Bangalore District Court
Lakshmaiah S/O Late. Annayyappa vs ) Land Acquisition Officer on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. BIDARI B.Com., LL.B. (Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.101/2001
CLAIMANT:
Lakshmaiah s/o late. Annayyappa,
Kondadasanapura village, Bidarahalli hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
(By Sri.N.L.S. Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru.
2) The Commissioner, BDA, T.Chowdaiah
Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. MG, Advocate)
------
JUDGMENT
The Land Acquisition Officer (here-in-after referred as LAO), Bengaluru Development Authority (here-in-after referred as BDA), Bengaluru, has acquired the land measuring 2 acres 3 2 L.A.C. No.101/2001 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Kondadasanapura village, Bidarahalli Taluka, Bengaluru South taluka, for the purpose of formation of layout for "shifting of wholesale steel Market" i.e., scheme called "
Re-location of Iron and steel wholesale market" through L.A.C. No. 12/95-96 and award dated 24.07.1996. During the acquisition proceedings, the preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 in No.BDA/L.A.O./LA/91-92 is being published in the Karnataka State Gazette notification on 10.03.1994 and 24.03.1994. The final notification dated 24.01.1996, in No.HUD/817/MNX/95 has been published in the Karnataka Gazette notification dated 25.01.1996. The L.A.O., resorting to the provisions of Bengaluru Development Authority Act 1976 (here-in-after referred as BDA Act) and provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act), has acquired the aforesaid 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Kondadasanapura village of claimant and also acquired the lands in some other places, for shifting of Iron and Steel wholesale market, in as many as 20 awards passed by the L.A.O., in L.A.C. Nos.1/96-97, 2/96-97, 3/96-97, 4/96-97, 5/96-97, 6/96-97, 7/96-97, 8/96-97, 9/96-97, 10/96-97, 11/96-97, 12/96-97, 3 L.A.C. No.101/2001 13/96-97, 14/96-97, 15/96-97, 16/96-97, 17/96-97, 18/96- 97, 19/96-97, 20/96-97, by passing general award u/s. 11 of L.A. Act, comprised with-regard to the acquisition of different lands, where-under, the L.A.O., resorting to the sale statistics method has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to the dry land and Rs.40,000/- per acre to the kharab land, in L.A.C. No12/95-96. Pursuant to the order passed by this court on 27.11.2000, in L.A.C. No. 44/2000, the LAO has made reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act, consequently, on receipt of the said reference, same came to be registered in L.A.C. No.101/2001. This court directed notice to both the parties.
The claimant Lakshmaiah remained absent, in-spite of service of court notice, as such, this court through judgment dated 30.05.2003, accepted the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, holding that the compensation fixed by the LAO to the acquired land is proper and correct, consequently, the reference was closed.
Thereafter as per the order dated 01.02.2007 passed in Misc.
No.473/2005, order dated 30.05.2003, passed in L.A.C. No.101/2001, came to be set aside and the said case in L.A.C. No.101/2001 restored to its original file for disposal as per law, 4 L.A.C. No.101/2001 consequent upon which, the L.A.C. No.101/2001 was taken for disposal afresh. Thereafter, the parties adduced the evidence.
This court on hearing both sides appreciating the evidence on record through judgment dated 02.02.2010, allowed the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, where-under enhanced the compensation amount at Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, awarded by LAO and also awarded all statutory benefits. The claimant in L.A.C. No. 101/2001 being felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 02.02.2010 passed in L.A.C. No.101/2001, had preferred MFA No.6917/2010. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru through judgment dated 28.08.2012 in MFA No.7724/2010 clubbed with MFA Nos.6917/2010, 7725/2010 and 9295/2010 set aside the judgment and award dated
02.02.2010 including this L.A.C. No.101/2001. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid MFAs, remanded the references to this court, including reference in L.A.C. No.101/2001, whereby, reserved the liberty to the claimants to produce additional documents and to adduce further evidence. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High 5 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the aforesaid MFAs, this reference in L.A.C. No.101/2001 is taken for disposal afresh. Thereafter, remanded of the reference, the notices have been issued, to both the parties. Pursuant to the service of notice, the claimant and also the respondent appeared through their respective counsels.
.2. The respondents have filed objections mainly contending that the L.A.O., considering potentiality and locality of the acquired land and prevailing market value of the surrounding lands, based on sales statistics of the sale of surrounding lands, has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, which is proper and valid. Therefore, prayer to reject the prayer of the claimant for enhancement of market value of the acquired land and prayed to confirm the award passed by the L.A.O. .3. The claimant, to substantiate his claim, has got examined himself as PW.1. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 20 and Ex.P.19(a) are marked, during evidence of PW.1. On the 6 L.A.C. No.101/2001 other hand, on behalf of the respondents, two witnesses namely Jayappa, who is FDA in L.A.O. Office, is examined as DW.1 (here-in-after referred as RW.1) and Venkatesh, Sheristedar in L.A.O. Office, is examined as RW.2. The document at Ex.R.1 is marked on behalf of the respondents.
.4. Heard both sides. The written argument is filed on behalf of the claimant. Perused the records and written argument.
.5. The points that would arise for my consideration of this court are:
1. Whether the reference u/s.18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent/LAO, is valid and in time?
2. Whether the Claimant proves that the market value fixed by the respondent/LAO, in-respect of acquired land of claimant, is unjust and inadequate?
3. Whether the claimant is entitle for enhanced compensation of his acquired lands? If so, at what rate?
3. What Order or Award?
.6. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
7 L.A.C. No.101/2001
Point No.2 : In the affirmative,
Point No.3 : Yes, to the extent as shown in final
order,
Point No.4: As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
.7. Point No.1:- The records disclose that as per the order passed by this court, on 27.11.2000, in L.A.C. No.44/2000, the L.A.O., has made the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, with-regard to the aforesaid acquired land, consequently, on receipt of the reference from the L.A.O., same is being registered on the file of this court, in L.A.C. No.101/2001. Admittedly, the respondent till this day has not challenged the order passed by this court on 27.11.2000, in the aforesaid L.A.C. No.44/2000, which was filed u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act. Therefore, this court is constrained to hold that the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act made by the respondent/L.A.O., in the aforesaid case is valid and in time. Thus, I hold point No.1 in the affirmative, for consideration.
8 L.A.C. No.101/2001
.8. Point Nos.2 and 3: These points are inter-related, hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to avoid repetition of facts. The claimant, earlier to remand of this reference, did adduce oral and documentary evidence and after remand also, adduced oral and documentary evidence. The claimant in this reference, being dissatisfied with the market value and the compensation fixed by the L.A.O., did file the protest petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, before the L.A.O., but the L.A.O., did not made the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, within 90 days, hence, as discussed above at point No.1, the claimant did file the petition u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act, before this court. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, on 27.11.2000, in L.A.C. No.44/2000, the L.A.O., has made the reference in this case u/s. 18 of L.A. Act. The claimant in this reference is claiming that the market value of his acquired land was more than market value fixed by the L.A.O., hence, his prayer, to enhance the compensation of the acquired land as prayed, with statutory benefits. The claimant is seeking enhanced compensation, in this reference, contending that the market value of his acquired land, as on the date of 9 L.A.C. No.101/2001 publication of 4(1) notification was much more higher than the market value fixed by the L.A.O., under the circumstances, the burden is on the claimant to prove that the market value fixed by the L.A.O., to his acquired land and compensation paid to him, is meager and inadequate. The well known methods of determining the market value of the acquired land are expert's opinion, sales statistics method, yield (income) method, sale of comparable lands or judgment of any court, in-respect of the comparable lands. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 20 and Ex.P.19(a) are marked during evidence of PW.1. The PW.1 Lakshmaiah who is a claimant, has filed an affidavit in support of his plea in this reference, with-regard to the acquisition of his land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Kondasanapura village, for the purpose of establishment and formation of 'Whole Sale Steel Yard'. The PW.1 in his chief- examination has also stated that the market value fixed by the L.A.O. at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, of the acquired land, is improper and in-adequate, as such, he did file an application before the L.A.O., u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, ultimately, the L.A.O., has made this reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act and 10 L.A.C. No.101/2001 prays to enhance the market value of the acquired land. The Ex.P.18 is a certified copy of final notification published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 25.01.1996. The Ex.P.17 is a certified copy of preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 in No. BDA/L.A.O./LA/91-92 published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 24.03.1994. The Ex.P.18 evidences that the preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 has been published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 10.03.1994. The Jayappa RW.1 (DW.1), FDA and RW.2 Venkatesh, Sheristedar, respectively, of the L.A.O. office, have filed their separate affidavits in lieu of their chief-examination, stating almost similar facts, which are contended in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents. The RWs.1 and 2 in many words have stated that the L.A.O. considering the potentiality and location of the acquired land and prevailing market value of the surrounding lands and resorting to the Sales Statistics method, has awarded the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, same is proper and justifiable, hence, prayed to confirm the award passed by the L.A.O. The copy of award dated 24.07.1996 11 L.A.C. No.101/2001 passed by the L.A.O., in L.A.C. No.12/1995-96 is marked at Ex.R.1. These documentary evidence, as well, oral evidence of PW.1, RWs.1 and 2, evidences that the L.A.O., resorting to the Sales Statistics method, has fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and fixed the market value of the acquired kharab land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the claimant referring to the oral and documentary evidence on record, submits that the market value is to be assessed for the acquired land, from the date of publication of preliminary notification in State Gazette and not the date of preliminary notification. The learned counsel submits that the preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 is being published in the State Gazette dated 10.03.1994, under the circumstances, the court has to arrive at the market value of the acquired land as on 10.03.1994, the date on which, the preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 is published in the Karnataka State Gazette and not from the date of 12.12.1991. The learned counsel in support of the argument, drawn attention of this court to the judgment dated 04.03.2006 in MFA 1568/2012 (L.A.C.) in the case of 12 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Andanappa and others Vs. L.A.O., BDA, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein, their Lordships clearly ruled that the market value of the acquired land shall have to be determined from the date of publication of preliminary notification in the Gazette, as per section 23(1) of L.A. Act. The relevant portion in the said judgment reads as under:
"Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for appellants is, whether the Reference Court is justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants under section 18(1) of L.A. Act, is sustainable in law?. It is significant to note that, as per Section 23(1) of L.A. Act, the relevant date for determination of compensation is, the publication in the official gazette and not the date of notification. In the instant case, the publication of the notification in the Gazette is 13.12.2001. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the Reference 13 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Court for rejecting claim made under Section 18 of L.A. Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."
The Ex.P.17 and evidence on record discussed above, makes it clear that the preliminary notification u/s.17(1) of BDA Act, dated 12.12.1991, which is equivalent to section 4(1) of L.A. Act, with-regard to the acquisition of the land in this reference is being published in the Karnataka State Gazette dated 10.03.1994 and the final notification u/s. 19(1) of BDA Act, which is equivalent to Section 6(1) of L.A. Act, is published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 25.01.1996. Therefore, in view of the ratio and the principles, laid down by their Lordships, in the ruling cited supra (MFA No.1568/2012), this court has to determine the market value of the acquired land, in this reference, as on 10.03.1994, on which date, the preliminary notification is published in the Karnataka State Gazette. The Ex.P.19 is a certified copy of sale deed dated 28.02.1992. The Ex.P.19(a) is translation of Ex.P.19. The Exs.P.19 and 19(a) evidences that the land measuring 10 14 L.A.C. No.101/2001 guntas in Sy.No.63/3A and Sy.No.63/2, situated at Goranigere village, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru, which is a piece and parcel of Industrial land with building structure, fittings and fixtures thereon, has been sold for consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The PW.1 in his evidence, in-many-words has also stated that the acquired land in this reference also need to be enhanced at-least at the rate mentioned in Exs.P.19 and 19(a). The Ex.P.1 is a certified copy of common judgment dated 27.03.2006 in L.A.C. Nos.164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 177 and 267 of 2001. The Ex.P.2 is a certified copy of award in L.A.C. No.168/2001. The learned counsel for the claimant submits to consider these Exs.P.19 and 19(a) to fix the market value of the acquired land, in this reference. No-doubt, the sale of a piece of land measuring 10 guntas under Exs.P.19 and 19(a), is prior to the publication of preliminary notification in the Karnataka State Gazette, on 10.03.1994, but this copy of sale deed Ex.P.19 will be of no help for the claimant to seek enhancement of his acquired land, in this reference, at the rate mentioned in Exs.P.19 and 19(a), for the reasons that the PW.1 in the cross-examination categorically admits that as on the 15 L.A.C. No.101/2001 date of acquisition of his land, in this case, was agricultural land. Therefore, it is evident that the land measuring 10 guntas sold under Exs.P.19 and Ex.P.19(a), it was non- agricultural land, wherein, the Industrial shed with building structure, fittings and fixtures were existing, but the same is not the case of acquired land, in this case, since as on the date of acquisition, the acquired land, in this case, was agricultural land. Therefore, this Ex.P.19 certified copy of sale deed dated 28.02.1992 will be of no help, to enhance the market value of the acquired land, holding that this Ex.P.19 shall be the basis for enhancing the acquired land, market value, as sales statistics method. Thus, if the Exs.P.19 and 19(a) are not avail for the claimant, seeking enhancement of the acquired land, then, the evidence on record remains is Ex.P.3 certified copy of judgment dated 12.09.2008 in MFA No.3896/2004 (LAC) c/w MFA, Crob. No.430/2007, in the case of, in MFA No.3896/2004, the Spl. L.A.O., Bengaluru Vs. Venkataswamappa and another and in MFA Crob.No.430/2007, in the case of Venkataswamappa Vs. The Spl. L.A.O. and another, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of 16 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Karnataka, at Bengaluru. The claimant relied upon this Ex.P.3 as a judgment of the court, in-respect of comparable sale. The learned counsel for the claimant referring to this judgment in Ex.P.3 submits that the acquired land covered under Ex.P.3 are the lands in L.A.C. No.5/98 and other 69 connected cases, which are acquired for the benefits of Defence Research and Development Organization, Bengaluru and in- fact, the acquired land covered in Ex.P.3 are 7 kms further away from the acquired land, in this reference, situated at Konadasapura village, hence, prayer to enhance the compensation of the acquired land in this reference, at-least fixing market value of the acquired land, in this reference, at the rate mentioned in Ex.P.3. The Ex.P.5 is a certified copy of map of Hoskote taluk. The Exs.P.6, 7, 8 and 9 are certified copies of maps of Konadasapura village, Nimbekayipura village, Tiramallenahalli village and Jotipura village. The perusal of Exs.P.5 to 9 as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant, Konadasapura village is near to Bengaluru city, compared to Nimbekayipura village, Tiramallenahalli village and Jotipura village. The learned 17 L.A.C. No.101/2001 counsel for the claimant submits that surrounding the acquired land, commercial establishment and famous IT park are situated just 5 kms away from the acquired land and also Sathya Sai hospital, Sai garden, wonderful and expensive apartments are built, at 3 kms from the acquired land and in the said area, there is well electricity facilities and area is totally well developed, hence, market value of the surrounding area of the acquired land is 30 to 40 lakhs per acre as on the date of acquisition, hence, prays to award compensation to the acquired land at the rate marked at Ex.P.3. The RW.2 during cross-examination denied the suggestion that at a distance of ½ km of the acquired land, Bengal lamps factory is situated and at a distance of 1 km, BPL factory and SKF factory are situated. The learned counsel for the claimant during the course of argument submits that the acquired land, in this case, is nearly 20 kms from Majestic at Bengaluru. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment marked at Ex.P.3 in MFA No.3896/2004 (LAC) c/w MFA, Crob. No.430/2007, has enhanced the compensation at Rs.7,70,000/- instead of 18 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Rs.3,15,000/-, awarded by the L.A.O., covered under preliminary notification dated 04.03.1993 and enhanced at the rate of Rs.8,40,000/- of the acquisition covered under preliminary notification dated 02.06.1995, hence, prayed to award the compensation, at-least on par with the rate awarded under Ex.P.3. The PW.1 in his chief-examination, has prayed to award compensation to the acquired land in this reference at the rate awarded in the judgments marked at Ex.P.1. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the judgments covered under Ex.P.1, have been set aside as per the judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No.7724/2010 clubbed with MFA Nos.6917/2010, 7725/2010 and 9295/2010. The said judgments in the aforesaid MFAs dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka discloses that the judgments marked in Exs.P.1 and 2 are set aside and the same are remanded back to this reference court, reserving the liberty to the appellants/claimants therein to file additional documents, sought to be produced before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and adduce further evidence. As already discussed 19 L.A.C. No.101/2001 above, the claimant after remand of this reference, has adduced further evidence. The judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 passed in this L.A.C. No.101/2001 is being set aside in the aforesaid MFA particularly in MFA No.6917/2010. Therefore, though the claimant prior to setting aside the judgment dated 02.02.2010 passed by this court in L.A.C. No. 101/2001 had sought to enhance the compensation of the acquired land at the rate awarded to the acquired lands in judgments marked at Exs.P.1 and 2, but in view of remand of the reference, there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant, to award just compensation to the acquired land in this reference, on going through the available evidence and materials on record, at this stage. The appreciation of evidence on record, it is evident that except oral evidence of PW.1 and RWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence marked at Exs.P.3 to 9, the claimant has not adduced evidence to prove that the IT parks and hospitals etc., as submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant were existing on the acquired land, in this reference, as on the date of publication of preliminary notification dated 10.03.1994. The perusal of Exs.P.5 to 9 and 20 L.A.C. No.101/2001 oral evidence of PW.1 and RWs.1 and 2, it leads to the only probability that the acquired land covered under Ex.P.3 judgment is at-least 7 kms further away from the acquired land of Konadasapura village, covered in this reference. The appreciation of totality of evidence on record leads to the probability that though PW.1 admits in his cross-examination that as on the date of acquisition, the acquired land, in question, in this case, was agricultural land, but the fact that the acquired land in this case, is existing nearly 25 kms from Majestic area of Bengaluru city and also considering the fact that the land and properties in white-field, which are just very near to the acquired land, in question, in this case, then, possibility of acquired land in this case, having non- agricultural potentiality, cannot be over-ruled. The Ex.P.3 evidences that in the said judgment the compensation is enhanced at Rs.7,70,000/- per acre in the place of 3,15,000/- per acre, awarded by the L.A.O., with-regard to the acquired land in preliminary notification dated 04.03.1993 and 13.05.1993 and whereas, the compensation is enhanced at Rs.8,40,000/- per acre, in-stead of 3,45,000/-, awarded by the 21 L.A.C. No.101/2001 L.A.O., under preliminary notification dated 02.06.1995. The perusal of Exs.P.5 to 9 the certified copies of maps, considering the distance that the acquired lands in Ex.P.3 judgment are at a distance of 7 kms further away from the acquired land, towards Hoskote side and considering the fact that the acquired land, in this case, was having non- agriculture potentiality, then it is just to enhance the market value of the acquired land, in this case, at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, in-stead of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, awarded by the L.A.O., in this case, as judgment in Ex.P.3 may be considered as judgment awarded compensation in-respect of similar lands as acquired land in this case. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record leads to the unmistakable fact that the compensation awarded by the L.A.O., at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre of the acquired land in this case, is on lower side. This court relying on the judgment marked at Ex.P.3 discussed above, is of the considered opinion that it is just to enhance the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, 22 L.A.C. No.101/2001 awarded by the L.A.O., with all statutory benefits, in-respect of the acquired land.
.9. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, on record, leads to the unmistakable fact that the claimant proves that the market value fixed by the respondent-L.A.O., in-respect of his acquired land, in this case, is unjust, inadequate and on lower side. Thus, the claimant in this case, is entitle for enhanced market value at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, awarded by the L.A.O., for his acquired land, with all statutory benefits. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the Affirmative and point No.3 accordingly for consideration.
.10. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on the afore- mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Reference made by the L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, is partly allowed.23 L.A.C. No.101/2001
The claimant in this L.A.C. No.101/2001 is entitle for market value of his acquired land at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, awarded by the L.A.O./respondent No1.
The claimant is entitle for the additional market value u/s. 23(1-A) of L.A. Act, at the rate of 12% p.a., on an enhanced market value from the date of publication of preliminary notification u/s. 17(1) of BDA Act (Equivalent to preliminary notification u/s.4(1) of L.A. Act) in Karnataka State Gazette dated 10.03.1994, till the date of dispossession or the date of award, which- ever is earlier.
The claimant is entitle for solatium at the rate of 30% on an enhanced market value as per section 23(2) of L.A. Act.
The claimant is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on an enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of 1 year, from the date of 24 L.A.C. No.101/2001 taking over possession of land or from the date of award, whichever is earlier and interest at the rate of 15% p.a., for subsequent years, till deposit of entire amount.
The claimant is not entitle the interest on an enhanced amount for the period from 30.05.2003 to 01.12.2007, i.e., period in between judgment dated 30.05.2003 in this L.A.C. No.101/2001, which was set aside in Misc. case No.473/2005, through order dated 01.12.2007. The amount already paid by the L.A.O./respondent No.1, shall be deducted in an enhanced market value now awarded.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in this case.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of August, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. & S. Judge, Bengaluru.
25 L.A.C. No.101/2001ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : Lakshmaiah
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Exs.P.1-2 : Certified copies of judgment and award
Ex.P.3 : C.C. of judgment in MFA No.3896/2006 c/w
MFA Crob. No.430/2007
Ex.P.4 : C.C. of judgment in MFA No.8439/2005
Ex.P.5 : C.C. of map of Bengaluru East Taluka
Ex.P.6 : C.C. of village map of Kondadasanapura
Ex.P.7 : C.C. of village map of Nimbekaipur
Ex.P.8 : C.C. of village map of Tiramallenahalli
village
Ex.P.9 : C.C. of village map of Jotipura
Exs.P.10-14: Certified copies of order sheets E.P. Nos.956/2006 to 960/2006 Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Karnataka Gazette Ex.P.16 : C.C. of village map Ex.P.17 : C.C. of preliminary notification published in Karnataka State Gazette Ex.P.18 : C.C. of final notification published in Karnataka State Gazette 26 L.A.C. No.101/2001 Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P.19(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.19 Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of Gazette dated 07.08.2013
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. & S. Judge, Bengaluru.
IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM FEERASAB
BIDARI
DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB
FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH
COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
BIDARI
Date: 2018.08.11 13:59:30 IST
27 L.A.C. No.101/2001
06.03.2017
Judgment pronounced in
open court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
The Reference petitions
referred u/s.18 of Land
Acquisition Act, are hereby
partly allowed.
The actual Market value
of the acquired properties
which are shown in para No.3
of page No.3 of judgment is
determined @ 641/- sq.feet.
Apart from this:
In L.A.C. No.270/2005
an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-
is enhanced i.e., from
Rs.2,51,256/- to
Rs.3,76,256/-.
In L.A.C. No.266/2005 an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is
enhanced i.e., from
Rs.61,705/- to Rs.1,61,705/-
.
In L.A.C. No.267/2005
an amount of Rs.90,000/- is
enhanced i.e., from
Rs.1,05,986/- to
Rs.1,95,986/-.
28 L.A.C. No.101/2001
The claimants are
entitled for all statutory
benefits as contemplated
u/s.23(2), 23(1-A), u/s.28 of
L.A. Act 1894 and also the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex
court (Sundar Vs. Union of
India) reported in (2001)7 SCC
211.
Draw separate Award in
each case accordingly.
Original Judgment be
kept in LAC No.270/2005
and copies of the same be
kept in LAC No. 265/2005,
LAC No.266/2005, L.A.C.
No.267/2005 and LAC
No.268/2005.
(G.BASAVARAJA)
XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I.
Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.