than what is decided in L.A.C. No.112/1991.

.198. The claimants have stated that members who own

the lands and building adjoining to the National Highway No.4

passing through Peenya village, Bengaluru have formed an

association called Rastriya Heddari Mane Mathu Niveshana

Malikara Sangha. The said Sangha had filed a Writ Petition

vide W.P. No.30555/94 against the respondents herein

challenging the acquisition proceedings contending that (I) the

final declaration in Annexure-B has been published after

more than one year from the date of preliminary notification

and also (ii) in issuing of final notification the State

Government had acted in a hostile manner by omitting over

43 items of the properties belonging to various owners and for

which omission, there is no explanation from the respondents
119

with regard to the non-inclusion of the above stated properties

and without which the purpose for which the lands are being

acquired can never be implemented i.e., no roads can be laid

out without acquisition of those 43 items of properties left out

from the acquisition. In fact those properties were included in

the preliminary notification.

.199. Ex.P.7 is the order in W.P. No.30555/94. From

the order, it is seen that the SLAO had filed affidavit stating

that :

"the contentions of the petitioners that 46 items
of properties were left out in the final notification
is factually incorrect. Only the items which are
shown in annexure R1 by Green shade were left
out due to the fact that at the time of joint
measurement after the preliminary notification
there was difference between survey numbers,
Khaneshumari Numbers and CTS numbers.

As soon as the said discrepancy was noticed
with respect to said items of property the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways,
Bengaluru by letter dated 30.06.95 as per
annexure R2 brought to the notice of the then
Executive Engineer, National Highways Division,
Bengaluru with a request to send fresh proposal
in-respect of the said left out items of the
property for acquisition. Further proceedings
could not be taken due to the pendency of the
present writ petition.

I respectfully submit that there was no oblique
motive in not notifying the green shaded items in
the final notification but for the confusion in the
survey numbers/ Khaneshumari numbers and
120

city survey numbers. This was a bonafide
mistake without any malafide intention on the
part of either the acquiring authority or the
beneficiary. The apprehension of the petitioners
that the authorities may not acquire the green
shaded items in order to help the owners is
untrue and misplaced. Wihtout acquiring the
said items, the project of widening National
Highway-4 will itself be in jeopardy."

.200. The Hon'ble Court being satisfied with the

statement made on behalf of the respondents disposed after

the writ petitions with directions that until the portion of the

land shown in green shade is acquired in accordance with law

status quo with regard to the possession of the petitioners

shall be maintained.

.201. From the order of the Hon'ble High Court it is

clear that as there was no malafide on the part of the

respondent; the prayer of the claimants for quashing the

acquisition has not been granted. As per the say of the

claimants, they continued to be in possession of the lands till

the respondent took possession of the lands which were left

out in the earlier notification.

.202. The claimants have stated that after a lapse of 10

years i.e., on 02.03.2000, the respondent has published the

said preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of said Act

and final notification published on 03.05.2001 under Section
121

6(1) of the L.A. Act, with regard to the properties left out in

the previous notifications. Ex.P.3 and 4 are the preliminary

and final notification. The L.A.O. has passed the award dated

15.03.2002, approved by the concerned authority on

28.02.2004 as per Ex.P.6.

.203. The claimants have contended that the concerned

authorities have acquired the properties at two times in piece

meal , the award was passed by the SLAO twice for the same

purpose of forming service road abutting to NH-4 in between

10th to12th kms. It is stated that the owners of the land

mentioned in both the award have received the award amount

simultaneously and handed over the possession of their

respective lands with buildings simultaneously. There is a

great discrimination while determining the market value of

the land and building in between two awards passed by the

L.A.O. with no fault of the land owners. The first award

passed by the SLAO has fixed the land value at the rate of

Rs.170/- per sq. meter, where as the second award passed by

the said L.A.O. has fixed the land value of Rs.1614/- per sq.

meter, which is highly discriminative.
122

.204. The claimants have contended that the claimants

in L.A.C. No.35/2007 and 125/2008 have challenged the

award passed on 01.12.2003 (2nd award). This Court has

fixed the market value of acquired land at Rs.1,000/- per sq.

feet or Rs.10,764/- per sq. meter instead of Rs.150/- per sq.

feet and Rs.1614/- per sq. meter with all statutory benefits.

Ex.P.74 and 75 are the judgment and award in L.A.C.

No.35/2007 and 125/2008. It is stated that the properties

involved in the above cases are situated in Peenya village and

acquired for the same purpose. So, the claimants are entitled

to compensation as awarded in L.A.C. No. 35/2007 and

125/2008 as per Ex.P.74 and 75.

.205. The claimants in L.A.C. No.80/2003 and 81/2003

have relied upon the judgment in L.A.C. No.273/2005 C/w

L.A.C. No.272, 278 of 2005, 142, 144, 145, 146 of 2006 in the

written arguments filed by them. This Court has awarded

compensation at Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet in-respect of

acquisition dated 02.03.2000. The Court has relied upon the

judgment in L.A.C. No.35/2007.

.206. In support of their contention claimants have

relied on the decision reported in ILR 2003 Kar. 2336 wherein
123

it is held that uniform rate of compensation for all the

acquired lands which are similarly situated to the adjoining

village cannot be found fault with and liable to be

confirmed.

.207. In (2010) 5 SCC 747 Union of India Vs. Balram

another. The Hon'ble SC has held "No justification to make

any distinction between lands which are identical and similar

though lying in different villages".

.208. In (2017) 4 SCC 717 Ali Mohd Beigh and others

Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Hon'ble SC has held

that

"where lands are more or less situated
nearby and when resettlement of Dal
Dewellus, it would not be proper to
discriminate between land-owners unless
there are reasons."

.209. In the above decisions, the acquisition has taken

place in the same year, whereas in the present case and the

case L.A.C. No.35/2007 and 125/2007 relied by the

claimants. the acquisition is for different period. Hence, the

above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

.210. It is true that acquisition in the present cases and

in L.A.C. No.35/2007 and L.A.C. No.125/2008 are in-respect

of the same project. In the present case, acquisition is
124

pertaining to preliminary notification dated 31.05.1991,

whereas, in-respect of L.A.C. No.35/2007 and 125/2008 it is

pertaining to preliminary notification dated 23.12.1999. The

claimants in the present case have challenged the acquisition

before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30555/1994 and the

Hon'ble High Court has not quashed the acquisition

proceedings. On the other hand, the claimant were permitted

to be in possession till portion of land shown in green shade

in annexure R.1 is acquired in accordance with law. The

claimants have not filed any appeal against the order passed

by the Hon'ble High Court.

.211. The award in the first case has been passed on

20.10.1995. The Hon'ble High Court were aware about the

award in the said case. The acquisition is for public purpose

and since there was no malafide on the respondent at the

time of final notification, the claimants cannot plea equity and

seek compensation as paid to claimants in L.A.C. No.35/2007

and 125/2008.

.212. The respondents have contended that they have

preferred M.F.A. No.3485/2021 against the judgment in
125

L.A.C. No.125/2008 which is pending adjudication before the

Hon'ble High Court.

.213. Further the respondents have contended that in

L.A.C. No.35/2007 passed by this Court, compensation for

structure has not been enhanced although the same has been

sought for.

.214. In L.A.C. No.35/2007 the Court has observed at

page No.12 that:

"The SLAO has observed in the award passed
by him on 01.12.2003 that the acquired land
comes within the limit of BBMP and adjacent
to National Highway -4 and it was fully
developed area having acquired land basic
amenities. He further observed that he has
enquired the pubic regarding the sale of lands
adjacent to the acquired lands. On enquiry it
reveals that the lands adjacent to the
acquired land were sold at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet. Though the SLAO
verified the sale deeds for the period from
25.07.98 to 14.01.2020 to arrive for fixing the
market value, as observed, he has not fixed
the average market value on the basis of the
value mentioned in the said sale deeds but
has fixed the market value on the basis of
guidance value of the Sub-registrar, which
prevailed as on the date of preliminary
notification".

.215. The Court at page 14 observed "Considering the

nature of acquired land as discussed above, if the market

value fixed by SLAO is enhanced from 150 per sq. feet to
126

Rs.1,000/- per sq. feet or Rs.1614 per sq. feet to Rs.10764

per sq. feet would be just and fair market value."

.216. The preliminary notification in the present case is

of the year Gazette 1993 and the preliminary notification

gazette in-respect of L.A.C. No.35/2007 and L.A.C.

No.125/2008 is on 02.03.2000. The market value is fixed

based on the sales in the above case. The market value

immediately preceding the notification dated 02.03.2000

cannot be taken as the market value for the acquisition of the

year 1993 as the sales could not have taken place.

.217. It is relevant to note that the present claimants

were in possessing of property till 2003 and they have also

received interest at 15% on the compensation payment was

made in 2003. The claimants in acquisition during 2000 (2 nd

time acquisition) would not be getting the interest as the

award is passed in the year 2003.

.218. Although there is no dispute with regard to the

existence of structure in the acquired land. The claimants

have failed to substantiate their claim with regard to extent of

structure and type of structure i.e., RCC, AC sheet, Mangalore

tiles by cogent evidence.
127

.219. The respondents have not led any evidence in

support of their contention that the market value fixed by the

L.A.O. is adequate.

.220. Our Hon'ble High Court in the decision reported

in ILR 1992 KAR page 3501 has held that

"the Court will have to make a serious
attempt to arrive at the market value on the
basis of existing material placed before it. It is
well settled law that an element of guess work
is inevitable in determining the market value
though the speculation by the Court is
absolutely unwarranted, a honest guess work
is certainly permitted because the very nature
of the exercise such that the Court will have to
analyze several economic factors and in this
exercise, the judges are expected to draw from
their experience and draw the requisite
inference and apply to them".

.221. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above

factors and circumstances of the case i.e., judgment in L.A.C.

No.112/91, the potential value of the land as well as building

situated in Peenya is of higher value than what is decided in

L.A.C. No.112/91; the L.A.O., in the award Ex.P.1 has stated

that " ಪಪಣಣ ಗಗಗಮವವ ಬಬಬಗಳಳರರ ನಗರದ ಮಹಗನಗರ ಪಗಲಕಬ ವಗಣಪಪಯಲಲ

ಸಬಪರರತಪದಬ ಮತರಪ ಯಶವಬತಪವರದ ಸಮಪಪದಲಲ ಇರರತಪದಬ ಹಗಗಗ ಬಬಬಗಳಳರರ ಮತರಪ

ತರಮಕಗರರ ರಗ.ಹಬ 4 ರ ರಸಬಪಗಬ ಹಬಗಬದಕಬಗಬಡರರತಪದಬ. ಈ ಗಗಗಮದ ಜಮಪನರಗಳಳ

ಕಟಟಡಗಳಬದ ಕಗಡದರದ ಯಗವವದಬಪ ಜಮಪನರ ಖಗಲ ಇರರವವದಲಲ ."; that the
128

adjacent land owner in-respect of very same project in

subsequent notification being paid Rs.1000/- per sq. feet and

the evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion

that it would be just and reasonable to fix the market value of

the acquired land consisting of land and structure at

Rs.750/- per sq. feet and property consisting of only land at

Rs.600/- per sq. feet.

.222. The appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence on record leads to unmistakable fact that the

claimants prove that market value fixed by the L.A.O. in-

respect of acquired land in this case is unjust, inadequate

and on lower side. The claimants in these cases whose land

and building acquired are entitled for enhanced market value

at Rs.750/- per sq. feet with all statutory benefits and the

claimants whose land is only acquired are entitled to market

value at Rs.600/- per sq. feet with all statutory benefits from

the date of publication of preliminary notification. Hence, I

answer point No.3 partly in the Affirmative.

.223. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on the afore-

mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
129

COMMON ORDER

The reference made by the SLAO under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 is partly allowed.

The market value of the acquired property consisting of land and building is fixed at Rs.750/- per sq. feet and market value of acquired property consisting of only land is fixed at Rs.600/- per sq. feet. The following claimants whose land and building are acquired is entitled to enhanced market value of Rs.750/-. The amount paid by SLAO shall be deducted from the enhanced market value.



L.A.C. No.            CTS No.                Extent
                                           sq. meters
 4/2004                  1118                2404
76/2003                  1139                    127
77/2003                  963                     94
78/2003                  4218                    125
79/2003                  935                     76
80/2003                  1140                    118
81/2003                  953                     76
82/2003                  959                     95
83/2003                  962                     88
85/2003                  1129                    35
                          130

180/2003                1153                   71
181/2003                1152                   108
183/2003                1174            70.5 out of 282
184/2003                1174                 70.5
227/2003                1120                   116
228/2003                1122                   110
14/2004                 1121                   129
323/2004                1103                   400
324/2004                 937                   50
325/2004                1119                332.5
326/2004                1151                   60
328/2004                1119                   223
329/2004                1272                 42.5
330/2004                 933                23.06
331/2004                1119                   99
334/2004                1272                   33
335/2004                1272                   52
336/2004                1168                   89
338/2004                 940                60.50
30/2005                  956                30.25
31/2005                  961                   92
38/2005                  896                   133
44/2005                 1173                   116

In-respect of L.A.C. No.334/2004 only claimant Ramakrishna and M.N. Vasudevamurthy are entitled for equal share.

In-respect of L.A.C. No.337/2004 only claimant Ramesh and 131 Sachidananda are entitled for equal share.

The following claimants whose land only acquired is entitled to enhanced market value of Rs.600. The amount paid by SLAO shall be deducted from the enhanced market value.

L.A.C. No.              CTS No.                     Extent
                                                  sq. meters
185/2003                   932                      70.09
226/2003                  1123                          120
327/2004                  1309                          11
337/2004                   946                          35
43/2005                    960                          90
275/2005                  1124                          92
276/2005                  1125                          48

The award of L.A.O. with regard to malkies/trees is accepted.

The above Claimants are entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of L.A. Act, at the rate of 12% p.a., on the enhanced market value from the date of publication of Preliminary notification till date of passing award.

132

The above Claimants are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value as per Section 23(2) of L.A. Act.

The above 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 at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire compensation amount.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- in each cases.

Draw separate Award in each case accordingly.

Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.4/2004 and copies of the same be kept in connected L.A.C. cases.

(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 24 th day of May, 2022.) (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.

133

ANNEXURE

1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:

PW.1           C. Rangaswamy
PW.2           B. Venkataramana
PW.3           V. Kumbaiah
PW.4           C. Muniraju
PW.5           M.N.N. Murthy
PW.6           M.N. Vasudevamurthy
PW.7           Smt. Siddalingamma
PW.8           B. Vajravelu
PW.9           Suresh
PW.10          P.D. Venkataramanaiah
PW.11          M. Gopal
PW.12          R. Umashankar
PW.13          S. Devanand
PW.14          Shivalingappa
PW.15          M. Gopal
PW.16          B. Venkataramana
PW.17          B. Venkataramana
PW.18          T. Ramachandra
PW.19          M.N. Ramesh
PW.20          P.M. Nagaraju
PW.21          P.N. Narasimhamurthy
PW.23          P.N. Kaggalaiah
PW.24          P.H. Narasimha Murthy
PW.25          C. Narasimha Murthy
PW.26          C.M. Raja
PW.27          M.N. Ramakrishna

PW.28, 31 to H.G. Ramegowda 34 PW.29 & 30 N.D. Devaraj PW.35 P.C. Ranganna PW.36 P.C. Ranganna PW.37 Padma PW.38 C. Muniraju PW.39 C. Muniraju PW.40 Ramakrishna 134 PW.41 Venkatesh PW.42 Krishnamurthy PW.43 Siddagangappa PW.45 C.R. Arun Kumar Witness examined in L.A.C. No.78/2003:

PW.1 : V. Narasimhaiah Witness examined in L.A.C. No.77/2003:

PW.1 : Munichikkanna Witness examined in L.A.C. No.30/2005:

PW.1 : Basavalingaiah Witness examined in L.A.C. No.41/2005:

PW.1 : Poornima Singh Witness examined in L.A.C. No.38/2005:

PW.1 : Manjula Kumari Witness examined in L.A.C. No.14/2004:

PW.1 : Doddanarasaiah Witness examined in L.A.C. No.44/2005:

PW.1 : Poornima S.K. Singh

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:

Ex.P.1 Preliminary notification dated 30.05.1991 Ex.P.2 Final notification dated 16.09.1993 Ex.P.3 Preliminary notification published in Gazette dated 02.03.2000 Ex.P.4 Final notification published in Gazette dated 09.04.2001 135 Ex.P.5 Award dated 30.06.1995 nr lands in question Ex.P.6 Award dated 01.12.2003 in-respect of land acquired under Ex.P.3 and 4 Ex.P.7 Order in W.P. No. 30555/1994 Ex.P.8 Sketch in-respect of land acquired under Ex.P.3 and 4 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of sale deed dated 04.10.1989 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.05.1988 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of sale deed dated 04.07.1989 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.09.1990 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.09.1989 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.01.1990 Ex.P.15 Certified copy letter written by Superintendent Engineer Ex.P.16 Circular enclosed to letter Ex.P.15 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of Government circular dated 08.07.1985 Ex.P.18 Annexure I enclosed to Ex.P.17 Ex.P.19 Circular issued by Executive Engineer Ex.P.20 & 21 Judgment and award in L.A.C. No.112/91 Ex.P.22 Valuation report Ex.P.23 Conversion sanction certificate in-respect of conversion of 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 3/1 of Peenya village Ex.P.24 Registered Will dated 20.05.2003 Ex.P.25 Another registered Will dated 20.05.2003 Ex.P.26 Valuation report Ex.P.27 Valuation report issued by Suryanarayana Shetty Ex.P.28 Valuation report issued by Ramegowda Ex.P.29 Valuation report Ex.P.30 Valuation report Ex.P.31 Special Power of Attorney Ex.P.32 Valuation report Ex.P.33 Special Power of Attorney Ex.P.34 Death certificate of Munichikkanna Ex.P.35 Valuation report Ex.P.37 Valuation report Ex.P.37(a) Signature Ex.P.38 Valuation report Ex.P.38(a) Signature of valuator Devaraj 136 Ex.P.39 Valuation report Ex.P.40 Valuation report marked in L.A.C. No.326/2004 Ex.P.41 City survey sketch marked in L.A.C. No.326/2004 Ex.P.42 Khatha extract Ex.P.43 Death certificate of Chikka Munivenkatappa marked in L.A.C. No.326/2004 Ex.P.44 Ration card Ex.P.45 Rental agreement Ex.P.46 2 photos Ex.P.47 House land tax assessment extract Ex.P.47(1) Valuation report Ex.P.47(a) Enclosure Ex.P.47(b)& c Signatures Ex.P.45B Partition deed Ex.P.45A Rectification deed Ex.P.46A Valuation report Ex.P.48 Valuation report Ex.P.48(a) Signature Ex.P.49 Valuation report Ex.P.49(a) Enclosure Ex.P.49 b & c Signaure of the valuer Ex.P.50 Valuation report marked in L.A.C. No.14/2004 Ex.P.50A Enclosure Ex.P.50 b & c Signatures of valuer Ex.P.51 Valuation report in L.A.C. No.183/2003 Ex.P.51A Enclosure Ex.P.51 b & c Signatures of valuer Ex.P.52 Valuation report in L.A.C. No.276/2005 Ex.P.52A Enclosure Ex.P.52 b & c Signatures of valuer Ex.P.53 Valuation report marked in L.A.C. No.76/2003 Ex.P.53A Signature of valuer Ex.P.54 Valuation report marked in L.A.C. No.85/2003 Ex.P.54A Signature of valuer Ex.P.55 Valuation report in L.A.C. No.181/2003 Ex.P.55A Signature of valuer Ex.P.56 Valuation report in L.A.C. No.43/2005 Ex.P.56A Signature of valuer Ex.P.57 Valuation report marked in L.A.C. No. 43/2005 Ex.P.58 Valuation report 137 Ex.P.58A Sale deed dated 16.08.1938 Ex.P.59 Sale deed dated 28.08.1941 Ex.P.60 Partition deed Ex.P.61 City Survey sketch Ex.P.62 City Survey Enquiry report Ex.P.63 Award dated 30.06.1995 Ex.P.64 Sale deed dated 12.08.1957 Ex.P.65 Property card Ex.P.66 Survey sketch Ex.P.67 Survey Enquiry report Ex.P.68 Award dated 30.06.1995 Ex.P.69 Death certificate of Hanumakka Ex.P.70 Valuation report Ex.P.71 Valuation report Ex.P.72 2 photographs Ex.P.73 General Award dated 30.06.1995 Ex.P.74 Judgment and award in L.A.C. No.35/2007 Ex.P.75 Judgment and award in L.A.C. No.125/2008 Ex.P.76 Notice under Section 12(2) of L.A. Act Ex.P.77 Notice dated 18.07.2005 Ex.P.78 Notice dated 13.10.1993 Ex.P.79 Award notice Ex.P.80 Property register card Ex.P.81 City Survey field Book Ex.P.82 Enquiry register of Urban survey Ex.P.83 Certified copy of building site and hiduvali certificate Ex.P.84 Partition deed Ex.P.85 Valuation report Ex.P.86 Demand Register Extract Ex.P.87 Death certificate of Munibyraiah Ex.P.88 Death certificate of Lokanath Ex.P.89 Death certificate Jogappa Documents marked in L.A.C. No.14/2004:

Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 31.01.1973 Ex.P.2 Letter dated 16.10.2007 Ex.P.3 Agreement of lease dated 01.09.2003 Ex.P.4 Photographs Ex.P.5 Negative 138 Documents marked in L.A.C. No.77/2003:

Ex.P.1 Valuation report Documents marked in L.A.C. No.44/2005 Ex.P.1 General Award Ex.P.2 Notice under Section 12(2) Ex.P.3 Settlement deed Ex.P.4 Khatha certificate Ex.P.5 to 9 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.10 Certified copy of statement of PW.1 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of preliminary notification dated 30.05.1990 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of final notification dated 16.09.1993 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of preliminary notification dated 02.03.2000 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of final notification dated 09.04.2001 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of judgment in W.P. No. 30555/1994 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.09.1989 Ex.P.17 Rental agreement dated 28.05.1988 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 04.07.1989 Ex.P.19 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 12.09.1990 Ex.P.20 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 07.09.1989 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 07.01.1990 Ex.P.22 Certified copy of letter written by Executive Engineer dated 09.11.1992 Ex.P.23 Circular Ex.P.24 Government circular dated 08.07.85 (Wrongly mentioned as 09.11.1992) 139 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of circular issued by Executive Engineer Ex.P.26 Certified copy of judgment in L.A.C. No.112/1991 Ex.P.27 Notice Documents marked in L.A.C. No.78/2003:

Ex.P.1 Valuation report

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Nil

4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:

Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.

140

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

In L.A.C. No.04/2004 vs ) The Slao And Estate Officer on 24 May, 2022