Bangalore District Court
L.A.C./55/1996 on 23 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. Bidari, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.55/1996
CLAIMANTS :
1) Shaik Khasim, since dead by
his LRs
1(a) Shaik Khaleem, 49
years,
1(b) Shaik Aman, 44 years,
1(c) Shaik Abdul Afeez, 48
years,
2) Sheik Basheer, since dead
by his LRs
2(a) Hussain Bee, w/o late.
Sheik Basheer, 59 years,
2(b) Sheik Zabbar, s/o late.
Sheik Basheer, 41 years,
2(c) Sheik Abeed s/o late.
Sheik Basheer, 44 years,
Claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and
claimant No.2(a) to 2(c) are
residing at Alahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
3) Venkataramana Shetty s/o
Srinivasa Shetty,
2 L.A.C. No.55/1996
4) Shakruddin
5) Shakru Rehaman
6) S. Venkatarama Reddy, s/o
J. Srinivasa Reddy, 42 years,
7) Smt. Vinutha M. Reddy w/o
Madhusudana Reddy, 45
years,
Claimants 6 and 7 are
residing at Main road,
Alahalli, Anjanapura post,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru.
(Claimants 1(a) to 1(c) & 2(a) to 2(c) by Sri. GNJ,
Advocate)
(claimants 3 to 5 - Absent)
(Claimants 6 & 7 by Sriyuths Chalapathy and
Srinivas, Advocates)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS :
1) The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, BDA, Bangalore.
2) The Commissioner, BDA,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. M.G. Advocate)
-0-
JUDGMENT
The learned Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (here-in- after referred as LAO), Bengaluru Development Authority (here-in-after referred as BDA), Bengaluru, have made this 3 L.A.C. No.55/1996 reference u/ss.30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (here-in-after referred as L.A. Act).
.2. The brief facts of the care are:
The land to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas, in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village, in Bengaluru South Taluka, is being acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayana Nagara (here-in-after referred as J.P. Nagara), 9th stage at Bengaluru. During acquisition proceedings, the preliminary notification in No.BDA/SLAO/A4/PR/257/1988-89 dated 17.11.1988 has been published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 05.01.1989, 12,01.1989 and 19.01.2989. The final notification in No.HUD/553/MNX/90 dated 22.07.1981 has been published in Karnataka State Gazette dated 27.07.1991. The LAO resorting to the provisions of Law, through award dated 07.07.1993, has acquired the aforesaid land, in Land Acquisition case No.220/1991-92, passed under Section 11 of L.A. Act. The LAO determined and quantified the compensation at Rs.4,64,098/- for the aforesaid acquired land. Since the khatedhars/Anubhavadhars of the aforesaid acquired land named in the RTCs failed to produce the title deeds of the acquired land, to receive the compensation, as such, the 4 L.A.C. No.55/1996 LAO has made this reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, for apportionment of the said compensation amount, to the persons, who are entitle to receive the same. The LAO along with reference has also transmitted the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.4,64,098/- and the said compensation was deposited in F.D. in the bank.
.3. This court, on-receipt of the reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, from the LAO, registered the same in L.A.C. No. 55/1966. Pursuant to the notice issued by this court, the respondents did appear through their counsel. Since the notices sent by the court to the claimants were returned un-served, as such, the respondents had served the notices to the claimants through paper publication. Pursuant to the service of notice to the claimants, through paper publication, the LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and did file the claim statement. The LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 adduced oral and documentary evidence, on their behalf. The respondents did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. This court, on hearing the learned counsel for the LRs of deceased claimant No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the respondents, passed an award and 5 L.A.C. No.55/1996 judgment dated 30.11.2004, in this L.A.C. No. 55/1996, where-under, partly allowed the reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, holding that LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2, together are entitle for compensation to the extent of 2 acres, out of compensation awarded to the aforesaid acquired land, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village, with interest as mentioned in the operative portion of the judgment and award. Subsequent to the judgment and award dated 30.11.2004 passed by this court, in L.A.C. No. 55/1996, the claimant No.6 S. Venkatarama Reddy and his sister claimant No.7 Smt. Vinutha M. Reddy filed the Misc. petition No.832/2005 against the remaining claimants and respondents 1 and 2 herein, under order 9 rule 13 r/w section 151 C.P.C., praying to set-aside the aforesaid judgment passed by this court in L.A.C. No. 55/1996. The petitioners (claimants 6 and 7) in Misc. petition No.832/2005 and LRs of deceased respondents 1 and 2 i.e., LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2, adduced oral and documentary evidence on their behalf. This court through order dated 19.02.2009 allowed the petition filed under order 9 rule 13 r/w section 151 C.P.C., setting aside the judgment passed in L.A.C. No. 55/1996, consequently, 6 L.A.C. No.55/1996 restored the said L.A.C. No. 55/1996 to its original file, for disposal of the same, in accordance with law. In view of the order in Misc. No.832/2005, the L.A.C. No. 55/1996 has been taken for disposal afresh. Pursuant to the service of notice afresh, the claimants and the respondents appeared through their respective counsel. The claimants 6 and 7 did file an application dated 12.01.2012 under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to reject the reference and the respondents 1 and 2 herein had opposed the said application by filing the statement objections. This court, on hearing both sides through order dated 08.09.2012, has rejected the said application dated 12.01.2012. Thereafter, the claimant No.6 S. Venkatarama Reddy and claimant No.7 Smt. Vinutha M. Reddy had filed WP Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, respectively, against the respondents 1 and 2 herein and also against the State of Karnataka, represented through its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Bengaluru, in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, praying to quash the notification dated 22.07.1991 and award dated 07.07.1993 passed by the LAO in-respect of acquisition of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village. The claimants 6 and 7 and the respondents had filed the joint memo dated 7 L.A.C. No.55/1996 06.09.1999, signed by them filed in the aforesaid WP Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, where-under, they have agreed that as per the terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement dated 05.03.1998, it was agreed between them that the claimants 6 and 7 shall develop the aforesaid acquired land in Sy.No.26/1 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas of Alahalli, on the condition that the claimants shall surrender 12% of the built up area to the BDA free of cost and because of such agreement in the joint memo, it was agreed that the respondent-authority shall with-draw the objections filed in the above said WPs, consequently, upon filing the said joint memo, the aforesaid WP Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, through order dated 20.09.1999, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the said WPs with a liberty to file fresh WPs, in case they aggrieved. After passing the order in the aforesaid WP Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, the claimants 6 and 7 had moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, for conversion of the aforesaid agricultural land to non-agricultural residential purpose as layout was to be formed, as agreed, but the Deputy Commissioner rejected their application, on the ground that the name of BDA is recorded in the khata of the acquired land. The 8 L.A.C. No.55/1996 claimants 6 and 7 against the order of D.C., had preferred Appeal No.228/2000 in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, same came to be dismissed against which they had preferred W.P. No.37032/2002, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through order dated 30.01.2004, quashed the said order of D.C. and KAT and remitted the matter to the D.C., for re-consideration of the request of the claimants afresh, in the mean-time, when the matter was pending before the D.C., BDA through its letter dated 13.11.2001 intimated the D.C., to grant conversion of the aforesaid acquired land, to non-agricultural residential purpose. Thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 approached the D.C., requesting for conversion of the acquired land to non-agricultural residential purpose and also paid conversion fee of Rs.1,52,515/-, consequently, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, issued the conversion certificate. Subsequently, the claimants 6 and 7 approached the BDA and filed an application seeking permission to develop the acquired land, but the said application was kept pending and in-spite of repeated requests, the said application was kept pending, in the mean-time, the LAO, BDA, intimated the claimants 6 and 7, with-regard to making reference under Sections 30 and 9 L.A.C. No.55/1996 31(2) of L.A. Act, to this court and also intimated the fact of this court passing the judgment in L.A.C. No. 55/1996, thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 obtained certified copy of judgment and award dated 30.11.2004 passed in this L.A.C. No. 55/1996, filed Misc. No.832/2005, wherein, the judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by this court in L.A.C. No. 55/1996 came to be set aside. The claimants 6 and 7 also obtained the relief of permanent injunction against the D.C., BDA in O.S. No.10158/2005. The records disclose that the BDA contrary to the order passed in the aforesaid WP Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, did pass resolution dated 20.02.2010, on subject No.89/2010, behind the back of claimants 6 and 7, based on W.P. No.10165/2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In W.P. No.39204/2010, through order dated 28.02.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, quashed, the said resolution dated 20.02.2010, on subject No.89/2010 passed by the BDA. Thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 did file an application under Section 151 of C.P.C., for rejection of the reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, but through the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2012, this court rejected the said applications, against which, the claimants 6 and 7 had preferred W.P. No.8135/2013. The 10 L.A.C. No.55/1996 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru through order dated 11.09.2015, dismissed the said W.P., but not withstanding the dismissal of the said W.P., it is ordered that the contentions raised by the claimants 6 and 7 are kept open and liberty was reserved to them to rely upon two decisions referred by them, in the said order, relating to the reference court and directed that the reference court, could consider the same and to dispose of the matter on merits. The relevant portion of the order in the aforesaid W.P. No.8135/2013 reads as under:
"Writ petition is dismissed.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, all the contentions raised by the parties in the Reference Curt are kept open and petitioners are at liberty to rely upon the two decisions which are referred to hereinabove relating to the Reference Court going into the question of very reference would be considered.
Any observation made by this court shall not influence the learned judge of the Trial court to dispose of the matter on merits.
It is made clear even if reference goes against the petitioners herein, this could be one of the grounds in appeal or revision that would be filed by them."
Thus, in view of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.8135/2013 and also as per the order in Misc. No.832/2005 passed by this court, the 11 L.A.C. No.55/1996 case is once-again taken up for disposal afresh, as per law. Thereafter, the order in Misc. No.832/2005, the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) and claimants 6 and 7 and the respondents appeared through their respective counsel, but remaining claimants remained absent.
.4. The LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 i.e., claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) have filed common claim statement dated 29.09.2004, wherein, among others averred that deceased claimants 1 and 2 were absolute owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 2 acres, in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village, being purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1972. The names of deceased claimants 1 and 2 were jointly entered in the revenue records of the land purchased under the aforesaid sale deed. The claimant No.1 Shaik Khasim has died on 18.09.1999, whereas, the claimant No.2 Sheik Basheer has died on 24.06.1997, leaving behind them, the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) respectively, to succeed their respective shares, in the aforesaid 2 acres of acquired land and also their estate. The deceased claimants 1 and 2 have died during pendency of the 12 L.A.C. No.55/1996 instant case. The claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) being LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 are entitle to receive the compensation of the acquired land to the extent of 2 acres, in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village. Therefore, prayer to release the compensation in-respect of the said amount in their favour, deposited in this reference.
.5. The claimants 6 and 7 have filed the objections to the reference made by the SLAO u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, dated 21.08.2009, wherein, among others, contending that the respondent No.1 has acquired the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. The name of claimant No.6 S. Venkatarama Reddy s/o Srinivasa Reddy, is being shown as Venkatarama Shetty s/o Srinivasa Shetty, in the notification, consequently, consequently, he did not file objections or presented the representation either before LAO or before the court. The claimants 6 and 7 thereafter coming to know the mistake crept in the notification, with-regard to the name of claimant No.6, challenged the acquisition and notification with regard to the aforesaid acquired land in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, in W.Ps. No.32760/1996 13 L.A.C. No.55/1996 and 32761/1996, before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and by the time, when the said W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, were to come up for hearing, the Karnataka State Government introduced a scheme, where-under, the owners of the lands notified for acquisition, if intends to form a private layout, they would be permitted, to do so, provided their agreeing to surrender 30% of the sites, so formed in the land, to the BDA free of cost, subject to further condition that possession of the land had not taken by the BDA. The claimants 6 and 7 and the respondents in the aforesaid W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, pursuant to the aforesaid scheme of Government, did file the joint memo dated 06.09.1999, where-under, the claimants 6 and 7 were permitted to form a private layout and to surrender 12% of the built up area, to BDA, free of cost. Thus, in view of the aforesaid joint memo, the W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 were withdrawn as per the orders dated 20.08.1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said WPs. Thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 applied for conversion of the aforesaid acquired land into non-agricultural residential purpose, but the Deputy Commissioner, through his order dated 06.03.2002, rejected the prayer of 14 L.A.C. No.55/1996 the claimants, on the ground that the khata of property is being made in the name of BDA. The claimants 6 and 7 did file the Appeal No.228/2000 in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the order of the D.C. dated 06.03.2002, which was also came to be rejected. The claimants challenged the aforesaid order of D.C. dated 06.03.2002 and order of KAT in Appeal No.228/2000, in W.P. No.37032/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in the mean-time, the D.C., BDA through his letter dated 03.11.2001 intimated the D.C. that it has no objection for the D.C., granting conversion of the aforesaid acquired land to non-agricultural residential purpose. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through its order dated 30.01.2004 quashed the aforesaid order of D.C. and the order of KAT, allowing the W.P. No.37032/2002 and directed the D.C., to reconsider the matter of granting permission for conversion of land to non-residential purpose. Thereafter, the D.C., through his order dated 03.07.2004 permitted conversion of the land to non-agricultural residential purpose, on payment of conversion fine of Rs.1,52,515/- and the Tahsildar,, Bengaluru South Taluka, issued conversion certification. Thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 approached the BDA 15 L.A.C. No.55/1996 with their application dated 05.06.2004, seeking permission to develop the land, but the said application was kept pending and in-spite of claimants 6 and 7 repeated request for the order, but the BDA officials went on orally stating that their application is being considered. It is contended that in the 3rd week of November 2005, the LAO, BDA, intimated them that the reference has been made to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the judgment is being passed in the said reference in L.A.C. No.55/1996. Thereafter, the claimants 6 and 7 applied for certified copies of judgment and award in L.A.C. No.55/1996 and the same were supplied to them on 24.11.2005 and the claimants 6 and 7 on verification of the judgment and award in L.A.C. No.55/1996, came to know that they have been placed exparte in the said case. It is contended that on going through the certified copies of judgment and award in L.A.C. No.55/1996, the claimants 6 and 7 came to know that the notice dated 06.06.1997 issued returned to the court with an endorsement " summons could not be served since door was locked", but the said claimants along with nearly 15 family members are living in the address in their houses at Alahalli village, in-spite of that the aforesaid false endorsement has been made and summons 16 L.A.C. No.55/1996 returned as door locked. It is also contended that as per the order dated 12.07.1996 the summons issued by the court in the said L.A.C. No.55/1996, has been returned un-served with an endorsement, stating that the door number of the property is not given. Therefore, the claimants 6 and 7 filed the Misc. No.832/2005, wherein, as per the order dated 19.02.2009, the judgment and award dated 30.11.2004, passed in L.A.C. No.55/1996 is being set aside and the said L.A.C. No.55/1996 is ordered to be restored to its original file for disposal afresh. The deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their LRs claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) and claimants 4 and 5 have no manner of right, title and interest over the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. The claimants 6and 7 through a registered sale deed dated 02.04.1986 have purchased 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village from Sheik Umruddin and Sheik Fakru Rahman the sons of Sri. Raju Saab. The claimants 6 and 7 subsequently, through a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992 purchased the another land to the extent of 2 acres in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village from Smt. Chand Bibi and her sons (1) Sheik Khasim and (2) Sheik Basheer and their respective children. Thus, the 17 L.A.C. No.55/1996 claimants 6 and 7 having purchased the land measuring 2 acred 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village were possessing and enjoying the same as absolute owners and their names were recorded in the revenue records of the said property. The claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) suppressing the true facts that the claimants 6 and 7 are owners of the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, without producing mutation register entry, encumbrance certificate, up-to date RTCS, have played fraud on the court, resulting in judgment dated 30.11.2004 in L.A.C. No. 55/1996. The respondents having filed the joint memo dated 06.09.1999 in W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, ought not to have proceeded with the reference in, as much as, resulting in judgment of this court dated 30.11.2004, as the respondents were knowing about the agreement entered between respondents and claimants 6 and 7 in the aforesaid WPs. The claimants 6 and 7 since purchase are in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village and the acquisition proceedings of the said land has not been completed. The claimants 6 and 7 by virtue of the aforesaid order have not divested of their title over the aforesaid 18 L.A.C. No.55/1996 land. Therefore, there is no question of deciding under sections 30 and 31 of L.A. Act, regarding persons' entitle for compensation, either in-favour of the claimants 6 and 7 or in-favour of any other claimants. Under the circumstances, the reference made by the respondents u/ss. 30 and 31 of L.A. Act is bad in law and not sustainable. These main grounds, among others, contended in the objections, prayer to return the reference to the LAO as same is not valid reference in law.
.6. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the objections dated 29.03.2010 to the claim petition and the evidence submitted on behalf of claimants 6 and 7 by way of affidavit, contending that the prayer of claimants 6 and 7 to reject the reference is not sustainable under law. The respondent No.1 has acquired the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, resorting to the provisions of L.A. Act and BDA Act, passing an award dated 07.07.1993 and possession of the acquired land is taken on 30.03.1994. The owners of the acquired land did not produce the title deeds, to receive the compensation. Therefore, the LAO has made this reference u/ss.30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, same came to be registered on the file of 19 L.A.C. No.55/1996 this court in L.A.C. No.55/1996. The respondents served the notice on claimants through paper publication, pursuant to which, the LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 appeared and filed their claim statement, contending that they are entitle for the compensation as they are owners of the acquired land. The special power of attorney holder of LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 examined as PW.1. The documents are marked at Exs.P.1 to 13. This court through order dated 30.11.2014, held that LRs of claimants 1 and 2 are entitle to receive the compensation of the acquired land to the extent of 2 acres, out of 2 acres 32 guntas of the acquired land, accordingly, the reference was answered in-favour of deceased claimants 1 and 2. The claimants 6 and 7 are coming before the court and praying for rejection of the reference in view of the joint memo filed in W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, but prayer of the claimants 6 and 7 is not sustainable, on that ground. The claimants are not entitle for the releifs sought in their objections to reject the reference, in view of the order dated 08.07.2002, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 3334/2000 and the order passed in W.P. No.10165/2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the decisions in the aforesaid 20 L.A.C. No.55/1996 WPs. 3334/2000 and 10165/2008, the joint memo filed by the claimants and the respondents in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 is not sustainable. These main grounds among others contended in the objections, prayer to dismiss the claim petition/evidence tendered on behalf of the claimants 6 and 7 by way of affidavit.
.7. To substantiate their claim, the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) have examined their their SPA holder Mohammed Asif as PW.1. The documents at Ex.P.1 to 13 are marked for the said claimants. On the other hand, the claimants 6 and 7 to substantiate their contentions, have examined the claimant No.6 S. Venkatarama Reddy as PW.2. The documents at Ex.P.14 to 31 are marked, on behalf of claimants 6 and 7. The respondents have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
.8. I have heard Sri. VSR the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7. The argument of remaining claimants taken as nil. I have heard Sri. VS Advocate on behalf of Sri. MG, Advocate for the respondents. The written 21 L.A.C. No.55/1996 synopsis is filed on behalf of claimants 6 and 7. Perused the records and written synopsis.
.9. The points that would arise for consideration of this court are:
(1) Whether the LRs of
deceased claimants 1 and
2 i.e., claimants 1(a) to 1(c)
and claimants 2(a) to 2(c)
prove that they are entitle
to receive the
compensation awarded to
the acquired land? If so, to
what extent?
(2) Whether the claimant No.6
S. Venkatarama Reddy
and claimant No.7 Smt.
Vinutha M. Reddy prove
that the instant reference
made by the SLAO, BDA,
u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A.
Act 1894 is liable to be
rejected and returned?
(3) What order or award?
.10. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:22 L.A.C. No.55/1996
REASONS .11. POINTS 1 and 2: Both these points are inter-
related, hence taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to avoid repetition of facts. The PW.1 Mohammed Asif s/o late.Sheik Bab Sab, who is a SPA holder of the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c), has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, reiterating most of the claim statement averments of claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c). The PW.2 S. Venkatarama Reddy s/o Srinivasa Reddy, who is claimant No.6 has filed 2 separate affidavits dated 02.09.2009 and 19.04.2018, in lieu of his chief examination and further chief-examination, respectively, reiterating most of the objections statement contentions of the claimants 6 and 7 filed to the reference made by SLAO u/ss.30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act. The Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.1 are the separate Spl. Power of attorney executed by claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c), respectively, in-
favour of PW.1, to conduct proceedings in this reference, with-regard the acquired land in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. The Exs.P.9 and 12 are the death certificates of deceased claimant No.1 Shaik Khasim and deceased claimant No.2 Sheik Basheer, respectively, which 23 L.A.C. No.55/1996 evidenced that on 18.09.1999 and 24.06.1997, deceased claimants 1 and 2 have died. The Exs.P.11 and 10 are the certified copies of relevant portion of voters list depicting the names of some family members of the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c). The Ex.P.8 is the family genealogical tree of the family members of deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their LRs i.e., claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c). These documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW.1 corroborates the fact that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) are the legal heirs of deceased claimants 1 and 2. The Ex.P.5 is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22.05.1972, where-under, Smt. Chand Bibi and her sons (1) Sheik Khasim and (2) Sheik Basheer, together have purchased 2 acres land in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village from S. Surendra Reddy, for consideration amount mentioned therein. The Ex.P.6 is a RTC extract pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, for the period from 1984-85 to 1988-89, wherein, the names of deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their mother Smt. Chand Bibi are recorded in the kabjedar's column. The Exs.P.5 and 6 are standing in the names of deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their mother. The Ex.P.13 is an endorsement 24 L.A.C. No.55/1996 dated 15.10.2004 issued on behalf of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, addressed to the deceased claimants 1 and 2, stating that there is no possibility to supply the mutation entries of the land bearing Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. Though the PW.1 is cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve or discard his evidence that claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) are executed the SPAs in his favour. The PW.1 denied the suggestion that other claimants are having right over the acquired land and also they are entitle for the compensation. The PW.1 during his cross- examination deposed that he does not know about the original sale deed. This court on appreciating the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documents marked at Exs.P.1 to 13 and on hearing both sides, did pass the judgment dated 30.11.2004 in this L.A.C. No.55/1996, whereby partly allowed the reference u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, holding that the LRs of deceased claimants 1 and 2 have proved their right, title and interest over the acquired land measuring 2 acres and they are entitle equally to the extent of 2 acres, out of the acquired land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas with accrued interest and also the claimants are entitle for interest as ordered therein. Pursuant to the said 25 L.A.C. No.55/1996 judgment, the award has been passed. The claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) consequent upon the judgment and award dated 30.11.2004, have withdrawn the compensation deposited in this reference to the extent of 2 acres and remaining compensation amount of Rs.2,21,103/- is ordered to be continued in F.D. in the Union Bank of India, J.P. Nagara, Bengaluru. The Ex.P.26 is a certified copy of judgment dated 19.02.2009 in Misc. No.832/2005 passed by this court, where-under, the order passed in L.A.C. No.55/1996 is set aside and the same is restored to its original file for disposal in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order in the said Misc. No.832/2005, the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) and claimant 6 and 7 and respondents have appeared through their respective counsel but remaining claimants are remained absent.
.12. During evidence of PW.2 the documents at Exs.P.14 to 31 have been marked. The learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 along with a memo dated 09.02.2018 has filed the copy of the Karnataka State Gazette notification dated 27.07.1991, with regard to the notification issued for acquisition of the lands, including 26 L.A.C. No.55/1996 the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village for formation of layout namely J.P. Nagara 9th stage, at Bengaluru, wherein, at sl.no.220, among other names, the name of one Venkatarama Shetty s/o Srinivasa Shetty has been shown as one of the anubhavadar and khatedar of the acquired land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas of Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. The learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 in the aforesaid memo dated 09.02.2018 has stated that the claimant No.6 is being styled as Venkatarama Reddy and in some records his name is mentioned as Venkatarama Reddy and both names referred to one and the same person i.e., Venkatarama Reddy. Sri. VSR the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 drawn the attention of the court to the order dated 20.09.1999 in W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein, in view of the joint memo filed by the petitioners and the respondents, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the writ petitions as ordered therein. The Ex.P.14 is a certified copy of the joint memo dated 06.09.1989 filed by the petitioners and the respondents in the aforesaid W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996. This Ex.P.14 evidences that as per the terms and conditions 27 L.A.C. No.55/1996 agreed between petitioners and the respondents, the petitioners therein to develop the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas, in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, under the same terms and conditions entered into with BDA as per Triparties agreement dated 05.03.1998, in-respect of adjoining lands and the petitioners should surrender 12% of the built up area, in-favour of BDA free of cost and also it was agreed that the respondent authority shall withdraw the objections filed in the writ petitions. As discussed above, the respondents 1 and 2 and the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary to Government, HUD, Bengaluru are respondents in the aforesaid W.Ps. No.32760/1996 and 32761/1996. The PW.2 has also stated with-regard to this fact in his chief examination. These documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW.2 evidences that the claimants 6 and 7 and the respondents entered into an agreement by filing a joint memo dated 06.09.1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, wherein, the respondent agreed to withdraw all the objections filed in writ petitions and the claimants 6 and 7 are permitted to develop the acquired land and they have to surrender 12% of the built up area, in such 28 L.A.C. No.55/1996 developed stage, to the BDA, free of cost. The Ex.P.27 is an original sale deed dated 22.04.1986 where-under one Sheik Umruddin and Sheik Fakru Rahman sons of late. Raju Saab, have sold the land to the extent of 32 guntas in favour of claimants 6 and 7 in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village for consideration amount mentioned therein. The Ex.P.27 evidences that late. Raju Saab had purchased 32 guntas of land through a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1972. The Ex.P.15 is a certified copy of Ex.P.27. The Ex.P.28 is an original registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992 where-under Smt. Chand Bibi and her sons (1) Sheik Khasim and (2) Sheik Basheer and their respective children mentioned therein have sold the land to the extent of 2 acres in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, in-favour of claimants 6 and 7 for consideration amount mentioned therein. The Ex.P.16 is a certified copy of Ex.P.28 sale deed. The Ex.P.21 is a RTC extract pertaining to the Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas for the period from 1994-95 to 1995-96, wherein, the names of claimants 6 and 7 are recorded in the kabjedar's column. The Ex.P.23 is certified copy of MR No.8/91-92 wherein the names of claimants 6 and 7 have been mutated to the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No. 29 L.A.C. No.55/1996 26/1 of Alahalli village on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.01.1992. The Ex.P.25 is a certified copy of MR No.2/2985-86 wherein, the names of claimants 6 and 7 have been mutated in respect of the land measuring 32 guntas on the basis of sale deed marked at Ex.P.27. The Ex.P.22 is a RTC extract pertaining to the land measuring 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, wherein the name of BDA has been entered and deleting the names of claimants 6 and 7. This Ex.P.22 pertains to the period from 1997-98 to 1998-99. The Ex.P.24 is a RTC extract pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village measuring 2 acres 32 guntas for the period from 1992-93 to 1993-94, wherein, the names of claimants 6 and 7 have been entered in the Kabjedar's column. These documents, coupled with the oral evidence of PW.2, corroborates the fact that the claimants 6 and 7 have become owners of the land, to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village by virtue of registered sale deeds marked at Exs.P.27 and 28, consequently, their names were recorded in the RTCs and revenue records and thereafter, the name of BDA has been recorded in the RTC. The Ex.P.17 is a certified copy of latter dated 13.11.2001, addressed to the Spl. D.C., 30 L.A.C. No.55/1996 Bengaluru by the D.C., BDA, Bengaluru stating that in view of the joint memo filed in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, the BDA has no objections to convert the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, though the name of BDA is mentioned in the RTC of the said land. The Ex.P.18 is a certified copy of order dated 30.01.2004, in W.P. No.37032/2002, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, wherein, the above discussed orders passed by the D.C., Bengaluru and KAT rejecting the prayer of the claimants 6 and 7, to convert the land into non-agricultural land residential purpose, are set aside and directed the D.C., to re-consider the matter afresh. The Ex.P.19 is a certified copy of the order dated 03.07.2004, wherein, the Spl. D.C., Bengaluru converted the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village into non-agricultural residential purpose, on the application submitted by the claimants 6 and 7. The Ex.P.20 is a certified copy of challan, wherein, the claimants 6 and 7 have paid Rs.1,52,515/- towards conversion charges of the aforesaid land. These documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW.2, corroborates the fact that initially the D.C., Bengaluru had declined to convert the land in 31 L.A.C. No.55/1996 question for non-agricultural residential purpose on the ground that the name of BDA is recorded in the kabjedar's coliumn of RTC and the same was upheld by the KAT. The learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 submits that despite the order in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, the BDA authorities were causing interference in possession of the land in question, as such, the claimants 6 and 7 had filed O.S.No. 10158/2005 for permanent injunction and the same is decreed in the City civil Court. The claimants 6 and 7 have produced the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011, in O.S.No. 10158/2005, passed by the 40th Addl. City Civil Judge court, Bengaluru wherein the defendant therein i.e., commissioner, BDA, Bengaluru and any persons on their behalf are suffered permanent injunction, causing any sort of interference, in the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, subject to the plaintiffs surrendering of 12% of the built up area to the BDA, on free of cost, as undertaken, in the joint memo filed in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996. The learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 has produced and drawn attention of the court to the order dated 28.02.2012 passed 32 L.A.C. No.55/1996 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the said W.P. No.39204/2010, which discloses that the claimants 6 and 7 had filed the said W.P. against the BDA praying to quash the resolution dated 20.02.2010, on subject No.89/2010 passed by the respondent therein. The perusal of the order in W.P., No.39204/2010 discloses that the respondents herein contended before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that in view of the order in W.P. No.10165/2008, the order passed in the W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 on the joint memo filed therein, is not sustainable, hence, through a resolution dated 20.02.2010, on subject No.89/2010, taken different view than the joint memo dated 06.10.1989 filed in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, much less, as contended in the objections filed to the objections filed by the claimants 6 and 7, in this reference, but the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referring to the order passed in W.P. No.10165/2008 and also the joint memo dated 06.09.199 filed in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 held that the said resolution is not sustainable, consequently, quashed, the resolution dated 20.02.2010 passed by the respondent, BDA on subject No.89/2010. This fact evidences that there is no substance in the 33 L.A.C. No.55/1996 contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that in view of the order in W.P. No.10165/2008 passed by the respondent, BDA, the agreement entered into between claimants 6 and 7 and respondents in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996 will not hold good. Therefore, it is evident that, the claimants 6 and 7 and respondents for having entered into an agreement through their joint memo dated 06.09.1999 filed in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, the claimants 6 and 7 were permitted to form a layout in the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas of Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, on behalf of claimants 6 and 7, to surrender 12% of the built up area in-favour of the respondent, BDA, free of cost and the respondent also agreed to withdraw the objections filed in the said writ petitions. These evidence and the materials on record lead to the unmistakable fact that the respondents have withdrawn the acquisition of the land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, much less, as published in the Karnataka State Gazette notification and the claimants 6 and 7 are permitted to form a layout and develop the said land, subject to the conditions mentioned in the joint memo discussed above. As already discussed above, this court through an order dated 28.09.2012 in 34 L.A.C. No.55/1996 L.A.C. No.55/1996, had rejected the application submitted by the claimants 6 and 7 filed u/s. 151 of C.P.C., praying to reject the reference u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, against which, the claimants 6 and 7 had filed the W.P. No.8135/2013 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through an order dated 11.09.2015 passed therein, dismissed the said petition, but despite dismissing, liberty was reserved for the claimants 6 and 7, to place reliance upon 2 decisions, which they had referred before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said W.P., with regard to the prayer of the claimants 6 and 7, to return the reference. Sri. VSR the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 referring to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid W.P. No.8135/2013 submits that in view of the joint memo filed by the claimants 6 and 7 and the respondents in W.P. Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, the instant reference made by the respondents is not valid and not sustainable. Sri. VRS the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 next to submit that this court being reference court is empowered to go behind the reference and see whether reference is competent or not and if reference is not sustainable under law, then, this court shall have to reject 35 L.A.C. No.55/1996 and return the instant reference made u/ss.30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act. The learned counsel in support of the argument, has placed the reliance on the rulings reported in (1) AIR 1959 Mysore 265 (V 46 C 100) in the case of Boregowda and another Vs. Subbaramaiah and others. The relevant portion runs as under:
"(b) Land Acquisition Act (1894) S.30- court can go behind reference-AIR 1932 All 597, not followed.
The court to which a reference is made can go behind the reference and see whether it is competent. AIR 1926 All 766 and 13 Ind Cas 127 (Cal) and AIR 1914 Lah 394 and 11 Ind CAs 690 (nag) and ILR 30 Bom 275, Rel, on;AIR 1932 All 597 Not followed)
(f) Land Acquisition Act (1894) Ss.30 and 31 (2), third proviso-Matters relating to title in acquired land not agitated in Land Acquisition Court-Rights of interested persons are not barred by res judicata-
Last proviso to S.31(2) saves such rights- (Civil P.C. (1908) S.11) It cannot be urged that all matters relating to title in the acquired land have to be agitated in the Land Acquisition Court as otherwise the rights of interested persons would be barred by res judicata for, while the Act provides for all steps being taken by the Deputy Commissioner to apprise persons interested of the acquisition proceedings, there is nothing in the Act to bind persons who have not participated in the proceedings either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the court. On the other hand, the last proviso to S. 31(2) saves such rights though in the very nature of things they can only be asserted, against the person or 36 L.A.C. No.55/1996 persons who have received the compensation amount"
(2) AIR 1962 Jammu and Kashmir 59 (V 49 C 20) in the case of Swami Sukhanand Vs. Samaj Sudhar Samiti and another. The relevant portion runs as under:
"(a) Land Acquisition Act (1894) Ss, 18, 30-
powers of court-Land Acquisition court, can go behind the reference.
A land acquisition court, is entitled to go behind a reference made to it by a collector and determine whether the reference fell within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the statutory provision under which the reference was purported to be made. If the court comes to the conclusion that the reference is ultra vires, the court will have no jurisdiction to proceed further with the reference and is bound to reject it in limine. Case law discussed. AIR 1929 All 769 and AIR 1932 All 597 and AIR 1943 Mad 327 and AIR 1958 Punj 490, Dissented from"
These are the two decisions, which were relied upon by the counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 8135/2013.
.13. The PW.2 during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and 2(a) to 2(c) deposed that he does not know the names of deceased claimants 1 and 2 were mentioned in the notification. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.P.15 is not pertaining to the acquired land. During cross-examination, when 37 L.A.C. No.55/1996 suggestion was moved to the PW.2 as to whether he has submitted any application since 1991 to drop the acquisition proceedings, for which, he deposed that he was not knowing about the acquisition. The PW.2 denied the suggestion that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and 2(a) to 2(c) have not executed any sale deed with-regard to the land in Sy. No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. He denied the suggestion that on the basis of false document, he did file the false WPs before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and falsely claimed that he is an owner of the land in question.
.14. The appreciation of totality of evidence and particularly the Exs.P.27 and 28 and Exs.P.20 to 25 and other documentary evidence on record prove that the claimants 6 and 7 have purchased 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli village, through a sale deed marked at Ex.P.27 and subsequently under Ex.P.28, they have purchased 2 acres land in Sy.No.26/1, consequently, the claimants 6 and 7 become the owners of the land to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Alahalli vilalge. As discussed above, the evidence on record proves that the names of claimants 6 and 7 were recorded in the revenue records, as per the sale deeds marked at Exs.P.27 and 28. Per contra, the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and 2(a) to 38 L.A.C. No.55/1996 2(c), through the oral evidence of their SPA holder PW.1 and documentary evidence marked at Exs.P.1 to 13, were successful in getting judgment and award dated 30.11.2004 passed by this court, to the extent of 2 acres of acquired land, out of acquired land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas. It is pertinent to note that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and 2(a) to 2(c) have not at all produced the original sale deed of Ex.P.5, but they have produced only the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.05.1972 marked at Ex.P.5. The PW.1 during cross-examination deposed that he does not know about the original of Ex.P.5 sale deed. The Ex.P.28 the original registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992 evidences that deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their mother including the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and 2(a) to 2(c) have executed the registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992, where-under, they have sold 2 acres land in Sy. No.26/1 of Alahalli village in-favour of claimants 6 and 7, which the deceased claimants 1 and 2 and their mother together had purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1972. Therefore, it is evident that what is produced by the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) is certified copy of sale deed dated 22.05.1972 marked at Ex.P.5. and they had sold the said 39 L.A.C. No.55/1996 land covered under Ex.P.5, in-favour of claimants 6 and 7 under Ex.P.28. Therefore, it is evident that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) were not at all having any manner of right to the extent, over any piece of land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village. The appreciation of evidence and materials on record, evidences that there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7 that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) suppressed the true facts before the court, obtained the judgment and award on 30.11.2004 before this court and withdrawn the compensation to the extent of 2 acres, out of acquired land, by virtue of judgment and award which they are not entitle to.
.15. The Ex.P.29 is a pass certificate issued by the council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi, in the name of claimant No.6/PW.2 Venkatakarama Reddy S. The Ex.P.30 is a transfer certificate and Ex.P.31 is a migration certificate issued by H.M., Rishi Valley School, on 28.04.1978 and 18.04.1978, respectively, in the name of Venkatarama Reddy S., who is claimant No.6 herein. These documents at Exs.P.29 to 31 40 L.A.C. No.55/1996 and oral evidence of PW.2 corroborates the objections filed by the claimants 6 and 7, to the reference, to the effect that the name of claimant No.6 is Venkatarama Reddy s/o Srinivasa Reddy and he is not being called by the name as Venkatarama Shetty s/o Srinivasa Shetty, much less, his name as stated in the Gazette notification dated 27.07.1992. The claimant No.6 also stated that he is also being called by name Venkataramana Reddy and in some records his name is mentioned as Venkatarama Reddy, and both names referred to one and the same person i.e., Venkatarama Reddy. Though the PW.2 is cross-examined in length, but nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve or discard his evidence that his name is Venkatarama Reddy and also being called as Venkataramana Reddy, his name was wrongly spelt in the notification as Venkatarama Shetty s/o Srinivasa Shetty, under the circumstances, possibility of claimants 6 and 7 not filing objections before the LAO and in the reference, cannot be over-ruled. This fact also discussed in Misc. No.832/2005.
.16. At the cost of repetition it be stated that the respondents having filed the joint memo dated 06.09.1999 with the claimants 6 and 7 in the aforesaid W.P. 41 L.A.C. No.55/1996 Nos.32760/1996 and 32761/1996, have categorically admitted that the claimants 6 and 7 are permitted to form the layout, subject to condition that they have to surrender 12% built up area, formed in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in favour of BDA, on free of cost, as discussed above and the respondents have withdrawn the objections filed in the said WPs, under the circumstances, viewed from any angle it is evident that in view of subsequent developments after issuing the Karnataka State notification dated 27.07.1992 and particularly the orders passed in the aforesaid WPs, the respondents have agreed that the claimants 6 and 7 are the owners of the land in question measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No. 26/1 of Alahalli village and they are permitted to form a layout, converting the said land into non-agricultural residential purpose, as such, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the said land being acquired by the respondents as per the provisions contemplated under L.A. Act and KIAD Act. The evidence on record proves that the claimants 1(a) to 1(c) and claimants 2(a) to 2(c) are not entitle for the compensation of the land, in question, mentioned in this reference. Therefore, in view of the ratio and principles laid down by 42 L.A.C. No.55/1996 their Lordships on the rulings cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants 6 and 7, the reference made by the respondents i.e., Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act 1894 is liable to be rejected and to be returned to the SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru with a liberty to the respondents to withdraw the remaining deposited compensation amount of Rs.2,21,103/-, which is in Fixed deposit in the bank. Hence, I hold point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative, for consideration.
.17. POINT NO.3: In view of my finding on the aforesaid points 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru, under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is hereby rejected and returned to the said SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru.
The learned SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru is at liberty to withdraw the balance compensation amount of Rs.2,21,103/- which is in F.D. in Union Bank of India, J.P. Nagara branch, Bengaluru, with accrued interest thereon.43 L.A.C. No.55/1996
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari) II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : Mohammed Asif
P.W. 2 : S. Venkatarama Reddy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Special power of attorney (2
in numbers)
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Notice issued by BDA (2 in
numbers)
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P.6 : RTC Extract
Ex.P.7 : Kandayam patta
Ex.P.8 : Family genealogical tree
Ex.P.9 : Death certificate of Sheik
Khasim
Ex.P.10 & 11: Voters list of the year 2002 Ex.P.12 : Death certificate of Sheik Basheer Ex.P.13 : Endorsement given by Bengaluru South Taluka 44 L.A.C. No.55/1996 Ex.P.14 : Joint memo in Writ application No.3276061/1996 Ex.P.15 : Registered sale deed dated 02.04.1986 Ex.P.16 : Registered sale deed dated 23.01.1992 Ex.P.17 : Letter copy dated 23.01.1992 by BDA Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of the order in Writ petition No.37032/2002 Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of the order dated 03.07.2004 Ex.P.20 : Challan copy Ex.P.21-25: RTC extracts (5 in numbers) Ex.P.26 : Order copy of Civil Misc.
petition No.832/2005 Ex.P.27 & 28: Registered sale deeds Ex.P.29 : Pass certificate Ex.P.30 : Transfer certificate Ex.P.31 : Migration certificate
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM
FEERASAB BIDARI
DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB
FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH
COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF
BIDARI KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2018.05.03 11:43:29 IST
45 L.A.C. No.55/1996
.
(Judgment pronounced in open court)
Vide separate order
ORDER
The reference made by the learned Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru, under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is partly allowed.46 L.A.C. No.55/1996
The LRs of deceased Claimant No.1 Smt. Lakkamma i.e., claimants 1(a) to 1(n) together are entitle to receive the deposited compensation amount of Rs.14,71,700/- awarded to the acquired land bearing Sy.No.213/1A1 land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, which includes 6 guntas kharab land of Kengeri village, Bengaluru South Taluka, with accrued interest thereon.
The LRs of deceased Claimant No.1 Lakkamma i.e., claimants 1(a) to 1(n) shall have to execute indemnity bonds with one surety, undertaking to re-deposit the compensation amount, either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which they are going to receive in this reference.
The reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act 1894 to the extent of claimants 2, 3 and 5 is rejected and to the extent of deceased claimant No.4 ordered as abated.
Draw award accordingly.
II Additional C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore