Bangalore District Court
) Javeed Ahmed vs ) The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1 April, 2022
1
L.A.C. No.53/2014
KABC010030502014
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 1 st day of April, 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M, M.Com.,LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.53/2014:
CLAIMANTS:
1) Javeed Ahmed
S/o Ahmed Khan
No.116, 2nd cross, 3rd Main
Min Huj nagara
J.P. Nagara post
Bengaluru -78.
2) The Chief Controlling Officer
Karnakata Wakhf Board
Cunningham road
Bengaluru -52
3) Darga Hazrath South Sha
No.6, 2nd floor
Hazrath Amisha complex
Cubbonpet main road
Bengaluru -2.
(By Sri.SMR, Advocate for C-1)
(By Sri.SPA, Advocate for C-2)
(By Sri.SI, Advocate for C-3)
2
L.A.C. No.117/2006
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB (Metro Rail Project)
Nrupathunga road
Bengaluru.
2) Chief Commissioner (L & E)
BMRCL
Shanthinagara
Bengaluru
(By Sri. RL, Advocate for R-1)
(By Sri. ZA, Advocate for R-2)
: JUDGMENT :
The respondent No.1/SLAO, KIADB (Metro Rail project), Bengaluru has sent this reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'L.A. Act' for short) for apportionment of compensation amount.
.2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No. 98/1 measuring 47.23 sq. meters, situated at Chikpet ward has been acquired for the purpose of Metro Rail Project. 28(1) was issued on 3 L.A.C. No.53/2014 04.02.2012 and 28(4) was issued o 14.08.2012. The award has been fixed at Rs.41,08,658/- after deducting income tax of Rs.10,27,164/-. As there was dispute with regard to the title of the owners, matter has been referred to this Court and a sum of Rs.41,08,658/- has been deposited in this Court. The said amount has been kept in F.D. in the State Bank of India, CBAB Complex, Bengaluru.
.3. After receipt of reference, this court issued notice to both parties. In pursuance of notice, claimants and respondents appeared through their counsels.
.4. The claimant No.1 Javeed Ahmed has filed claim statement stating that the property bearing Municipal No.110, owned by one Gulam Dastagir Saheb @ Sagebhjan and it is a composite property. Out of the said property the Gulam Dastagir Saheb had sold the said property to one Mohindeen Soudagar @ Sahebji under the registered sale deed. Thereafter, the said Mohammed Mohindeen sold the same to Smt. Rahmath Bi under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1932. 4
L.A.C. No.117/2006 The said Rahmath Bi is the grand mother claimant No.1 Javeen Ahmed and she has gifted the above said property in the name of Mohboob Bi. In turn, the said Mohboob Bi has executed the registered partition deed among her three children. It is stated that 'A' schedule property was allotted to his elder brother, 'B' schedule middle portion of the property was allotted in his favour and 'C' schedule property was allotted to his sister. Thus, the claimant has been allotted middle portion in the property bearing Sy.No. 98 measuring East to West 43 feet and North to South 12 feet. Since the date of partition he is the absolute owner, in possession and enjoyment of the above said property and khatha has been changed in his name.
.5. It is stated that either Wakhf Board or Darga Hajrath South Sha is not having any right, title and interest in-respect of said property. Claimants 2 and 3 are illegally and unlawfully claiming right over the property to obtain the compensation in-respect of the said property. The claimants are relying upon a 5 L.A.C. No.53/2014 notification pertaining to the year 1965 and the said notification does not disclose any title or ownership nor there is any description in the property owned by claimants 2 and 3. It is stated that the property is situated in the heart of Cosmopolitan city and has got very good market potentiality and value of the property is worth about a crore. It is stated that he is entitled for solatium at 100% on the award and double the market value of the property as per New Act. Hence, prayed to reject the claim of claimants 2 and 3 and to award compensation to him.
.6. The claimant No.2 has filed claim statement stating that it is a statutory body for the safeguard, administration and supervision of the Wakhf created in the State of Karnataka. It is stated that the property bearing No.98/1 to an extent of 47.23sq. Meters situated within the jurisdiction of BBMP, Chikpet ward is a portion of the larger property which is notified as Wakhf property by the then erstwhile Mysore state Board of Wakhf in the Gazette notification No.MBW 6 L.A.C. No.117/2006 19(1) 64 dated 07.06.1965. The said Wakhf are listed at serial Nos.281, 284 and 197 of the said Gazette notification. It is stated that such an entry in the said gazette remains unchallenged in terms of Section 6 of the Wakhf Act, 1995 and hence, the said gazette is binding on one and all including the claimant No.1. The claimant No.2 adopts claim statement of claimant No.3 and has stated that he is solely entitled to the compensation under the provisions of the Wakhf Act. It is stated that the Board in its superintendent Authority has to see that the compensation amount received, are utilized for the purpose of mansha-e-waklf or for the purpose of which the Wakhf was created. It is stated that the claim of claimant No.1 is false and vexatious and is only a fertile attempt to knock off precious property and the compensation therefrom. It is stated that the maxim 'Once a Wakhf Always a Wakhf holds relevance and no registered document or other documents can negate the effect of a gazette notification. It is stated that the compensation fixed for 7 L.A.C. No.53/2014 the said property is very meager. It is stated that the claimant No.2 is a statutory body i.e., appointed to uphold the purpose of the Wakhf and to safeguard its properties. Hence, prayed to award compensation.
.7. The claimant No.3 has filed claim statement stating that it is religious pious and charitable Wakhf institution and the Karnataka State Board of Wakhf is the statutory body. It is stated that with an intention to usurp the Wakhf property for his illegal and unlawful gains is claiming the award as if that the subject land involved in this petition as his property. It is stated that pursuant to the enactment of Wakhf Act 1954, the Mysore State Board of Wakhf was constituted and a notification dated 14.02.1962 was issued under Section 4 Sub Clause 1 of the aforesaid Act appointing the Head quarters Assistant to the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru for the purpose of preliminary survey of Wakhf properties and other allied action. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary survey of Wakhf properties and allied action 8 L.A.C. No.117/2006 this claimant was notified as Wakhf Institution vide official Gazette bearing No.MBW 19(1) 1964, dated 07.06.1965 and further that the properties belonging to this claimant has been listed in the Wakhf at Sl. Nos.281, 283, 284 and 297 of the aforesaid notification. It is stated that the aforesaid Gazette notification dated 07.06.1965 was issued by the State Government under Section 5(2) of the Wakhf Act 1954 including the land in question is in the list of Wakhf as aforesaid and issuance of notification has significant legal consequence and in terms of Section 6 of the Wakhf Act 1995.
.8. It is stated that in the year 1975 itself the City Survey Department has conducted the survey of the properties belonging to this claimant and has issued CTS Nos.3511, 3512, 3513, 3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, and has allotted Chalta Nos.142, 143, 144, 145, 148 and 149. It is stated that the claimant has initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakhf Act 1995 before the Addl. Chief Executive Officer and Competent 9 L.A.C. No.53/2014 Officer for removal of encroachment in ENQ No.52/BNU/2009 against one Mr. Fayaz and ENQ No.53/BNU/2009 against Mr. Naushad and Irshad and the aforesaid Enquiry officer has passed eviction orders dated 31.03.2010 and the claimant No.1 hopelessly and falsely claiming that these two portion belongs to him. The aforesaid order till date have become final. It is stated that Mr. Javeed Ahmed the claimant No.1 with a malafide intention to knock off the valuable property of the Wakhf institution has filed a suit for declaration and other reliefs in O.S.No. 5962/2010 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-9) and the same is pending adjudication. It is stated that claimant No.1 hopelessly claiming a portion of property belonging to this claimant which is a portion of CTS Nos.3516 and 3517. It is stated that the aforesaid records such as CTS, certificate issued in Form No.9 and PT sheet are maintained by the Survey Settlement and Land Records Department in-respect of the subject properties for proposed acquisition and the documents produced are 10 L.A.C. No.117/2006 abundantly discloses that it is a Wakhf property. It is stated that the subject property for the purpose of acquisition are within the compound wall of Hazrath Ibrahim Sha Khadri @ Hazrath Southe Sha Dargah, which discloses that it is a Wakhf property belonging to this Wakhf institution and the claims of the claimants are false claim. It is stated that the lands in question are situated in heart of the city and amount fixed and deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB is very meager. Hence, prayed to award compensation in their favour.
.9. The respondents have not filed objections to the claim statements filed by the above claimants.
.10. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.1 Javeed Ahmed is examined as PW.1. The authorized representative of claimant No.2 is examined as PW.2. The president of the claimant No.3 is examined as PW.3. Documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to 57. The respondents have not adduced oral evidence. 11
L.A.C. No.53/2014 .11. Heard the arguments.
.12. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1) Claimants prove that they are owners of the acquired land bearing Sy.No. 98/1 measuring 47.23 sq. meters, Chikpet ward, Bengaluru ?
2) What order or award?
.13. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .14. POINT No.1: Claimant No.1 Javeed Ahmed is examined as PW.1. He has stated that he is the absolute owner and beneficiary owner in-respect of old property No.123, New No.98/1 situated at Police road cross, Bengaluru ward No.30 SKR Market. The property has been given ID number bearing PID 30-28-98/1. Ex.P.33 to 37are the property tax registers for the year from 2008 to 2012. In these documents, the owner name is mentioned as Javeed 12 L.A.C. No.117/2006 Ahmed (claimant No.1). He has stated that he has been paying taxes in-respect of the aforesaid property since 1974 till now. Initially he used to pay a sum of Rs.190/- as tax per year. Subsequently, the BBMP has enhanced the taxes to Rs.5,858/-. He has stated that he is producing the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property bearing No.98/1 from the year 1973 and the property is measuring East to West measuring 43 feet and North to South measuring 12 feet middle portion. Ex.P.4 and 7 are the Encumbrance certificates in-respect of Corporation old No.98, new No.98/1 middle portion premises No. 98/1, police Road Cross, Bengaluru, measuring 43 X 12 sq. feet for the period from 19.11.1973 to 2nd November 2012, which discloses nil Encumbrance for the said period. He has stated that he is producing the khatha extract issued by the BBMP and the khatha certificate in-respect of the schedule property showing that the name of khathedar and owner is Javeed Ahmed and the measurement of the property is 43 X 12 feet. Ex.P.8 dated 02.02.2006 and Ex.P.9 dated 01.11.2012, are the khatha extracts. The name of owner is mentioned as 13 L.A.C. No.53/2014 Javeed Ahmed. Ex.P.10 is the khatha certificate dated 03.11.2012, which discloses that khatha has been registered in the name of claimant claimant No.1 Javeed Ahmed and the property has been given No.PID 30-28-98/1. Ex.P.11 to 32 are the tax paid receipts from 1976 to 2002 in-respect of property No.98/1. Ex.P.33 to 37 are the property tax receipt in-respect of PID No-30-28-98/1 for the period from 2009 to 2013. The owner of the property mentioned as Javeen Ahmed.
.15. PW.1 has stated that originally one Gulam Dasthagir Saheeb @ Saheeb Jan was the owner of the composite immovable property bearing the then Municipal No.119 situated beside Darga Hazrath Sosuthe Sha, Bengaluru city. The said property has sold in-favour of one Mohammed Mohiddin Soudhaghar @ Sahebji under the registered sale deed dated 28.07.1898. The said Mohammed Mohiddin Soudhaghar has sold the same to Smt. Rahamath Bi W/o Yousuff Khan Saa under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1932. Ex.P.1 is the registered sale deed. From the document, it is seen that the property sold to Rahamat Bi and property bearing No.110/4 is portion of property in 14 L.A.C. No.117/2006 composite No.110 situated nearSouthesha Makan, Siddikatte police road, Bengaluru bounded on the East by road leading to Southesha Makan, West by conservancy, North by Southesha Makan's Mussafar Khane, South by Ahmeb Sab House No.103, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 35 feet, together with eastern portion boundary lane of Makkan and northern side, western portion measuring East to West 7 feet and North to South 23 feet, lavatory portion vacant site together with 8 ankanas tiled roofed house, which is self acquired property of vendor and he purchased the same from Mohammed Mohiddin Soudhagar @ Saheb Ji on 24.11.1932.
.16. PW.1 has stated that the said Smt. Rahamath Bi W/o Yousuff Khan has executed the gift deed on 25.03.1957 in-favour of her daughter Mahaboob Bi, the composite property including the schedule property. Ex.P.2 is the gift deed. From the document, it is seen that the property bearing No.110/4 the portion of the property in composite No. 110, situated near Southesha Makan, Siddikatte police road Bengaluru city. The donor after selling she has gifted 15 L.A.C. No.53/2014 remaining extent of 43 X 42 feet retained by her in-favour of her daughter Smt. Rahamath Bi.
.17. PW.1 has stated that his mother Mohaboob Bi on 06.11.1973 had executed a registered partition deed by bifurcating the said property in three portions each measuring 43 X 12 feet, the first portion was allotted in- favour of elder brother of the claimant Rafiq Ahmed and the middle portion was allotted to the claimant No.1 and the third portion was allotted to the sister of the claimant. Ex.P.4 is the partition deed. From the document, it is seen that the claimant No.1 has been allotted 'B' schedule property measuring 43 X 12 feet, roofed with Asbestos sheets bounded on East by lane, West by conservancy, North by portion allotted to Rafiq Ahmed - Schedule A property and South by portion allotted to Fatheh Ahmed Khan @ Ameerjan and Smt. Halimabi. He has stated that exercising his acts of ownership on the schedule property and enjoying the same with unfettered right, title and interest over the property in question. Besides, he is tracing his title to the suit schedule property for the past 150 years nearly for one and half 16 L.A.C. No.117/2006 centuries and he is in possession of all the original documents. He has stated that the claimants 2 and 3 have no any manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and the claimant No.2 Wakf Board is claiming the right to the said property only on the basis of an entry in the Gazette notification in the year 1965 and in the Gazette notification no property is described and there is no schedule to the property claimed by the Wakhf Board and also the identity of the property is not disclosed and only on the basis of the entry in the Gazette notification the Wakf Board is claiming rights. He has stated that in survey records the name of Fateh Ahmed Khah Uruf Ameer Jhan who is father of claimant No.1 has been mentioned. He has stated that the claimant No.3 is also not having right, title and interest over the said property in question and they are not producing any substantial material to establish their title before the Court. Hence, prayed to award compensation.
.18. During cross-examination PW.1 cannot say the exact measurement of the property purchased under Ex.P.1 by his grand mother late. Rahamath Bi. It is elicited that 17 L.A.C. No.53/2014 small lanes are existing towards East and West of the property mentioned in Ex.P.1. Police road is existing towards North and Darga is existing toward south of the property mentioned in Ex.P.1. He admits that the property purchased under Ex.P.1 is measuring North by 25 feet and South by 23 feet and the property size towards East to West is mentioned as 7 feet. He has denied that the property given under Ex.P.2 is more than the extent of the property mentioned in Ex.P.1. From Ex.P.1, it is seen that apart from 35 X 35 feet property other property also included.
.19. PW.1 admits that Nawshad Ahmed was a tenant under him and he pleads ignorance that the case in enquiry No.52 and 53/BNU/2009 were registered and enquiry was held against Nawshad and Fizulla before the Karnataka State Wakf Board.He has admitted that certified copy of the plaint shown to him in O.S.No. 5969/2010. He has filed the suit against the defendants and certified copy of the said plaint is marked as Ex.D.1. From the said document, it is seen that the claimant No.1 had filed the said suit seeking for permanent injunction and to issue khatha certificate, 18 L.A.C. No.117/2006 Mandatory Injunction to direct the Survey Office to fix the boundary of the suit schedule property and identify the property, Mandatory Injunction against the defendant No.4 not to coeirce and force the plaintiff to grant lease of suit schedule property in their favour, Mandatory Injunction against D-1 and D-2 from executing illegal orders of eviction against plaintiffs tenants and to declare that Gazette notification dated 07.06.1965 is not binding on him.
.20. PW.1 admits that he has not produced documents to show that property bearing No.98/1, 103, 110 (110/4) are one and the same property. Though claimant No.2 has cross- examined PW.1, nothing substantial has been elicited. From the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that claimant is owner of property No.98/2 measuring 43 X 12 feet.
.21. The authorized representative of the claimant No.2 is examined as PW.2. She has stated that the claimant No.2 is a statutory body for the safeguard, administration and supervision of the Wakf created in the State of Karnataka; that the property bearing No.98/2 to an extent of 33.86 sq. meters situated in the jurisdiction of BBMP Chikpet ward is a 19 L.A.C. No.53/2014 portion of the larger property which is notified as a Wakf property by the then erstwhile Mysore State Board Wakf in the Gazette notification bearing No. MBW 19(1) 64 dated 07.06.1965. The said Wakf are listed at Sl. No.281, 284 and 297 of the said Gazette notification. He has stated that an entry in the said gazette remains unchallenged in terms of Section 6 of the Wakf Act 1995, so the said Gazette is binding on him. In support of his contention, he has relied upon certified copy of Gazette notification as per Ex.P.38. From the document, it is seen that Sl. No.281 pertains to Ashur Khana in the premises of Dargah Hazrath Stone building measuring 21 X 10 feet, sl. No.284 pertains to Hazrath Syed Ibrahim Shah Khadri @ Suteshah Makan Sunni, police road measuring 255 + 273/2 X 141 + 10/2, sl. No.297 pertains to grave yard situated in the premises of Dargasth.
.22. PW.2 has stated that the claimant No.2 is solely entitled to the compensation under the provisions of the Wakf Act 1995. She has stated that it is settled law that "once a Wakf is always a Wakf' as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC, page 972.
20
L.A.C. No.117/2006 .23. During cross-examination she has stated that in the Gazette notification extent of land has been mentioned and that the land stands in the name of respondent No.2. She admits that she has not produced the khatha certificate in-respect of the said property. She denied the case of the claimant No.1.
.24. The reference in the present case is property No.98/1, measuring 47.23 sq. mt. The claimant No.2 claiming to be owner of property No.98/2 measuring 33.86 from the general award at page No.3, it is seen that property No.98/1 and 98/2 are two different properties ad the property claimed by claimant No.2 is not subject matter of this reference. So, claimant No. 2 is not entitled for compensation in this case.
.25. The President of Hazrath Southe Sha Dargah Mohammed Obaidulla Shariff is examined as PW.3. He has stated that claimant No.3 is religious pious and charitable Wakf institution and Karnataka State Board of Wakf is the statutory body. PW.3 has stated that the claimant No.1 with an intention to usurp the Wakf property for his illegal and 21 L.A.C. No.53/2014 unlawful gains is claiming the award as if that the subject land involved in this petition as his property. He has stated that pursuant to the enactment of Wakf Act, the Mysore State Board of Wakf was constituted and notification dated 14.02.1962 was issued under Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act appointing the Head quarters Assistant to the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru as the additional Commissioner of Wakf for the Districts of Bengaluru, Bellary etc., for the purpose of preliminary survey of Wakf properties and other allied action. He has stated that pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary survey of Wakf properties and allied action the claimant No.3 was notified as Wakf Institution vide Official Gazette bearing NO.MBW 19(1) 1964, dated 07.06.1965 and further that the properties belonging to claimant No.3 has been listed in the list of Wakf at Sl. Nos.281, 283, 284 and 297 of the aforesaid notification. He has stated that the aforesaid notification dated 07.06.1965 was issued by the State Government under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act including the land in question is in the list of Wakf as aforesaid and issuance of notification 22 L.A.C. No.117/2006 has significant legal consequence and in terms of Section 6 of the Wakf Act and in the instance case the other claimants have not challenged the notification. Hence, it is binding on other claimants.
.26. PW.3 has stated that in the year 1975 itself the City Survey Department has conducted the survey of the properties belonging to the claimant No.3 and has issued CTS Nos.3511, 3512, 3513, 3514, 3515, 3516, 3517 and has allotted Chalata Nos.142, 143, 144, 145, 148 and 149. He has stated that the claimant No.3 had initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakf Act before the Addl. Chief Executive Officer and Competent Officer for removal of encroachment in ENQ No.52/BNU/2009 against one Fayaz and ENQ No.53/BNU/2009 against Naushad and Irshad and the aforesaid Enquiry Officer has passed eviction orders dated 31.03.2010 and the claimant No.1 hopelessly and falsely claiming that these two portion belongs to him. He has stated that orders of eviction has become final and has not challenged. During cross-examination PW.1 pleads ignorance of the eviction order. The claimant No.3 failed prove eviction 23 L.A.C. No.53/2014 order to substantiate their contention that property belonged to claimant No.3. The claimant No.1 with a malafide intention to knock off the valuable property of the Wakf institution has filed a suit for declaration and other reliefs in O.S.No. 5962/2010 and the same was pending. Ex.D.1 is the plaint copy in the said suit. The claimant No.2 had filed detailed written statement and has taken various contention including that the property in question belongs to the Wakf institution and the Court has no jurisdiction and only the Wakf Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to try to dispose the case. In the written arguments, it is stated that the suit is dismissed in the year 2020 and claimant No.2 had not filed any appeal. The order copy has not been produced.
.27. PW.3 has stated that claimant No.1 is hopelessly claiming a portion of property belonging to the claimant No.3 which is a portion of CTS Nos.3516 and 3517. They produced certified copies of survey settlement records in- respect of CTS Nos.3516 in Form No.9 and PT sheet as per Ex.P.52. As per award CTC 3516 is not subject matter of reference. The survey settlement record as per Ex.P.53. The 24 L.A.C. No.117/2006 city survey number is mentioned as 3517 and the total extent is 161.9 sq. mt. The name of the holder is mentioned as the Chairman, Karnataka Board of Wakf, Bengaluru. The name of holder is mentioned as Ammerjohn. As per col. No.13, it has been decided that the Chairman, Karnataka Borad Board of Wakf is the holder as per Gazette notification No.MBW(19) (1) dated 07.06.1965 R/w G.O. dated 06.04.1973.
.28. PW.3 has stated that as per CTS certificate issued in Form No.9 and PT sheet, discloses that property belongs to the Wakf property. He has stated that the said property for the purpose of acquisition are within the compound wall of Hazrath Ibrahim Sha Khadri @ Hazrath Southe Sha Dargah, which itself discloses that it is Wakf property belonging to this Wakf institution. He has stated that claimant No.1 by fabricating certain documents has filed the claim petition.
.29. To corroborate their contention, the claimants have relied upon the khatha extract as per Ex.P.39, khatha certificate as per Ex.P.40, wherein, name of Hazrath Manick Shah Dargah Sunni is mentioned. Old property No. 213, New No.436, property No.30-1-436. Ex.P.41 to 48 are the tax paid 25 L.A.C. No.53/2014 receipts, which are standing in the name of Hazrath Manick Shah Dargah Sunni for the year from 2011 to 2020. In all these documents, the owner name is mentioned as Hazrath Manick Shah Dargah Sunni by its president. Ex.P.49 is the letter dated 26.10.2016 issued by the President of claimant No.3 to BBMP requesting them to issue tax challan with regard to Hazrath Manick Shah. Ex.P.50 is the Gazette notification dated 07.06.1965 and relevant portion is marked at Sl. No.297, which is marked as per Ex.P.50(a). Sl. No.297 refers to Grave yard situated in the premises of Dargah Hazrath Suteshah, Sunni police road with 72 + 56/2, 160 + 177/2 regard to burial. It is mentioned as Burial. Ex.P.51 is the copy of the President of the Karnataka State Waqf Board. Ex.P.55 is the khatha certificates dated 06.07.2019 stands in the name of claimant No.3. Ex.P.56 is the khatha extract dated 06.07.2019 in-respect of new Municipal No.238, property ID No.30-28-238. Ex.P.57 are the tax paid receipts for the period from 2012 to 2020.
.30. When it is suggested that khatha has been made subsequent to acquisition. PW.3 has stated that application 26 L.A.C. No.117/2006 was given earlier and subsequently khatha has been made in the name of Wakf Board. He admits that tax has been paid subsequent to 2012. Preliminary notification has been issued on 14.08.2012. Probably to create documents khatha and tax has been paid subsequent to notification.
.31. During cross-examination PW.3 has stated that name of claimant No.1 has not been mentioned in CTS property. He admits that in Writ petition No.21376-77/2010 as per Gazette notification was published.
.32. PW.3 during cross-examination admits that they have filed W.P. No. 21376-77/2010 claiming to be the owners of the property in pursuance to the Gazette notification. He admits that the Hon'ble High Court has held that the property which have been notified under Gazette notification in the year 1967 are not property of Wakf property. PW.3 has stated that with regard to the said decision, they have filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, he says that he does not know the SLP number. He admits that Writ Appeal No.379/2012 filed against the said Writ Petition has been dismissed.
27
L.A.C. No.53/2014 .33. The claimant No.1 has produced the judgment in W.P. No.21376-77/2010. In the said decision, the present claimant No.3 had filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, 'the act') does not apply to the wakf lands and that the notification bearing No. RD 15 MIN 57 dated 04.01.1960 produced at Annexure - G issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub Section (4) of Section 1 of the Act appointing 01.02.1960 as the date on which the provisions of he Act, other than those which had already come into force, shall come into force in-respect of the Inam villages specified in the schedule thereunder, as null and void. The petitioners have sought for a declaration that all actions taken by the respondents under the provisions of the Act, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1976 in-respect of Bellahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluka by way of grant of occupancy rights or by way of regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation, as without juriscition and null and void. The present case is not 28 L.A.C. No.117/2006 pertaining to Bellahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli. It is not the case of the claimant No.1 that the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 applies to the case on hand.
.34. The above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
.35. The claimant No.3 has stated that the said property for the purpose of acquisition are within the compound wall of Hazrath Ibrahim Sha Khadri @ Hazrath Southe Sha Dargah, this itself discloses that it is a Wakf property.
.36. In Ex.P.50 Gazette notification at Sl. No.297 pertains to grave yard situated in the premises of Dargah Hazarath Suteshah, Sunni, Police road. From the said document, it is clear that the claimant No.3 is claiming grave yard property. From the general award in-respect of property 98/1 shara has been written ಖಖಲ ಜಖಗ AC sheet ಪಪರಖ. In the general award, it is seen that the compensation of Rs.2,89,947/- has been awarded for structure. So, it is clear that the acquired land is not grave yard and that there are 29 L.A.C. No.53/2014 structures in the acquired land. The claimant No.1 produced the document in-respect of Municipal No.98/1 property ID 30-28-98/1 which is dated 02.02.2006 as per Ex.P.8. The claimant No.3 has produced khatha in-respect of Municipal No.213, new No.436 and property ID No.30-1-436. As Municipality has given 2 different property ID, it is clear that the property claimed by claimant No.1 and property claimed by claimant No.3 may be two different properties.
.37. PW.3 during cross-examination has admitted that he has not received the notice with regard to acquisition of the land. He also admits that possession of the land was taken from the claimant No.1. The oral and documentary evidence discloses that the claimant No.1 and his predecessor have been in possession of the acquired property for a long time and the Municipal document also discloses the name of claimant No.1 and he has paid tax for the period from 1976 to the date of acquisition. Whereas, the khatha in the name of claimant No.3 has been made subsequent to the acquisition and tax has been paid subsequently. The claimant No.3 has not produced any document with regard to the boundaries of 30 L.A.C. No.117/2006 his property. In view of the above observation, I hold that the claimant No.1 is entitled for the compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered Partly in the affirmative.
.38. Point No.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R The reference made by the respondent No.1/SLAO under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby partly allowed.
The claimant No.1 Javeed Ahmed S/o
Ahmed Khan is entitled to receive
compensation in-respect of 47.23 sq.
meters in Sy.No.98/1, Chikpet ward,
Bengaluru with accrued interest thereon.
The claimant No.1 shall has to execute
indemnity bond 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 amount he is going to receive in this case.31
L.A.C. No.53/2014 The reference made by the respondent No.1/SLAO in-respect of claimants 2 and 3 is hereby rejected.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2022.) (Sheila B.M.) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 Javeed Ahmed
P.W.2 Fouzia Siddiqa
P.W.3 Mohammed Obaidulla Shariff
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of gift deed
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of partition deed
Ex.P.4 to 7 Copies of Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.8 & 9 Copies of khatha
Ex.P.10 Copy of khatha certificate
Ex.P.11 to 37 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.38 Certified copy of Gazette notification
dated 07.06.1965
32
L.A.C. No.117/2006
Ex.P.39 Khatha extract in the name of Hazrath
Manick Sah dargah Sunni
Ex.P.40 Khatha cer in the name of Hazrath
Manick Shah Dargah Sunni
Ex.P.41 to 48 7 tax paid receipts in the name of Hazrath Manick Shah Dargh Sunni (wakf) Ex.P.49 Letter dated 26.10.2016 issued by President of claimant No.3 to BBMP Ex.P.50 Certified copy of Gazette notification dated 07.06.1965 Ex.P.50(a) Portion of serial No.297 in Ex.P.50 Ex.P.51 Certified copy of proceedings of the Karnataka State Board of Waqf Ex.P.52 & 53 Certified copy of two property cards in the name of Chairman of the Karnataka Waqf Board Ex.P.54 Certified copy of extract in-respect of City Survey records Ex.P.55 Khatha certificate Ex.P.56 Khatha extract Ex.p.57 8 Tax paid receipts
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore. 33 L.A.C. No.53/2014 34 L.A.C. No.83/2007