Bangalore District Court
In L.A.C. No.250/2 vs In All Cases on 16 October, 2019
1
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001,
35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 16 th day of October, 2019.
PRESENT:
Shri. R.Y. Shashidhara, B.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.250/2001
C/W L.A.C. Nos. 280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003,
172/2003 and 205/2003
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.250/2001:
Sri. Ramakrishnappa
S/o late. Chavadi Muniswamappa, 72 years,
Geddalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka.
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.280/2001:
D. Ramaiah,
Since dead by his LRs:
(a) Mrs. Rathnamma Second wife of late. D.
Ramaiah, 38 years,
(b) Master Mahesh
S/o late. D. Ramaiah, 14 years, since he is a
minor, represented by his mother Rathnamma.
(c) R. Shankar
S/o late. D. Ramaiah, 28 years,
(d) Gayathri
2
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001,
35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003
D/o late. Ramaiah, 25 years,
(e) Shobha
D/o late. D. Ramaiah, 20 years,
All are resident of Geddalahalli village, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka.
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.35/2002:
V. Narayanaswamy @ V. Narayanappa
S/o Poojappa,
R/at: Geddalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.171/2003:
Smt. Muniakkayamma
W/o late. Chikkamuniyappa
R/at: Geddalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.172/2003:
Smt. Muniakkayamma
W/o late. Chikkamuniyappa
R/at: Geddalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
3
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001,
35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
CLAIMANT IN L.A.C. No.205/2003:
Smt. Muniakkayamma
W/o late. Chikkamuniyappa
R/at: Geddalahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
(By Sri.ARK, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS IN ALL CASES:
1) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA,
Bengaluru.
2) BWSSB, Bengaluru-560 009.
(By Sri.DGP, Advocate for R.1)
(By Sri.KBJ, Advocate for R.2)
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these 6 references being made under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A Act for short) by the respondent No.1, S.L.A.O./BDA, Bengaluru.
.2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:
The respondent No.1 has acquired the lands belong to the claimants/petitioners situated at Amani Byrathi 4 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Khane village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru for the purpose of construction of the Sewerage treatment plant by BWSSB. The said BWSSB is benificeary. In all cases, the preliminary notification was on 14.10.1998, final notification was on 30.11.1999 and award passed on 01.07.2000.
.3. The description of the acquired lands in the references are as under:
Sl.No. L.A.C. Sy.NO. Extent Place Award No. amount paid A/G Village to claimant Rs.
01 250/01 19/1 30 G Amani 5,93,995 Byrathi Khane, 02 35/02 19/1 1 A 10 G Amani -
Byrathi Khane, 03 171/03 18 2 A 32 G Amani 20,57,533 Byrathi Khane, 04 172/03 19/3 20 G Amani 3,67,673.85 Byrathi Khane, 05 280/01 19/1 20 G Amani 3,95,997 Byrathi Khane, 06 205/03 19/2 1 A 7 G Amani 8,63,429 5 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Byrathi Khane, As per the records, in LAC No.35/2002, land bearing Sy.No.19/1 measuring 5 acres 35 guntas situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village acquired by the respondent No.1 and paid award amount of Rs.92,89,175/- to the claimant - Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy. But in the 18 application (Ex.P.5) and the claimant in his evidence affidavit (PW.2) stated that the respondent No.1 has acquired 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.19/1 belongs to him.
.4. In all these cases, the claimants are contended that, they are the absolute owners of the acquired properties. The respondent No.1 has acquired their properties for construction of the Sewerage treatment plant by BWSSB. The acquired properties are just 1 furlong from the main road, situated in highly developed area and many residential layouts have come up just abutting to the lands in question. The H.B.R. layout is 6 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 just 1 km from the acquired lands, Mahathma Gandhi Bengaluru International school is situated adjacent to the acquired lands question and international Airport is situated at the distance of 6 kms from the acquired lands Many private layouts are situated adjacent to the acquired properties. The Corporation limits is just at a distance of 8 kms from the acquired lands. The respondent No.1 has not considered all these facts while passing the award. The award passed by the respondent No.1 at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre is meager. The acquired lands were valued more than Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. They further stated that they received the award amount under protest and filed applications for enhancement of compensation with statutory benefits. Hence, they prayed for enhancement of compensation with all statutory benefits under L.A. Act, 1894.
.5. After receiving the references from the respondent No.1, this court registered the cases and issued notice to both the parties. Both parties in all 7 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 cases have appeared through their counsel. The respondents 1 and 2 have not filed objections to the main.
.6. All these 6 cases are inter-connected, acquired the lands under same notifications and passed common award. Hence, on the basis of the application filed by the claimants, this court passed an order on 20.08.2010 and L.A.C. Nos.35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003, 280/2001 and 205/2003 are clubbed with L.A.C. No.250/2001 for common evidence and judgment.
.7. To prove their case, the claimants' side examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3. Documents got marked Exs.P.1 to 10. The respondent No.1 side examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2. Documents got marked Exs.R.1 to 7. After completion of evidence of both cases, the cases are posted for evidence.
.8. Heard the arguments.
8
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 .9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the references under Section 18 of L.A. Act, made by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., in all cases, are valid and in time?
2. Whether the claimants/petitioners prove that the properties determined by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., is not reasonable and adequate?
3. Whether the claimants are entitle for higher compensation to the acquired properties? If so, at what rate?
4. What Order or Award?
.10. My findings to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the partly affirmative Point No.3: In the partly affirmative Point No.4: As per the final order for the following:-9
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 R EAS O N S .11. Point No.1:- So far as limitation relating to filing and maintaining of Section 18(1) of L.A. Act, the law is very clear and well settled. The petitioner has to file 18(1) application within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice upon him. Respondent has to refer the matter to the Civil Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of 18(1) application from the petitioner. If the respondent fails to make the reference, then the petitioner has to file this kind of petition within 3 years after expiry of said 90 days. In this context, I relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in ILR 1994 KARNATAKA 2337 (SC), 2005 (8) SCC 709 (State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman and AIR 1988 Kar. 11 (Asst. Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi Bai).
.12. In L.A.C. No.250/2001: As per the records, the respondent No.1 has acquired the land belongs to the claimants situated at Amani Byrathi Khane. Preliminary notification was on 14.10.1998, final notification was on 10 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 31.11.1999 and award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant Ramakrishna has filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 on 03.04.2001. Ex.P.1 is the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of L.A. Act. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on on the claimant on 05.02.2001, the claimant has filed 18 application on 03.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 27.07.2001. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act before the SLAO and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time.
.13. In L.A.C. No.280/2001: As per the records, the award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant D. Ramaiah has filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 on 03.04.2001. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on 05.02.2001, the 11 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 claimant has filed 18 application on 03.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 08.08.2001. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act before the SLAO and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time.
.14. In L.A.C. No.35/2002: As per the records, the award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant Narayanaswamy @ B. Narayanappa has filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 on 03.04.2001. Ex.P.5 is the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of L.A. Act. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on 05.02.2001, the claimant has filed 18 application on 03.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 04.01.2002. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said 12 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act before the SLAO and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time.
.15. In L.A.C. No.171/2003: As per the records, the award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant Smt. Muniyakkayamma has filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 on 27.04.2001. Ex.P.7 is the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of L.A. Act. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on 05.02.2001, the claimant has filed 18 application on 27.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 11.07.2003. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act before the SLAO and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time.
13
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 .16. In L.A.C. No.172/2003: As per the records, the award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant Smt. Muniyakkayamma has filed 18 application before the respondent No.1 on 27.04.2001. Ex.P.8 is the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of L.A. Act. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on 05.02.2001, the claimant has filed 18 application on 27.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 30.07.2003. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act before the SLAO and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time.
.17. In L.A.C. No.205/2003: As per the records, the award passed on 01.07.2000. The claimant Smt. Muniyakkayamma has filed 18 application before the 14 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 respondent No.1 on 11.04.2001. Ex.P.9 is the application filed by the claimant under Section 18 of L.A. Act. As per the records produced by the respondent No.1, 12(2) notice served on 05.02.2001, the claimant has filed 18 application on 11.04.2001 and the respondent No.1 has referred the case before this court on 30.07.2003. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No.1 side has not at all denied the above said facts. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the reference made by the claimant under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act and the reference submitted by the respondent No.1 before this court are in time. Therefore, from the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that all the claimants have filed 18 application before S.L.A.O., within 90 days from the date of service of 12(2) notice and the references under Section 18 of L.A. Act made by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., are in time. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
.18. Points 2 and 3: These two points are inter- connected. Therefore, for the purpose of avoiding 15 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 repeated discussion, I taken up all these points together for consideration.
.19. PW.1 is claimant-Ramakrishna in L.A.C. No.250/2001, PW.2- N. Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy is claimant in L.A.C. No.35/2002 and PW.3 - Smt. Narayanamma is GPA holder of claimants in L.A.C. No.171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003. PWs.1 to 3 in their examination-in-chief stated that, they are the absolute owners of the acquired lands. The acquired lands are just 1 furlong from the main road, situated in highly developed area and many residential layouts have come up just abutting to the lands in question. The H.B.R. layout is just 1 km from the acquired properties, Mahathma Gandhi Bengaluru International school is situated adjacent to the acquired lands question. The International Air port is situated at the distance of 6 kms from the acquired lands in question and many private layouts are situated adjacent to the acquired properties. The Corporation limits is just at a distance of 8 kms. 16
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 They further contended that the respondent No.1 has not considered all these facts while passing the award. The award passed by the respondent No.1 at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and it is meager. The acquired lands were valued more than Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation with all statutory benefits.
.20. I have perused the contention taken by both side. The state has power to acquire the property of citizen compulsory for public purpose. On the other hand, it is duty and obligation of the state to pay the compensation to the property owners. In 18 reference while determining the enhancement of compensation, 3 methods of valuation or generally adopted namely opinion of experts, sales statistics method and capitalization method. In the case of hand, the claimant has not produced documentary evidence to decide this case on expert opinion. As per the records, as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired properties were 17 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 agricultural lands. But, to consider these cases on the basis of capitalization method, the claimants have not produced the documentary evidence. It is noticed that the claimants are made an attempt for considering their cases on the basis of sales Statistical method. They also prayed for considering this case on the basis of previous judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is well settled law that, the claimant has to prove his case with cogent documentary evidence for enhancement of compensation. (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2238 (Mahesh Dattatray Thirthankar Vs. State of Maharashtra) Let me see about the same.
.21. I have perused the award dated 01.07.2000 passed by the respondent No.1. He has considered the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the sales Statistics method. He has received the sale deeds from the concerned Sub Registrar office for the year 05.01.1995 to 05.01.1998. He has calculated the average rate of value of the properties as per the above said sale 18 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 deeds at Rs.3,05,525/- per acre. It is mentioned that the surrounding lands were irrigated, fertile lands and developed potentiality. It is mentioned that the Government guidance value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Considering that, the acquired properties are 10 kms from BBMP, Bangalore and 1 furlong distance from PWD road, Bangalore-Salam Railway line is by the side of acquired lands and other aspects, the S.L.A.O. has fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
.22. Ex.P.3 is certified copy of the judgment dated 17.06.2004 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.3832/1999 A/w Cross Objections No.81/2000. In the said case, the respondent No.1 S.L.A.O., V.V. Tower, Bengaluru had acquired the lands in Sy.No.6/12 of Binnamangala village, for the benefits of Defence Estate Officer. The S.L.A.O. has awarded and fixed the market value at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. The claimants had filed objections and matter referred to this court 19 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 under Section 18 of L.A. Act and the case registered as L.A.C. No.253/1996. On 28.05.1999 this court passed the judgment and award on merits and enhanced the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre awarded by the respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants had filed the above said MFA No.3831/1999. The respondents had filed Cross Objections No.81/2000 questioning the enhancement of compensation awarded by this court. After considering the case on merits, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has modified the judgment and award of this court and enhanced compensation of Rs.41,38,200/- per acre, as against Rs.4,00,000/- per acre as awarded by this court. The cross objections filed by the respondent -S.L.A.O. has been rejected. On the basis of the above said judgment and award passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated supra, the claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. 20
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 .23. I have carefully perused Ex.P.3 of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.3832/1999 along with Cross Objections No.81/2000. In the said case, the respondent No.1 - S.L.A.O. has acquired the land bearing Sy.No.6/12 of Binnamangala village. 4(1) notification was on 12.08.1993, 6(1) notification was on 16.03.1994 and award passed on 13.06.1991. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka enhanced the market value of Rs.95/- per sq. feet i.e., Rs.41,38,200/- per acre. It is noticed that the S.L.A.O. has awarded Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and this court enhanced the same for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
.24. In the case on hand, the respondent No.1 - S.L.A.O., has acquired the lands of claimants situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village in Sy.No.18, 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3. Preliminary notification was in the year 1998. Preliminary notification in MFA No.3832/1999 was in the year 1993 i.e., prior to 5 years from the date of preliminary notification in the present cases. The lands 21 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 acquired in MFA No.3832/1999 are situated at Binnamangala village. The lands acquired in the present cases are situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village. It is noticed that both villages are not adjacent to each other. I am of the opinion that, no documentary evidence produced by the claimants that Sy.No.6/12 of Binnamangala village is adjacent to the acquired lands. According to the respondent No.1 the distance between Binnamangala village and Amani Byrathi Khane village is 10 kms. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that, he has not seen the land bearing Sy.No.6/12 of Binnamangala village which relates to the MFA No.3832/1999, Binnamangala village is at the distance of 2 kms from K.R. Puram and their village (Amani Byrathi Khane) is 1 ½ kms from K.R. Puram. He has denied the suggestion put by the respondent No.1 that the lands acquired at Binnamangala village are in well developed area and lands in question are not developed. PWs.2 and 3 in their cross-examination denied that lands of Binnamangala village are within the distance of 10 to 12 22 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 kms from acquired lands. But they further stated that, the said lands are situated 5 to 6 kms from the acquired lands. From the above, it is clear that the subject matter of the lands in MFA No.3832/1999 (Ex.P.3) is not adjacent to the acquired lands, it is situated about 5 to 6 kms from acquired lands. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on the basis of Ex.P.3 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, this court cannot determine the market value of the acquired lands as urged by the claimants' side.
.25. Ex.P.4 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.02.1997. Ex.P.4(a) is typed copy of the same. This sale deed is in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.15/1 and 15/2 measuring 29 guntas and 26 guntas respectively ( total 1 acre 15 guntas), situated at Hennuru village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluka. The sale consideration is Rs.14,40,000/-. PWs.1 to 3 in their examination in chief stated that as per Ex.P.2 of village map of Hennuru village is adjacent to Amani Byrathi 23 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Khane village. The lands bearing Sy.No.15/1 and 15/2 of Hennuru village totally measuring 1 acre 15 guntas sold for consideration of Rs.14,40,000/-. The said sale deed is 2 years prior to preliminary notification of these cases. The said lands sold for sum of Rs.11,20,000/- per acre. Hence, they prayed for considering these cases on the basis of sale deed of Ex.P.4. I have perused the Ex.P.4 of the sale deed. This sale deed dated 24.02.1997. Preliminary notification was issued in the present cases on 14.10.1998. It is clear that Ex.P.4 of the sale deed was taken place 20 months prior to preliminary notification of these cases. As per Ex.P.4 of the sale deed, 1 acre 15 guntas of land in Sy. No.15/1 and 15/2 situated at Hennuru village sold at the rate of Rs.10,47,182/- per acre.
.26. In the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3, the respondents side was suggested that the lands relate to Ex.P.4 were developed as on the date of the date of preliminary notification of the present case, the lands in 24 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 question were not developed during that time. It was further suggested that the lands in Ex.P.4 and the present case are far from distance, they are created Ex.P.4 for the purpose of these cases. But PWs.1 to 3 have specifically denied the same. To prove the distance between Ex.P.4 to acquired lands, the claimants have produced Ex.P.2 of Hennuru village map. I have carefully perused the said village map and found that, Aamani Byrathi Khane village boundary is adjacent to the boundary of Hennuru village. The lands in Ex.P.4 are nearby acquired lands. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Ex.P.4 is the relevant and best evidence available in the records for determining the market value of the acquired lands.
.27. RW.1 is an Executive Engineer of BWSSB. In his examination in chief he has deposed that as on the date of preliminary notification the lands in question and surrounding lands were barren lands. Except ragi crops, no other crops grew in the said lands. There was no 25 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 development activities, no transportation and hospital facilities and no approach road to the said lands. He further deposed that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. is more than the market value prevailing as on the date of date of preliminary notification. The acquired lands are not level lands and there was no potential value. He further deposed that, the land measuring 15 guntas out of Sy.No.19/2 situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru was sold by one Dodda Muniyappa through registered sale deed dated 12.06.1998 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,23,200/. It comes to Rs.9,95,200/- per acre. Another land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 7 ½ guntas of Amani Byrathi Khane, sold for a sum of Rs.1,11,600/- and it comes to Rs.5,95,200/- per acre. He further deposed that similarly the land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas of Amani Byrathi Khane village, sold for total consideration of Rs.6,87,000/- which comes to Rs.6,24,545/- per acre. The above said three lands are also the subject matter of the present acquisition. 26
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 .28. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.1 has produced 3 sale deeds dated 12.06.1998 and got marked as per Ex.R.1, Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 respectively. (It is noticed that by over-sight these documents produced by the respondent No.1 marked as Ex.D.1 to D.7 instead of Ex.R.1 to R.7. Hence, this court considered these documents in judgment as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7). Perusal of the said sale deeds, Ex.R.1 is pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 14.88 guntas situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village and it was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,23,200/-. Ex.R.2 pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 4 acres 58 guntas situated at Binnamangala village and it was sold for a sum of Rs.6,68,700/-. Ex.R.3 pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 7.44 guntas situated at Amani Byrathi Khane village and it was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,11,600/-. Ex.R.4 to 6 are the encumbrance certificates mentioned about sale of lands as per Exs.R.1 to 3. Therefore, on the basis of Exs.R.1 to 27 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 3 of sale deeds, the respondent No.1 prayed for determination of market value of the acquired lands.
.29. In the cross-examination of RW.1, the claimants' side was suggested that, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 of sale deeds are not valid sale deeds, because these sale deeds are under valued. But RW.1 stated that he does not know about the same. It was further suggested that the acquired lands are within 15 meters from the main road of Hennuru village. These lands were valued at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. The LAO has not considered the market value of the said land and development in the said area and passed meager award. But the RW.1 has denied the same. I am of the opinion that, to prove the market value of the properties as on the date of preliminary notification, the respondent No. 1 has produced Exs.R.1 to 3 sale deeds pertaining to Sy.No. 19/2 of Amani Byrathi Khane village. The said sale deeds for the year 1998. To prove that Exs.R.1 to 3 sale deeds were under valued, the claimants have not produced any 28 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 documentary evidence. Without documentary evidence, I am not accepted the contention taken by the claimants' side that Exs.R.1 to 3 were under valued and these documents cannot be considered. As per Ex.R.1 of sale deed, 15 guntas of land in Sy.No. 19/2 sold at Rs.2,23,200/- (Rs.9,95,200/- per acre). As per Ex.R.3 of the sale deed, 7 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No. 19/2 sold at Rs.1,11,600/- (Rs.5,95,200/- per acre) and as per Ex.R.3 of the sale deed, 1 acre 12 guntas of land in Sy.No. 19/2 sold at Rs.6,87,200/- (Rs.6,24,545/- per acre). From perusal of Ex.R.1 to 3, it is clear that the lands relates to these documents are pertaining to Sy.No.19/2 of Amani Byrathi Khane village. The lands in question pertaining to Sy. No.18, 19/1, 19/2, 19/3 of Amani Byrathi Khane village. I am of the opinion that Ex.R.1 to R.3 can be taken as piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired lands.
.30. The claimants have produced Ex.P.10 of proposed peripheral ring road sketch (Revised 29 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Comprehensive DEV plan - 2011 AD) prepared by BDA and claiming that acquired lands were abutting to the peripheral ring road. PW.1 in his examination in chief stated that, as per Ex.P.10 acquired lands are by the side of the said peripheral ring road. In the cross examination of PW.1 the respondents' side contended that as per Ex.P.10 the BDA has not formed peripheral ring road, acquired lands were 3 kms from proposed peripheral ring road and the Government has not formed proposed peripheral road. PW.1 has denied the same.
.31. RW.1 B.M. Nagendra Baby, Asst. Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Bengaluru deposed that the claimants have produced Ex.P.10 of CDP for the year 2015. The said CDP shown the proposed peripheral ring road near the lands acquired for the benefit of BWSSB. As per the CDP, the BDA has not formed peripheral ring road till today. Recently the BDA released proposed Revised Master Plan for BDA Local planning area 2031 (Draft) and in the said Revised Master Plan the peripheral ring road 30 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 was not shown since BDA has not formed the said road. The respondent No.1 has produced revised master plan for the year 2015 issued by BDA and got marked as Ex.R.7. I have perused the cross-examination of RW.1 by the claimants' side. It was suggested that Ex.D.7 (Ex.R.7) is not in BDA Office, with an intention to depriving the claimants to compensation to their lands, they certificate Ex.D.7 of revised map. Considering the Ex.P.10 and Ex.D.7 produced by the both side, I am opinion that these documents will not help this court for determination of market value.
.32. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that, best and available evidence in this case is Ex.P.4 of the sale deed for the year 1997 for determination of market value of the acquired lands. As discussed above, Ex.P.4 sale deed dated 24.02.1997 prior to the preliminary notification of the present cases, 1 acre 15 guntas of land sold at the rate of Rs.11,47,182/- per acre. The said lands are nearby to the acquired lands. 31
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Preliminary notification issued in the present cases in the year 1998. Therefore, on the basis of Ex.P.4 of the sale deed, this court can determine the market value of the acquired lands in question. It is noticed that as on the date of preliminary notification, the acquired land was an agricultural and dry land. It is noticed that distance between Majestic (Bengaluru Center) and Amani Byrathi Khane village is more than 10 kms. I am of the opinion that the claimants have lost their lands and livelihood. Hence, sufficient compensation to be awarded to them is required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their judgment reported in 2009 (5) Kar.L.J. 193 (SC) (Special Land Acquisition Officer U.K. Project Vs. Mehaboob and another) was held that: "Award of compensation for - Compensation offered should be reasonable, realistic and very near to value of land acquired, and payment compensation should be prompt so that land loser will be able to purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood". It is noticed in the award passed by the 32 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 respondent No.1 that, acquired lands are within 10 kms from BBMP Head office, one furlong distance from PWD road reaching main road, Bengaluru-Salam Railway line passing adjacent to the acquired lands, said lands were surrounded by irrigated and garden lands. It is further noticed that as per Ex.R.1 of the sale deed produced by the respondent No.1, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.9,95,000/- per acre. Therefore, from looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the acquired property to be fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre is just and necessary. It would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. (respondent No.1) is in-adequate and meager and it is to be enhanced. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the claimants are entitle for enhanced compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre to the acquired lands with all statutory benefits. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 and 3 in partly affirmative.
33
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 .33. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORD ER All the six references made by the S.L.A.O./respondent No.1 u/s. 18 of L.A. Act 1894, are partly allowed.
The claimants are entitle for market value of their acquired property at the rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre, instead of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, as awarded by the respondent No1.
Further, the claimants are entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1)A of Land Acquisition Act @ 12% on the enhanced market value from the date of preliminary notification till the date of taking possession or the date of award whichever is earlier.34
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Further, the claimants are entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. on the enhanced market value under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
Further, the claimants 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 years till deposit of entire compensation amount.
The amount already paid by the respondent No.1/S.L.A.O., if any, shall be deducted in the enhancement of the market value now awarded.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw award accordingly.35
LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Office is directed to keep the original judgment in LAC No.250/2001 and copies of the same in connected cases.
(Dictated to the JW, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 16 th day of October, 2019) (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnappa PW.2 : Narayanappa @ P. Narayanaswamy PW.3 : Smt. Narayanamma
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 18 application dated 03.04.2001 Ex.P.2 Map of Hennuru village Ex.P.3 Certified copy of order of MFA No.3832/1999 dated 17.06.2004 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.02.1997 Ex.P.4(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.4 Ex.P.5 Application Ex.P.6 SPA Ex.P.7 Application 36 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003 Ex.P.7(a) Original application Ex.P.8 Application Ex.P.8(a) Original application Ex.P.9 Application Ex.P.10 Comprehensive development plan (CDP) sketch Ex.P.10(a) Proposed Peripheral road Ex.P.10(b) Beside road of Proposed Peripheral road
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : D.E. Ramana Gowda
RW.2 : B.M. Nagendra Babu
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.06.1998 Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.06.1998 Ex.R.3 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.06.1998 Exs.R.4-6 : Encumbrance certificates Ex.R.7 : Revised master plan (R.Y. Shashidhara), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
RACHENAHALLI Y DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF SHASHIDHARA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.10.20 13:12:51 IST 37 LAC No.250/2001 C/w LAC Nos.280/2001, 35/2002, 171/2003, 172/2003 and 205/2003