This Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed '£1/S,' 54(1)
of LA Act against the Judgtrnent dated 6/ 6 / 2006' 'passed
in M.A. No.3/2004 on the file of the Presid.i:n.g_»f)I'l?.eei'..,
F'l'C-11, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore,
appeal filed against the J1}d@16I1lZ and.,_AWard;,"~dated"
4 / 4 / 2002 passed in Lower Appellatr-_._'C01':rt Ne.Ij,3'7}' l_'_990_ V
0:11 the file of the Civil Judge g(Sr.Dn.;)
Rarnanagaram.
This Miseeflaneous Seeencl for " ll
hearing this day, the Court deliveregl the -fgiliowirig:
This is a 'Second Appeal
challeng'ng_ V' passed in
M.A.3,:'e4ll as this Fast Track Court-EI,
Bangalere "fiated 6/ 6/ 2006, wherein the
Judggfieiit am. dated 4/4/02 in L.A.C. No.37/90
.l'V'e21AV{l3Ve ef._tl1e Judge, (Sr. Du.) Ramanagaram is
parties are referred to by their respective
.ra£1l€_i:1 {he Reference Court.
3. The appellant, a claimant in the Reference
V' Cami, was owner of an extent of 20 gmitas of land in
Syn Ne.44/ i situated at Bidadi Village, Bidadi Hobli,
"*1
Ralnaxlagaram Taluk. The said {and was aequire'd*~-by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for widening and
‘ additional ‘flack for extending the of
Bangaiore Mysore Road. The
under Preiirnitrlary Noti1iea=;tioi1«”‘._vdo.ted 198.4;
Pursuant to the said on an
application of the ttxe Land
Acquisition Act, the up by the
Reference eomififisafion
a1nount__ respect of the }and
acquired. = claimant; produced
evidence prevailing market vaiue as
~. on of ‘é1eq,1g1§_$ée?aio:1 of the aforesaid land and aiso
‘e1};i'{‘§.cie:;’t~t evidence to Show the nature and extent of
cro§3~”thet’.€§fo;e vcgown and the income that was deprived
to leis ‘eeitefit due to acquisition of the said land.
A W the vaiue, claimant produced two documents
V” P-2 a sale deed dated 15/3/1981, wherein 5 guntas
of wicuiture land adjacent to acquired land was sold
for a sum of Rs.5,00{)/-, the said transactioro is nearly 3
years 7 months prior to the date of premnmary
W:
notification. Another document is Ex.P~–3 is in respect of
M
C’ (‘L71′) W. er’ (“Q1 5;
a sale traxzsaction in respect of aye
has taken place in the month of
was sold for a sum of Rs.o.{
measuring 40 X 60. The referenee-. *’
sale deed, based on the valiiejhlshownl’ the
value of 20 guntas leednced the
value at 33% development
charges Ifilati is entitled for
compensa{iQ;;:i.o§: also held that the
Z on the enhanced
marketeralile, other benefits applicable
under” the respondent before the Appellate
aggrieved by the enhancement of
‘€16; Rs.97,284/- yreferred Misc. Appeal in
V dd _ / was allowed by the 15′ appellate Court
H H K the reference Court was wrongly guided by
.’ tine’ documents Ex.P-3 for enhancing the comyensafion
T ” fiflxioh is in respect of a residential converted land,
Whereas the acquired land is only an agrleultziral land
not having special benefit of conversion, as such set
5
aside the same by accepting the documents produced
by the claimant at Ex.P~2 and re-fixed the compensation
payable for the acquired land at Rs.20,00()/- as against
which this appeal is filed challenging the corTec’:3i_ess~..of
the Judgment of the 15′ appellate Court.
4. The title of the claimaili iloeatioii ,of”Vtl}et’
acquired land is not in dispute. resgzoiideflt
does not dispute that the acquiied_ isituaited next
to the developed land tliei i1ieoIiee«.derivedViV1i”om the
acquired land when eras land and its
potentia} ‘value into residential use. It is
also not ‘–disp1i1:e the said extent is not required
1pu1i1§ose,_..ti1at is widening additional raiiway
_ in Mysore sector, the claimant would
liasgheiihad benefit of getting the said land converted
Vi°~.,.,_i’w._from *~ afgxicultural to ziorpagieultural purmse for
“if iayout thereon and could have realised the
h K same price for which the adjacent land was sold or little
more. Keeping an this in mind and also in View of the
fact that Ex. P-2 produced by the claimant is in respect
of the transaction which has taken place nearly 3 ie
Lea
years yrior t0 the date of Preliminary Ne{ifieatiei1.T for
acquisition of iand by respondent and giving
the probabie increase in the land caused _
of 3 % years, the Reference
vaiue stated in E:x.P–3 has’ 1:to’:;
conclusion that the value of ezould be
Rs. i,45,2{}O/-. Howe:§e;~,. fieferenee
Court was also *-eissessmg the
eompensafiefi foif_ Aland, in as much
as, the while fixing the rate
pmvafij}:1g__ — Eand, has reduced the
eompeneatjfonvy’ 33% deduction towards
devegiepment ef t he said land and has rightly fixe<:i
for the acquired iand at Rs.97,284/-,
to this Court is just and proper. The
V –V by the first appellate Court to reduce the
K te"'Rs.20,000/~ based an the value shown in the
* eieeifinents of the year 1981 is not aeeemabie as eerrect
' " Hfizeiue of the acquired land. Therefore, the Juégmem
and award passed by the 15$ appeiiate Court requires to
be set aside.
“W
mi
:3. Accordingly, the Judglent and Award dated
6.6.2006 passed in M.A.NO.3/O4 is set V.
Judment: and Award dated 4.4.2oo2’_”%%’;§ass¢§dj’ Q
L.A.C.No.37/90 granting Rs.97,§§i§4[:§
to the acquired land along with L’
and other benefits to Lmder
the Act is , itfic: of the
claimant is aliowfed.