AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 177/2010 dated 21st November 2011 by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant was respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 was the claimant before the Reference Court. The property of the first respondent was notified for acquisition for the purpose of Metro Railway in Bangalore vide Preliminary Notification dated 31st January 2009. Final notification was gezetted on 16.10.2009. The possession of the property was taken on 10.12.2009. Thereafter an award was passed determining the market value of the property acquired at Rs. 15,274/- per square meter. The first respondent being not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the market value. Accordingly the matter was referred u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In order to prove the contention of the first respondent - claimant she relied upon evidence of one A. Rukmangada and Exs.P1 to P19 are marked. Annappa was examined on behalf of BDA as RW1 and he relied upon an authorization letter issued to him to give evidence before the Court and order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 05.06.2010. The Reference Court considering the evidence of the parties and mainly relying upon the admission of Annappa RW1 and considering the market value determined in respect of the adjoining properties which were acquired under the same notification for the same purpose has determined the market value at Rs. 35,758/-. This judgment and award is questioned by the appellant contending that the market value determined by the Reference Court is on higher side.
We have heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent No. 1.
The main contention of the appellant before us is that the Reference Court did not consider the difference between the residential property and the nonresidential property. According to him under Ex. P17 the compensation has been determined at Rs. 35,758/- per square meter considering that it is an industrial land and the market value of an industrial land cannot be made applicable to the residential site. He further contends that the determination of the market value at Rs. 35,758/- per square meter based on the award passed in respect of adjacent property could not have been made applicable to the present case.
Mr. P. Krishnappa, Learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the property acquired in the present case is a commercial property which has got roads on three sides and within the corporation limit in Peenya, Ward No. 1. Relying upon the admission made by RW1 he requests this Court to dismiss this appeal.
Having heard the counsel for the parties what has to be considered in this appeal is, whether market value determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 35,758/- per square meter is on the higher side or not?
It is not in dispute that the property of Basappa. Mariyappa, Venkatappa, Chikka Venkatappa. Narasimhaiah and that of the first respondent were notified under the same preliminary notification for the same purpose namely for Metro Rail. Incase of Basappa. Mariyappa. Venkatappa and others the market value has been determined at Rs. 35,758/- per square meter, the same has become final and the same is not questioned by the appellant. Sefar as the property in question in this appeal is concerned it has got road on three sides. It is within the corporation limits. RW1 has admitted that the suit property is in commercial locally and it can be exploited for commercial activities. When the suit property could be exploited for commercial activities the value of such property would be more than the value of the industrial land.
In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and award of the Reference Court.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. In view of the findings, I.A. Nos 1 and 2 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly they are dismissed.