The court discussed the applicability of sub-section (3) of S. 3 of Act No. 10 of 1968 to the acquisitions and the relevance of previous awards in determining the market value for compensation.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the common judgment and awards dated 27-8-1969 passed by the III Additional civil Judge, Bangalore, in LAC Nos. 33, 35, 6, 37, 38, 39, 42, and 43 of 1968 on his file, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square yard for the lands acquired. These lands were acquired for formation of Binnamangala Lay Out, II stage, by preliminary notification dated 21-7-1960. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre for garden lands facing rail road, Rs. 7,000/- per acre for garden lands interior, Rs. 6,500/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 500/- per acre for 'kharab' lands, which were raised as stated above, to Rs. 4/- per square yard by the learned civil Judge. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and awards, the claimants came up in the above appeals before this court.

( 2 ) THIS Court, once before, decided these appeals by its judgment and awards dated 21-6-1975 against which the trust Board went up in appeal to the supreme Court of India and the Supreme court of India, by its judgment and order dated 16-8-1976 passed in CA Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974, (1976)2 Kar LJ 189 SC. allowed the appeal and remanded these cases back to this court with the following observations :". . . . The result is that we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court and direct it to decide the cases afresh on evidence on record, so as to determine the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act. It will also decide the question, after affording parties opportunities to lead necessary evidence, whether the judgment, sought to be offered as additional evidence could be admitted. . . . "

( 3 ) AFTER the records were received, parties were given several opportunities to adduce additional evidence if they so desired. No additional evidence is add uced apart from an application for adducing additional evidence submitted by the claimants. Objections are no doubt filed to this application to admit any additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 cpc.

( 4 ) SHRI. S. Rangaraj, the learned Advocate appearing for the climants in MFA nos. 444 to 450 of 1970, vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the learned civil judge at the rate of Rs. 4 per square yard is on the lower side. He submitted that the compensation should be based, at any rate, on the amount of market value fixed for similar lands, covered under the award passed in MFA No. 140 and connected matters of 1969 at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- by this Court. It is for that purpose that he has given an application to admit the said awards into evidence. He further submitted that in view of sub-section (3) of s. 3 of the Act to further amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, viz. , Act no. 10 of 1968, the claimants should also be paid interest at 6% per annum from the date of expiry of three years from the date of the preliminary notification till the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the Collector.

( 5 ) AS againist this, Shri. K. Gopalakrishna, the learned Advocate appearing for the Trust Board, submitted that the said sub-section (3) of S. 3 pf Act No. 10 of 1968 would not be applicable to acquisitions by the Trust Board. He further submitted that the nature and the characteristics of the lands acquired for Binna- mangala Lay Out, I Stage, and the awards made thereunder, would not be a proper guide for determining the market value for the purpose of compensation in the present cases.

( 6 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in these appeals are : (1) Whether the additional evidence sought to be introduced into evidence should be admitted into evidence ? (2) What is the proper market value for the purpose of compesation on the facts of the present cases ? and (3) Whether the provision of sub-section (3) of S. 3 of Act No. 10 of 1968 is applicable to the facts of the present cases ?

( 7 ) THE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document