Bangalore District Court
) Sri. V.R. Manjunath vs ) The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13 September, 2022
1
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w
L.A.C. No. 45/2021
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 13 th day of September, 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M, M.Com.,LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.23/2015 c/w
LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.45/2021:
CLAIMANTS:
1) Sri. V.R. Manjunath
S/o Late Sri.V.N.Ramakrishnan,
C/o G. Corp Pvt. Ltds.
Residing at No.21/19,
Karg Park Layout,
M.G. Road,
Bengaluru -560 001.
2) Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramakrishnan
W/ Late Sri. V.N. Ramakrishnan
C/o G. Corp Pvt. Ltds.
Residing at No.21/19,
Karg Park Layout,
M.G. Road,
Bengaluru -560 001.
3) M/S G. Corp Pvt. Ltds,
No.21/19, Karg Park Layout,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru -560 001.
(Sri.MANU K, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
2
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w
L.A.C. No. 45/2021
RESPONDENT:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board (Metro Rail Project)
14/3, 2nd Floor, R.P. Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560009.
2) Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
Limited, 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex,
K.H. Road, Shantinagar,
Bengaluru-560027.
(By Sri. RR, Advocate for R-1)
(By Sri. VL, Advocate for R-2)
: JUDGMENT :
The respondent No. 1/SLAO, KIADB, Metro Rail Project has sent the reference in L.A.C. No. 23/2015 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 respondent No. 1/SLAO, KIADB, Metro Rail Project has sent the reference in L.A.C. No.45/2021 under Section 18 of L.A. Act,1894 (hereinafter referred as 'L.A. Act' for short) for enhancement of compensation amount.
3
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 .3. The brief facts of the case is that the property No. 1/2 measuring 261.20 sq. meters situated in Alasuru ward within the jurisdiction of BBMP has been acquired for the purpose of metro rail project. Preliminary notification has been issued on 22.05.2008. Final notification has been issued on 30.09.2008. The award has been passed on 01.08.2015 fixing compensation of Rs.1,09,58,804/-. As the lands owners have refused to receive the compensation amount, the L.A.O. has deposited a sum of Rs. 98,62,924/- after deducting 10% toward income tax. The said amount has been kept in F.D. in Union Bank of India, Vijaya Nagara branch, Bengaluru.
.4. After receipt of reference, this court issued notice to both parties. In pursuance of notice, both parties have entered appearance.
.5. Claimants have filed claim statement stating that on 15.11.2007 the JDA was executed by and between the claimants and as per the terms and 4 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 conditions set out in the JDA, the claimant No. 1 hold and owns 21.45% of undividied share, right, title and interest in larger property, claimant No. 2 holds and owns 28.55% undivided share, right, title and interest in larger property and claimant No. 3 owns and holds 50% undivided share, right, title and interest in larger property. It is stated that pursuant to the transfer deed dated 04.03.2013 the undivided interest of 50% in the land stood transferred from claimants 1 and 2 in-favour of claimant No.3.
.6. The respondent No. 1 has filed objection stating that the property bearing Sy.No. ½ situated at Halasuru, Bengaluru is / are the subject matter of the above case. This respondent after collecting sales statistics from the jurisdictional Sub Registrar for the relevant period had determined the market value and passed award. It is stated that in the case on hand, as there is a cloud on the title of the claimants over the property in question as such this respondent was not in 5 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 position to disburse the compensation. Under the circumstances, the above reference is sent to this Court under Sections 30 and 31 of L.A. Act. It is stated that the claimants have to file the claim statement along with the title deeds and revenue records to establish right, title and interest of their respective claims over the land in question by adducing oral and documentary evidence. It is stated that Right to Fair Compensation Act is not applicable to KIADB Act. This scope of the reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, is limited, this Court to decide whether the claimants are entitled or not to receive the compensation deposited in the above case. Hence, prayed to pass suitable order.
.7. The respondent No. 2 has filed objections stating that the land bearing Municipal No. 1 /2 of Trinity circle, S.V. road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru measuring 261.20 sq. meters standing in the names of V.N. Ramakrishna, the claimant V.R. Manjunath and V.R. Nandagopal another came to be acquired for Bengaluru 6 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 Metro Rail Project. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 BMRCL sent a compensation package of Rs. 1,09,58,804/- fixing the market value at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters of the above acquired land of 261.20 sq. meters to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB as per letter. It is stated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB issued notice under Section 29(2) requiring the claimants to receive the compensation package sent by BMRCL. But the claimants V.R. Manjunath and Mahalakshmi Ramakrishnan have not chosen to receive their share of compensation. Therefore, the SLAO could not arrive at consent award a provided under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act and he proceeded to pass General Award dated 01.08.2015 and also referred the matter to Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of L.A. Act, for apportionment of compensation. It is stated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB after deducting tax amount and education cess amount, deposited Rs. 98,62,924/- 7
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 into Court for disbursement. It is stated that he also deposited the deducted income tax amount into Income Tax Department account in Bank of India, K.G. Road, Bengaluru through cheque No. 142004 dated 04.08.2015. Hence, the respondent No. 2 who is the beneficiary of acquisition will not be liable to pay any interest on the awarded compensation amount.
.8. Not satisfied with the award passed by the L.A.O., the claimants have filed the application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, before the L.A.O. .9. The brief facts of the case is that the compensation of Rs. 97,17,171/- determined is arbitrary, unjust and not the fair market value for the acquired property. Several instances to be taken into account, have not been obviously taken into consideration as otherwise compensation would have been fixed at more than Rs. 25,000/- per sq. feet. It is stated that the property is located very prominently in the Central Business area and is exactly in the Trinity 8 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 circle, as intersection of MG road, Swamy Vivekananda road, Kensington Road and Richmond road. All the facilities like Schools, Hospitals, Market, Shopping malls, fire station, offices, five star hotels, petrol bunk are all very close to the acquired property. It is stated that the land acquired is a large area is suitable for developing into commercial complex for which there is a great demand in Bengaluru. The potential value of the acquired property is not at all taken into account while determining the compensation. In the circumstances, the present compensation fixed is inadequate.
.10. The respondent No. 1 has filed objections stating that the respondent No.1 referred the above case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 35443/2015. The claim made by the claimants for higher compensation in the above case is not tenable. It is stated that the claimant in fact has not claimed any particular compensation, setting out the grounds for his 9 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 claim during the award enquiry proceedings though he had given sufficient opportunities. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 - SLAO after obtaining the relevant sales statistics from the concerned Sub-registrar relating to the relevant period by applying the same and taking into consideration of nature and potentialities of the land has determined the correct market value. The respondent No. 1 - SLAO has narrated everything in detail in his award. It is stated that the acquisition is for public purpose, the beneficiaries is not a party in the above case.
.11. The respondent No. 1 has filed additional statement of objections stating that the claimant questioned the above referred notifications before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 35443/2015 (LA-KIADB) by questioning the notifications and also declared Section 24(1) and the pre requisite for passing of the award under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 10 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and other various reliefs. It is further submitted that after haring to both the parties, the Hon'ble High Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner in so far as the acquisition and applicable of New Act is concerned. The Hon'ble High Court clearly state that the respondent No. 1 sent the reference under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 sent the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, in-respect of 261.20 sq. meters.
.12. The respondent No. 2 has filed objections stating that an extent of 261.20 sq. meters in property No. 1/2 near Trinity Church, SV road, Ulsoor ward, Bengaluru belonging to claimants along with other properties came to be acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project as per preliminary notification dated 22.05.2008. It is stated that on the basis of the recommendation of the Price Advisory Committee 11 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 ( Thomas Committee) BMRCL prepared package compensation for Rs. 1,09,58,804/- taking the market value of the above property at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters as recommended by the said Committee and sent the package compensation along with letter dated 03.01.2009 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to enable determination of compensation by agreement as provided under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act, 1966. It is stated that the petitioners who received the said notice on 17.11.2014 gave a letter to SLAO on 19.11.2014 stating that the package compensation amount offered is not acceptable to them. The SLAO passed general award on 01.08.2015 fixing the market value of the property in question at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters considering the facts namely
a) the market value of the properties in the area concerned as on the date of publication of preliminary notification;
b) Amount under consent award in-respect of 43.38 sq. meters in property No. 1 /2 i.e., same property acquired for Metro Rail Project as per 12 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 final notification dated 08.01.2007 was paid to the owner taking the market value as Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters.
.13. It is stated that the present reference was made in view of the direction given by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its order dated 20.07.2021 passed in W.P. No. 35443/2015. It is stated that under the KIAD Act there is no period prescribed for passing of the award by Special Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings will not get abated by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is stated that the property in question is not situated on MG road. It is near Holy Trinity Church which is approximately at a distance of 1687.00 meters from the properties situated MG road and concerned in L.A.C. No. 36/2011 and 37/2011 disposed off by this Court by judgment dated 02.01.2020. Hence, the market value 13 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 fixed in-respect of the properties concerned in L.A.C. No. 36 and 37 of 2011 cannot be adopted for the present case. It is stated that property measuring 43.38 sq. meters belonging to present claimants in their property No. 1/2 was fixed at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters on the basis of the recommendation made by the Price Advisory Committee and package compensation was prepared by BMRCL. It is stated that the present claimants accepted the package compensation. It is stated that the present reference is bad in as much as the award was passed on 01.08.2015 whereas the claimants gave the letter seeking reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 on 21.12.2015 i.e., beyond 90 days period prescribed under the proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 18 of L.A. Act.
.14. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.1 is examined as PW.1, one K.S. Venkatakrishnan is examined as PW.2. The documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to P.22. The respondent No. 1 is examined as 14 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 RW.1. The General Manager of respondent No. 2 is examined as RW-2. The documents got marked at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.30.
.15. Heard the arguments. Written arguments filed by claimants and respondent No.2.
.16. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1) Which of the claimants are entitled for compensation amount in-respect of property No. 1/ 2 measuring 261.20 sq. meters situated at Ulsoor village?
2) Whether the reference u/s.18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent No.1/LAO, is valid and in time?
3) Whether the Claimants prove that the market value of the property determined by the respondent No.1/L.A.O. is not reasonable and adequate?
4) Whether the claimants are entitle for higher 15 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 compensation to the acquired property? If so, at what rate?
5) What order or award?
.17. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: As per discussion Point No.2: As per discussion Point No.3: Partly in the affirmative Point No.4: Partly in the affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .18. POINT No.1: Claimant No.1 V.R. Manjunath has examined for himself and on behalf of claimants 2 and 3 as PW.1. He has stated that he and claimants 2 and 3 by virtue of a registered Joint Development Agreement dated 15.11.2007 are joint owners of the land bearing Municipal No. 1/2 situated at Trinity circle, Swamy Vivekananda road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru approximately measuring 69966 sq. feet and known as Hotel Kamadhenu.16
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 .19. PW.1 has stated that the larger property was vested with himself and V.N. Ramakrishnan Trust (VNR Trust) constituted under the Indenture of Trust dated 15.10.2007 by its sole Trustee V.N. Ramakrishnan who is also the late. Husband of claimant No.2. He and V.N. Ramakrishnan Trust and claimant No. 3 together agreed to develop the larger property and entered into the said JDA dated 15.11.2007. PW.1 has stated that PW.1 has stated that the sole trustee of VNR Trust, V.N. Ramakrishnan passed away on 24.04.2012. Prior to the death of V.N. Ramakrishnan, the larger property was owned and held in his name to an extent of 42.90% undivided share, right, title and interest therein and by the VNR Trust to an extent of 57.10% undivided share, right, title and interest. However, as per the terms and conditions set out in the indenture of Trust dated 15.10.2007 upon the death of the sole trustee, the said 57.10% undivided share, right, title and interest in larger property absolutely vested in claimant No. 2 and the trust formed in terms of the said Trust Deed automatically ceased 17 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 to exist and was extinguished. Under the circumstances, he is holding to an extent of 42.90% undivided share, right, title and interest and by claimant No. 2 to an extent of 57.10.% undivided share, right, title and interest.
.20. PW.1 has stated that according to the JDA dated 15.11.2007, he own 21.45%, claimant No. 2 holds and owns 28.55% and claimant No. 3 owns and holds 50% undivided right, title and interest in larger property.
.21. PW.1 has stated that pursuant to the transfer deed dated 04.03.2013 (Ex.P.7) undivided interest of 50% in the land stood transferred from himself and claimant No. 2 in- favour of claimant No. 3 and the khatha stood mutated in- favour of claimants 1 and 2 with respect to their 50% share and claimant No. 3 in-respect of its 50% share in the land comprised in the larger extent. Ex.P.9 is the khatha certificate in the name of claimant No. 2 and claimant No. 1 in-respect of property new No. 1/2. Ex.P.10 is the khatha extract which discloses that claimants 1 and 2 are the owners in-respect of property new No. 1/2 measuring to an 18 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 extent of 33343.7 sq. feet of non residential property. Ex.P.11 is the Khatha certificate and Ex.P.12 is the khatha extract in- respect of new No. 1/2-1. In both these documents, claimant No. 3 is mentioned as owner in-respect of property measuring 33343.7 sq. feet.
.22. PW.1 has been cross-examined. Nothing substantial has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Portion of the property in Sy.No. 1/2 to an extent of 261.20 sq. feet has been acquired. The oral and documentary evidence clearly discloses that claimants are the owners of acquired property and as per the claim statement and evidence, the claimant No.1 is entitled for 21.45%, claimant No. 2 is entitled for 28.55% and claimant No. 3 is entitled for 50% of the compensation awarded. Accordingly, it is answered.
.23. Point No.2: The award has been passed on 01.08.2015. The claimants have sent notice to the SLAO on 21.12.2015 in which he has stated that no award notice has been sent; that he is entitled for compensation at Rs. 19
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 30,000/- per sq. feet and sought for reference for enhancement of compensation as per Ex.P.5. The respondents have not placed any documents with regard to the service of award notice nor suggested to PW.1 that date of service of notice.
.24. In 1994(3) KLJ 70 (K. Lakshminarayana Shastry Vs. L.A.O. Chikkaballapura) our Hon'ble Court has held that:
"If no notice under Section 12(2) served any application filed by claimant on coming to know of the award is within time"
.25. The claimants have filed W.P. No. 35443/2015. The Hon'ble High Court while disposing the petition, has directed the respondent No. 4 to send the reference to the Civil Court if petitioners have filed representation immediately without any delay to be decided along with L.A.C. No. 23/2015 without reference to the issue of limitation having regard to the pendency of the present proceedings.
.26. In view of the direction, the questions of considering whether reference is sent by the SLAO in time does not arise. Accordingly, it is answered. 20
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 .27. Points 3 and 4:
AIR 1988 Supreme court 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another). Wherein their Lordship have held that:
"(1) A reference under Section 18 is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same materials is produced and proved before the court. (2) So, also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court. (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."21
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 Keeping in view above principles, let us examined the case on hand.
.28. The property to an extent of 261.20 sq. meters in property No. 1/2 situated near Trinity circle, Swamy Vivekananda road, Bengaluru belonging to the claimants has been acquired under preliminary notification dated 22.05.2008. The L.A.O. has passed the General Award for a sum of Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters = Rs.2,824.4 per sq. feet.
.29. RW-2 has stated that the compensation fixed for consent award in-respect of 43.38 sq. meters as per Ex.R.5 fixing market value of Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters = Rs. 2824.5 sq. feet is true reflection of market value of the acquired land. The apportionment of property acquired measuring 43.38 sq. meters out of larger extent of the present acquired property was acquired under notification dated 17.01.2006. The consent award has been passed and claimants have received the compensation amount. As per the said consent award, the compensation paid would be Rs. 2,824.4 sq. feet. The said compensation is just and correct 22 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 market value and so, had requested the Court to confirm the award.
.30. RW.2 admits that the land owner is not under legal stipulation to accept the amount of compensation in the next phase of acquisition as he had entered into the consent award in the earlier acquisition.
.31. The claimant advocate has relied upon decision in (2022) 7 SCC 256 SLAO Vs. N. Savitha . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"The consent award in another proceedings could not have been relied upon by High Court to determine the compensation in present proceedings more particularly where there are other evidence on record"
.32. So, the contention of respondents that based on consent award market value has been fixed at Rs. 2,824.4 per sq. feet in present case has to be confirmed is not sustainable as there are other evidence placed by the claimants.
.33. PW.1 has stated that by notification dated 17.01.2006 and 08.01.2007 the State of Karnataka acquired to an extent of 16000 sq. feet of land comprised in Municipal 23 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 No. 1/1, ¼ and 1/2 for the purpose of constructing Metro Rail. Subsequently, the State of Karnataka notified an additional extent of land measuring 261.20 sq. meters. PW.1 has stated that market value of the acquired land had already increased by greater extent on account of development of Metro Rail in the adjoining land. From the records, it is seen that the Trinity metro station is very near to the acquired land. As per evidence of RW.2, distance between two is 287 meters. On account of up-coming metro rail project, the market value of the property would increase on account of connectivity. RW.2 has admitted that as on today there is easy access to metro station from the property. It is clear that the acquired property is having high potential value.
.34. PW.1 has stated that Special Land Acquisition Officer had completely disregarded the sale deed dated 21.11.2005 with respect to the property situated at Municipal No. 71, M.G. road, Municipal ward No. 76, Bengaluru popularly known as Plaza Theatre. He has stated that 24 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 acquired property marks the beginning of the MG road and Plaza Theatre is situated at end of MG road where the lesser commercially valuable properties are situated; that the most prominent 5-star hotels in the State of Karnataka , being the "The Taj" and "The Oberoi Bengaluru" are situated right opposite the acquired property. The marketability of the acquired property is of a higher nature than that of Plaza Theatre on account of the connectivity the acquired property offers with other areas of Bengaluru and the commercial buildings already built on the acquired property. The lack of sale transactions for similarly situated properties on MG road clearly demonstrates that the properties on MG road are of very high commercial significance and no owner wants to part with their properties. PW.1 has stated that Special Land Acquisition Officer had failed to take these factors into consideration while fixing the market value of the property.
.35. RW.2 admits that one MG mall is situated in the acquired property. He admits that the acquired property is commercial property; that hotel Taj is commercial property 25 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 and it is opposite to the acquired property. He admits that hotel Taj is situated in MG road. From the evidence it can be inferred that acquired property is situated in prime location.
.36. K.S. Venkatakrishnan, valuator has been examined as PW.2. He is a professional valuer working in M/s. S & V Engineering Enterprises and has submitted valuation report as per Ex.P.22 along with letter addressed to the SLAO on 16.06.2008 as per Ex.P.21.
.37. The valuation report has been prepared as per the valuation practices prescribed by the International Valuation Standards Council taking into account the Highest and Best Use (HABU) of the schedule property. The estimation of market value of the land as on the date of valuation report is Rs. 17275/-. The valuation report has been prepared in January 2006. He has stated in his report that there are 2 options that could be considered to arrive at the market rate the option No. 1 is the direct the compensation figures which are based on the sale or local market asking rate enquires. He has taken into consideration the Plaza Theatre land rate as 26 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 per Thomas report is Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet and add 20% for higher potential as the land was approved for a retail space at Rs. 2,400/- per sq. feet and has arrived at a figure of Rs. 14,400/- per sq. feet.
.38. With regard to the opinion No. 2, the hypothetical development figures, where in the consultants have based the calculation on prevailing lease rental rates, standardized construction costs and real estate capital value in the market value and adopting the permissible FAR under the development control regulations and has arrived at a figure of Rs. 17,275/- per sq. feet. During cross-examination he has admitted that International Valuation Standards Council and HABU are not Gazetted and that circular has been issued by the Companies Valuer and Valuation Rules 2017 adopted by Government of India. The valuation report has been prepared in the year 2006. Companies Valuer and Valuation Rules 2017 has been followed. From the above, it is clear that he has not followed any Government Gazette Rules for valuing the properties. He admits during the cross-examination that 27 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 from page No. 13 to 18 of his report is based on hypothesis and the property is acquired for commercial purpose.
.39. The counsel for the claimants has relied upon the citation reported in AIR 1995 SC 840 ( SLAO and others Vs. Siduppa Omanna Tumari and others. Wherein it has been held that:
"Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the Court giving the market value of the acquired lands, the Court may choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct."
.40. As valuation is not supported by data or the material and as it is based on hypothesis, the valuation made by the valuator cannot be relied for fixing the market value of the property.
.41. PW.1 has stated that instead of referring to properties in Malleshwaram, the SLAO ought to have 28 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 considered sale transactions with respect to properties which are situated in the vicinity which are similarly placed. To corroborate his contention, the PW.1 has relied upon the sale deed dated 12.11.2005 pertaining to Plaza Theatre as per Ex.P.15. From page No. 30 of the said sale deed, it is seen that the property measuring 17136 sq. feet has been sold for Rs. 23,64,00,000/- by Smt. Gisela Narrain and others in- favour of M/s. Shravabee Properties Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru. The above property consists of building in basement, ground, mezzanine, first and second floors with all facilities. It is elicited from RW.2 that compensation paid to the Plaza Theatre is based on sale deed in-respect of the same property which was one year prior to the acquisition. The compensation fixed for Plaza Theatre was Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet in-respect of acquisition dated 17.01.2006.
.42. PW.1 has relied upon the judgment in L.A.C. No. 36/2011 and 37/2011 as per Ex.P.16 and 18 respectively. From the judgments, it is seen that property bearing No. 21/14 in L.A.C. No. 36/2011, 21/16 in L.A.C. No. 37/2011 29 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 situated at MG road, Richmond Town, ward No. 76 has been acquired under preliminary notification dated 17.01.2006. The L.A.O. has passed the award for Rs. 8377 per sq. feet. This Court in L.A.C. No. 36/2011 had relied upon Ex.P.8 sale deed dated 21.11.2005 relating to Plaza Theatre which as been sold for Rs. 13,795.51 per sq. feet. As per Ex.P.11, the respondent No. 1 had acquired the property situated in ward No. 81 of Ulsoor Trinity circle and awarded compensation of Rs. 11,399/- per sq. feet. As per Ex.P.10, the respondent No. 1 had acquired the property situated in ward No. 76, Richmond circle, MG road, Bengaluru and had awarded the compensation of Rs. 11998.92 per sq. feet, which is in- respect of property acquired for Plaza Theatre. All the 3 properties were acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project. The Court in both cases has held that property of the claimants situated at MG road, ward No. 76, Richmond circle town have been acquired for metro rail project under the same preliminary notification. As per Ex.P.11 ( which ought to be Ex.P.10), the respondent No. 1 had acquired the Plaza 30 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 Theatre property situated in MG road, Bengaluru and had fixed market value of Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet. The Court in both the cases had fixed the market value at Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet. It is submitted that the respondents have not challenged the enhancement and claimants have been paid enhanced compensation. It is elicited from RW.2 that properties at Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.18 are 1.8 kms away from Plaza Theatre. The properties acquired in Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.18 pertain to 1st phase of acquisition which is 2 ½ years prior to the present acquisition property in MG road are situated in prime location in Bengaluru. It is elicited that the market value is calculated at 10 - 15% on year to year basis. Considering the locality of property I feel that 12% p.a., on year to year escalation can give in the instant case. The market value on the date of acquisition in the present case would be Rs. 15,600/- per sq. feet.
.43. PW.1 has stated that his property is in Trinity circle. During cross-examination PW.1 has stated that his property is situated as per Ex.P.1 and 2 in Ulsoor. PW.1 has 31 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 denied that distance between his property and Plaza Theatre of property is at a distance of 1.78 kms. RW.1 has stated that he has not seen the property acquired as per Ex.P.16 and 18.
.44. RW.2 has stated that Plaza Theatre property is on MG road whereas the property in question is near Trinity Church on Ulsoor road, which is now called as Swami Vivekananda road (SV road). The distance between Plaza property and Trinity circle is 1400 meters as per the Google map. Ex.R.8 is the Google map in which distance has been mentioned. He has stated that MG road which starts from the junction of Kasturba road, Queens road and Lavelle road, ends at Trinity circle from where Ulsoor road (SV road) starts. The distance between Trinity circle and Holy Trinity Church near which the property in question, situated on SV road, is 287 meters.
.45. RW.2 has stated that the property sold under sale deed dated 21.07.2018 (Ex.P.15) was Plaza Theatre existing on site bearing municipal No. 71 situated on MG road. It had entrances on busy road namely church road and MG road. 32
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 RW.2 has stated that Thomas committee considering various attributes of above property and its situatation fixed the market value of land at Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet. RW.2 has stated that the property in the present case is vacant site situated on SV road and that it is distance of 1400 meters from Plaza Theatre. It is less valuable compared to Plaza Theatre property. From the general award in the present case, it is seen that the claimants have awarded towards building for a sum of Rs. 1,70,789.02. Both parties have not led evidence as to what type of structure existed in the acquired land. However, the facts remains that there was a building at the time of acquisition.
.46. RW.2 has stated that near Trinity circle there is property belonging to BSNL and to an extent of 470.96 sq. meters in CTS No. 1854 came to be acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project in the year 2008. For that property which is situated in SV road, the compensation was paid at Rs. 3,500/- per sq. feet. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,77,494/- has been paid to the BSNL. Ex.P.13 is the possession letter 33 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 dated 01.08.2014 which discloses that the respondent took possession of BSNL property. Ex.P.20 is the receipt for having received the compensation.
.47. Ex.R.21 is the possession certificate in-respect of property No. 1282 measuring 1721.82 sq. meters. Ex.R.22 is the agreement. Ex.R.23 is the indemnity bond. Ex.R.24 is the agreement dated 07.02.2012. Ex.R.25 is the award. From Ex.R.20 to 25, it is seen that the consent award has been passed in-respect of BSNL property. As per the consent award, the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 43131/- per sq. meters. This property is situated in ward No. 76, ward No. Richmond, place - Mins Chowk, Criket Stadium. Ex.R-26 is the letter addressed to the General Manager, Corporate Office, BSNL No. 1, SV road, Bengaluru dated 01.08.2008. It discloses in the said letter that their property is neither commercial site nor corner site, guidance value prescribed is Rs. 3500/- only. Accordingly, the total value of their site measuring 470.96 sq. meters. From the letter, it is seen that 34 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 market value of this property is based on the guidance value of Rs. 3,500/- per sq. feet.
.48. RW.2 during cross-examination admits that portion of BSNL which is acquired is commercial property. BSNL had taken compensation under the general award and it is under the same notification. He pleads ignorance that BSNL has been paid compensation at Rs. 3450/- per sq. feet. As per Ex.R.13, the BSNL has paid compensation at Rs. 3500/- per sq. feet. The evidence of RWs.1 and 2 does not disclose that there is no case for enhancement pending in- respect of above property.
.49. RW.2 has stated that the guidance value of the residential properties situated along old Madras road was Rs. 3,500/- per sq. feet. In case of commercial sites, the guidance value was 40% above Rs. 3,500/- per sq. feet. In case of corner properties the guidance value was extra 10% of the guidance value of Rs. 3,500/- per sq. feet. The market value of the property similar to the property in question situated on Ulsoor road (SV road) during the year 2008 was Rs. 37,660/- 35
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 per sq. meters. During cross-examination RW.2 admits that as per guidance value corner commercial property would be 50% above guidance value and if the calculation is correct it would be Rs. 5250/- per sq. feet for the year 2007.
.50. Preliminary notification in the present case is on 22.05.2008. the market value fixed in the present case is Rs. 2824.4 per sq. feet. The market value in the present case is lower than the guidance value. Therefore, the compensation awarded in-respect of the present acquired property is not true reflection of the market value.
.51. BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardass and another 2022 SCC Online SC 815, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
" As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid two decisions that the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner for the purpose of calculation of the stamp duty, which are fixed for the entire area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation under the L.A. Act."
From the above decision, it is clear that actual rates of transaction in market are different from the rates mentioned 36 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 in guidance value and that correct market value cannot be reflected from guidance value.
.52. RW.2 has stated that the property in question measuring 261.20 sq. meters bearing property No. 1/2 situated in SV road was acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project as per preliminary notification dated 22.05.2008. He has stated that along with the said property, 283.91 sq. meters in property No. 158/4, 158/5 and 68.450 sq. meters in property 159, 159/1 were acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project under the said notification. In respect of the said 283.91 and 68.450 sq. meters,the BMRCL has sent the package on the basis of market value of Rs.30,402/-.
.53. Ex.R.14 is the receipt for having paid compensation in-respect of property No. 158/4, 158/5 measuring 283.910 sq. meters and property No. 159, 159/1 measuring 68.450 sq. meters received by the Secretary of Church of South India for a sum of Rs. 1,31,90,476/-. Ex.R.15 is the possession certificate taken by KIADB from Church of South India Trust Association. Ex.R.16 is the 37 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 indemnity bond executed by the Secretary of Church of South India. From the said document, it is seen that the compensation amount in-respect of notification under Section 28(4) dated 30.09.2008. Ex.R.17 is the award passed in- respect of property Sy.No. 158/4, 158/5 and 159/1. From the award it is seen that market value has been fixed at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters.
.54. Ex.R.19 is the award in-respect of property bearing Sy.No. 88/346 measuring 29.72, name of khathedar - F.C. Angadi, name of anubhavadar - Vijaya Bank. The L.A.O. has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,623/- per sq. meters. This is in-respect of acquisition dated 17.01.2006.
.55. Ex.R-27 is the award in-respect of Church of South India ward No. 82, Ulsoor in-respect of property No. 159, 159/1 measuring 68.45 meters. The market value is fixed at Rs. 30,402/- in-respect of preliminary notification dated 08.08.2008.
.56. Ex.R-28 to 30 are compensation package sent by BMRCL dated 28.11.2007 in-respect of property No. 14 38 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 measuring 8 sq. meters, property No. 2 measuring 38.5 sq. meters, property No. 14/2 measuring 29.72 sq. meters respectively. From the award, it is seen that compensation of Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters has been fixed in-respect of acquisition dated 17.01.2006.
.57. The SLAO has stated in the award Ex.P.6 that he has divided properties into 3 categories on the basis of the place where the properties is situated, its value and guidance value of the property. He has stated that he has considered the sale of Plaza Theatre in the year 2005 for Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet, National Textile Corporation property situated in Malleshwaram and other properties for the purpose of arriving at the compensation for the acquired property. It is argued by the claimants advocate that the property in Malleshwarm is more than 7 kms situated, which is evident from Ex.P.17 Google map. The marketability and commercial viability of the area in which acquired property is situated is higher in comparison to the property situated in Malleshwaram. In the award the L.A.O. except referring to 39 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 sale deed pertaining to Plaza Theatre has not referred to any other sale deed for the period of 3 years prior to acquisition in the adjacent area where acquisition took place. The lack of sale transaction for similarly situated properties demonstrate that properties acquired are of high commercial significance and no owner wants to part with their properties. The L.A.O. though refer to sale deed of Plaza Theatre has not assigned any reason for not relying upon to fix the market value of the property acquired in the notification. It demonstrate that the Plaza Theatre is close proximity to acquired property and has relevant sale deed to consider for fixing amount of compensation to be paid in the instant case.
.58. RW.2 has stated that the L.A.O. has passed the General Award on 01.08.2015 fixing the market value of the property in question at Rs. 30,402/- per sq. meters and has considered the consent award in-respect of 43.38 sq. meters in property No. 1/2 acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project as per earlier final notification dated 08.01.2007, which was paid to the owners taking the market value as Rs. 40
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 30,402/- per sq. meters. The claimants have received the award amount on 01.08.2014 after executing necessary documents. The L.A.O. though stated to have considered guidance value has fixed market value lower than the guidance value of Rs. 5250/- per sq. feet. This clearly discloses that L.A.O. has not fixed market value by taking into account of relevant material facts.
.59. From the above discussion, it is clear that the present acquired property is situated in Trinity junction; that MG road and SV road meet at Trinity junction. One Oberoi hotel and the Taj hotel are situated right opposite the acquired property. The acquired property is corner property having road on both sides. From the above it is clear that acquired property is commercial property having connectivity and situated in prime location. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC 432, wherein it is held that:
"When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest 41 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition."
.60. Ex.P.15 sale deed of Plaza Theatre as already noted is of the year 2005 and as per the sale deed the value of the property sold was Rs. 11,998.92 per sq. feet. Where Plaza Theatre was acquired during 2006 compensation has been paid at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per sq. meters based on the sale deed. which is not in dispute. The property in L.A.C. No. 36/2011 and 37/2011 is situated at a distance of 1 ½ kms from the Plaza Theatre in Richmond road, in ward No. 76, MG road. Enhanced compensation has been given by this Court fixing market value at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per sq. feet in- respect of 1st phase of acquisition.
.61. Now law is well settled that the decided judgment of any of the reference Court can be relied upon in order to come to just and fair conclusion in-respect of fixing just and fair compensation. In this regard, I would like to bank upon 42 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 the following decisions reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4382 wherein it is held as under:
" (A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S2-
Compensation-Determination of, on basis of earlier judgments-Plea that High Court erred in not taking sale instances into account while fixing compensation-
Compensation already fixed by High Court in earlier proceedings and Supreme Court in one such proceeding has already approved rate fixed-Best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and Awards and not sale instances - High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments" & one more decision which came to be reported in 2005(4) KCCR short notes 264 (General Manager, ONGC V/s Sendhabal Vastram Patel & others), which is as under:
" Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - market value - the best method for determining market value of acquired land is the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the 43 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale - in the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the Court may take recourse to other methods, viz., judgments and awards passed in-respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. The Reference Court has to apply the comparable sales method and also the situation of the land, which is to be appreciated upon considering the question as to whether acquired land is similar to any land sold in the vicinity".
.62. In the present case as acquired property is situated in junction of MG road and SV having commercial viability; that distance between Plaza Theatre and acquired property is about 1400 meters, I am of the view that compensation awarded in-respect of Plaza Theatre, L.A.C. No. 36/2011 and 37/2011 can be relied upon by this Court to arrive at market value in the present case. 44
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 .63. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 has relied upon the decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 581 (Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh and others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"Comparative sales method - Increase in market value - Held, increase in market value by about 10% to 12% per year can be provided as regards lands situated near urban areas having potential for non- agricultural development -."
The principles laid down in the said decision applies to the case on hand.
.64. Acquisition in-respect of L.A.C. No. 36/2011 and 37/2011 is on 17.01.2006. Preliminary notification in the present case has been issued on 22.05.2008. The property acquired is situated in one of the prime location in Bengaluru and since property is very close to the metro station, escalation value of the property can be taken as 12% p.a. which works out to Rs. 15,360/- per sq. feet. At the time of acquisition approved plan has already been sanctioned for construction of one MG mall, which is in larger property of acquired property. The acquired property was suitable for 45 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 developing commercial purpose. So, I am of the view that market value can be fixed at Rs. 15,400/- per sq. feet.
.65. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record leads to the unmistakable fact that the claimants prove that the market value fixed by the respondent - L.A.O., in-respect of their acquired land, in this case, is unjust, inadequate and on lower side. Thus, the market value of the land is fixed to Rs. 15,400/-per sq. feet from that of Rs. 30,402 per sq. meters = Rs. 2824.4 sq. feet as awarded by the L.A.O. Hence, I answer points 3 and 4 partly in the affirmative.
.66. Point No.5: In view of my findings on points 1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R The reference made by the respondent No.1/ SLAO under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in L.A.C. No. 23/2015 is hereby partly allowed.
Claimant No.1 is entitled for 21.45%, Claimant No. 2 is entitled for 46 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 28.55% and claimant No. 3 is entitled for 50% of the compensation awarded in Ulsoor ward property No. 1/2 measuring 261.20 sq. meters of BBMP jurisdiction along with accrued interest thereon.
Claimants 1 to 3 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 amount they are going to receive in this case.
Claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to interest under Section 34 of L.A. Act. The amount already paid by L.A.O., has to be deducted.
The Reference made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, in L.A.C. No. 45/2021 is partly allowed.
Claimants 1 to 3 are entitled for market value of acquired property at the rate of Rs.15,400/- per sq. feet instead of Rs.30,402/- per sq. meters = 2824.4 per sq. feet as awarded by the 47 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 respondent No.1 in-respect of property No. 1/2 measuring 261.20 sq. meters of BBMP jurisdiction.
Compensation fixed by L.A.O. in-
respect of building is confirmed.
Claimants 1 to 3 are entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1) of L.A. Act, at the rate of 12% p.a., on the enhanced market value of Rs. 12,576/- from the date of preliminary notification till the date of taking possession.
Claimants 1 to 3 are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value of Rs.12,576/-
under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
Claimants 1 to 3 are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of acquired land and further interest @ 15% p.a. for subsequent 48 L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
The amount already paid by the respondent No.1/SLAO, if any, shall be deducted in the enhancement of the market value now awarded.
Draw award accordingly.
Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.23/2015 and copy of the same be kept in L.A.C. No. 45/2021.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of September, 2022.) (Sheila B.M.) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
49
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 PW1 V.R. Manjunath PW.2 K.S. Venkatakrishnan
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex. P. 1 Preliminary Notification. Ex. P. 2 Final Notification. Ex. P. 3 SLAO Notice. Ex. P. 4 SLAO Notice dated 15-05-2015. Ex. P. 5 Legal Notice issue to the SLAO. Ex. P. 6 Award. Ex. P. 7 Transfer Deed. Ex. P. 8 Joint development agreement. Ex. P. 9 Khata Certificate of claimant No. 1 & 2. Ex. P. 10 Khata extract.
Ex. P. 11 Khata Certificate of claimant No. 3. Ex. P. 12 Khata extract.
Ex. P. 13 Google Map. (Marked with objection the purpose for which it is produced is not stated) Ex. P. 14 Certificate U/sec 65B(4) of Evidence Act. Ex. P. 15 Sale deed.
Ex.P. 16 &17 Judgment and Award in LAC No. 36/2011. Ex.P.18 & 19 Judgment and Award in LAC No. 37/2011. Ex. P. 20 18 application.
Ex. P. 21 Letter dated 16-06-2008.
Ex. P. 22 Valuation report.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 50
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2021 RW1 Prasanna Kumar RW2 M.S. Channappagoudar
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R. 1 Original Indemnity Bond
Ex.R. 2 Original Consent Agreement.
Ex.R. 3 Preliminary notification 22-05-2007.
Ex.R. 4 Final Notification 30-09-2008.
Ex.R. 5 Compensation package sent by BMRCL.
Ex.R. 6 General Award.
Ex.R. 7 Claimant application dated 19-11-2014 with
objections.
Ex.R. 8 Google Map marked with objection with regard
to section 65B of Evidence Act.
Ex.R. 9 Receipt dated 01-08-2014 and possession
transfer document with objection to produce original.
Ex.R. 10 Indemnity bond with objection to produce original.
Ex.R. 11 Agreement dated 24-07-2004 between KIADB and claimant with objection to produce original.
Ex.R. 9(a) Original Payment receipt.
Ex.R. 12 Certificate U/sec 65B(4) in respect Ex.R.8. Ex.R. 13 Original Possession Letter dated 01-08-2014. Ex.R. 14 Payment receipt dated 29-06-2009. Ex.R. 15 Possession Letter dated 26-05-2009. Ex.R. 16 Indemnity Bond dated 10-06-2009.
Ex.R. 17 Award dated 07-02-2009.
51
L.A.C. No. 23/2015 C/w
L.A.C. No. 45/2021
Ex.R. 18 & Award dated 01-04-2008.
19
Ex.R. 20 Payment receipt dated 15-02-2012.
Ex.R. 21 Possession certificate dated 15-02-2012.
Ex.R. 22 Agreement dated 07-02-2012.
Ex.R. 23 Indemnity bond.
Ex.R. 24 Agreement dated 07-02-2012
Ex.R. 25 Consent Award.
Ex.R. 26 Letter dated 01-08-2008.`
Ex.R. 27 Compensation package dated 15-01-2009.
Ex.R. 28 Compensation package dated 28-11-2007.
Ex.R. 29 & Compensation package sent by BMRCL
30 dated 28-11-2007.
(Sheila B.M.),
II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore.
52 L.A.C. No.83/2007