Bangalore District Court
Sri. B. Lakshminarayana S/O R. Byrappa vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 1 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
HOLDING C/C XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-47)
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2017.
PRESENT:
Shri. G.BASAVARAJA B.A.,LL.M.
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Bangalore City, holding c/c of II Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.139/2010
CLAIMANT:
Sri. B. Lakshminarayana s/o R. Byrappa, 48
years, residing at No.66, Anjeneya Temple road,
2nd Block, Kanakanapalya, Bangalore.
(By Sri.RP. Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT:
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore.
(By Sri.DGP, Advocate)
------
JUDGMENT
The Claimant has referred this case U/s.18(1) of L.A. Act for determination of actual market value of the property acquired by the Respondent bearing property No.4/5, ward 2 L.A.C. No.139/2010 No.20, measuring 300 sq. feet of Shivanagara, Bangalore for B.B.M.P. .2. On receipt of the above reference petition, this court has registered a case and notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the Claimant appeared before this court through his counsel. The Respondent i.e., the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer appeared through DGP. The Respondent has not filed any objection to the application filed under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
.3. The brief facts of the application filed under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act are as under:
The Respondent has acquired the property bearing No.4/5, ward No.20, measuring 300 sq. feet of Shivanagara, Bangalore city for B.B.M.P. He is an absolute owner of the property and he is entitled to receive the award amount. The authority has issued the award notice u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act dated 02.06.2008 and the same was served to the Claimant. After receiving this notice, he has filed the protest petition within 90 days from the date of receipt of award notice. Further it is submitted that the acquired 3 L.A.C. No.139/2010 property is a commercial property even than the authority has fixed meager compensation amount in respect of acquired land. The authority has not fixed the correct and proper market value of the acquired land. The acquired property is fit land for construction of houses and commercial complex. The authority has not taken proper steps to assess the proper market value of the acquired property and structure. As on the date of preliminary notification the land value of the acquired property was of Rs.3,500/- per sq. feet. Further it is submitted that the acquired property is situated at heart of the city and near to Bangalore Railway station, bus station, Police Station, Hotels, Transport corporations, shops, commercial establishments and factories surround the acquired property. The acquired land is more potential value. Under such circumstances, the value fixed by the authority is very less and meager. The Land Acquisition Officer has not paid the interest as stipulated under the Act. He is entitled to receive the interest from the date of taking possession of the property. Hence, on these grounds, the Claimant sought for determination of just and adequate 4 L.A.C. No.139/2010 compensation in accordance with law for the property acquired by the Respondent.
.4. To substantiate the above case of the Claimant, the Claimant B. Lakshminarayana is examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P-1 to 5 and Ex.P-5(a) and (b). After closure of the Claimant's side, the Respondent has not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
.5. I have heard both sides.
.6. Before framing as to the points for consideration it is necessary to mention here as to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court which is reported in 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 5 L.A.C. No.139/2010 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 valuable 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. (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."
Keeping in the mind of the above judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points would arise for my consideration;
1) Whether the reference made by the Claimant is valid under law?
2) Whether the Claimant proves that the award passed by the Respondent is not just, fair and adequate? If not what is the actual market value of the acquired property?
3) What Award or order?
6 L.A.C. No.139/2010.7. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : Reference is valid under law Point No.2 : In the affirmative Point No.3 : Claimant is entitled for compensation as per final order, for the following:-
REASONS .8. Point No.1:- The particulars submitted by the Respondent itself show that the award notice was issued on
02.06.2008. Ex.P-1 protest petition reveals that the Claimant has filed the protest application u/s.18 of L.A. Act and the same is endorsed by the Respondent by putting seal and signature of the Respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the Claimant has filed this protest petition u/s.18 of L.A. Act within 90 days from the date of receiving award notice issued u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act. Reference petition is also referred to the court within the prescribed time. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Claimant has proved that the reference made by him 7 L.A.C. No.139/2010 is valid under law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
.9. Point No.2: I have gone through the materials placed by the Claimant before this court. To substantiate the claim of Claimant, the Claimant B. Lakshminarayana is examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence that he has filed the reference within the prescribed time. Further he has deposed in his evidence that the Respondent has awarded meager compensation in respect of the acquired site. Further he has submitted that the Respondent has not taken proper steps to assess the proper market value for the acquired land. As on the date of preliminary notification the value of the acquired land was of Rs.3,000/- per sq. feet. Further he has submitted that the acquired land is situated at the heart of Bangalore city. Layouts, Hotels, Transport corporations, schools colleges and factories surround the acquired land. The site acquired by the Respondent is fit for construction of houses and commercial complex. Under such circumstances the value fixed by the Respondent is very less and meager. 8 L.A.C. No.139/2010 Further he has submitted that during the relevant point of time acquisition of land the value of his land was more than Rs.3,000/- per sq. feet. The acquired land is 5 kms away from Vidhana Soudha, 5 KMs from Bangalore city, bus station and railway station. Reputed schools and colleges also surround the acquired land. Hence, on these grounds, the Claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. Apart from his oral evidence, he has produced 5 documents. Ex.P-1 is the protest application filed u/s.18 of L.A. Act in respect of property No.4/5, ward No.20 measuring 300 sq. feet of Shivanagara, Bangalore acquired for B.B.M.P. Ex.P-2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 31.01.2005. Ex.P-3 is another certified copy of sale deed dated 28.01.2005. Ex.P-4 is the map of Shivanahalli. Ex.P-5 is the B.D.A. map. Ex.P-5(a) is the endorsement issued by B.D.A. Ex.P-5(b) is the receipt.
.10. A perusal of the records it clearly reveals that the Respondent has acquired the property to the extent of 300 sq. feet in respect of property No.4/5, ward No.20 of Shivanagara, Bangalore city Corporation for formation of widening of road. 9 L.A.C. No.139/2010 The Respondent has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.492/- per sq. feet with statutory benefits. Ex.P-2 is copy of the sale deed dated 31.01.2005 reveals that the sale deed is executed by S. Vaniyamma in favour of A.M. Mahesh in respect of the property situated in Shivanahalli in Sy.No.29/8 and Saniguruvanahalli village Sy.No.116/1 bearing site No.26 measuring 45 X 30 feet, total measuring 1350 sq. feet. He has sold the said property for valuable consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. If this amount is divided by 1350 sq. feet, it comes to Rs.925 per sq. feet. Another sale deed dated 28.01.2005 which is executed by K. Singrigowda @ Singri and B.S. Vijaya Kumar in favour of D. Prakash and Smt. M.S. Sujatha on 28.01.2005 in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.42, situated at Shivanara @ Shivanahalli, 9th Main road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore city measuring East to west northern side 25 feet, southern side 22 feet and North to South, Eastern side 51 feet and Western side 53 feet ((25 +
22)/2 X (51 + 53)/2} = 1222 sq. feet for valuable sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-. If this amount is divided by 1222 sq. feet, it comes to Rs.1391/- per sq. feet. The award 10 L.A.C. No.139/2010 reveals that the date of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act is issued on 12.08.2005. Ex.P-2 and 3 are the sale deeds prior to the preliminary notification dated 12.08.2005. The Respondent shown in sl.no.22 of page No.4 of his award has referred the property No.42 and he has shown the value of property is Rs.1391/- per sq. feet. The Respondent shown in sl.no.23 of page No.4 of his award has referred the property No.29/8 and he has shown the value of property is Rs.925/- per sq. feet. The learned counsel for the Claimant has relied on the decisions reported in:
1) AIR SCW 2012 page 2822 (Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) "(A) land Acquisition Act-Market value-
Determination-Many comparable sale transactions relied-Highest comparable exemplar there from has to be accepted -
Method of drawing average of various sale deeds-Not to be adopted"
2) 2009(3) KCCR page 3133 (C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate officer and another )
3) AIR 1988 SC 943 (Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi) 11 L.A.C. No.139/2010
4) AIR SCW 2008 page 4156 (State of Haryana Vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs and another etc. ) A perusal of the award it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer has referred in all 26 properties and determined the value of the property at Rs.492/- per sq. feet.
But in view of the aforesaid decision of 2012 AIR SCW 2822, the highest comparable exemplar therefrom has to be accepted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in the mind of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the evidence of PW.1 which is not challenged by the Respondent, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to determine the actual market value of the property @ Rs.1200/- per sq. feet. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
.11. The statement showing the land acquired by the Respondent reveals that the Respondent has taken the possession on 25.01.2007 and award has passed on 25.02.2008. The Claimant is entitled for the above said amount with all statutory benefits as contemplated u/ss. 12 L.A.C. No.139/2010 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. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled for statutory benefits. Fort he aforesaid reasons and discussions, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Respondent is not just, fair and adequate. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the Affirmative.
.12. Point No.3:- For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The reference petition referred by the Respondent u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act is hereby allowed.
The actual market value of the property No.4/5, ward No.20, measuring 300 sq. feet of Shivanagara, Bangalore city referred u/s.18 of L.A. Act is determined at Rs.1200/- per sq. feet.
The Claimant is entitled for all the statutory benefits as contemplated under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and u/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894 and also decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211.
Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. 13 L.A.C. No.139/2010 Draw an Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2017.) (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : B. Lakshminarayana
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 : Protest application
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
31.01.2005
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
28.01.2005
Ex.P.4 : Map of Shivanahalli
Ex.P.5 : B.D.A. map
Ex.P.5(a) : Endorsement issued by B.D.A.
Ex.P.5(b) : Receipt
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil 14 L.A.C. No.139/2010
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
15 L.A.C. No.139/2010
01.04.2017
Judgment pronounced in
open court (Vide separate order)
ORDER
The reference petition referred by
the Respondent u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act is hereby allowed.16 L.A.C. No.139/2010
The actual market value of the property No.4/5, ward No.20, measuring 300 sq. feet of Shivanagara, Bangalore city referred u/s.18 of L.A. Act is determined at Rs.1200/- per sq. feet.
The Claimant is entitled for all the statutory benefits as contemplated under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and u/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894 and also decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211.
Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an Award Accordingly.
(G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.