SHIVAMMA Vs. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in LAC No.101/2004, wherein when Reference was filed under Ss. 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Trial Court passed an order that P.W.1-S. Basappa (claimant No.10) for himself and also on behalf of claimant No.9-K. Srinivasa Iyengar, and that P.W.2-Kumar (for himself and on behalf of other legal representatives of claimant No.1) comes to the conclusion that they have proved their right, title and interest in and over 2 acres 2 guntas of land in that Sy.No.31/2 situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshvanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Trial Court also observed that consequently, they are entitled for the corresponding compensation amount awarded in the case. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that claims of P.W.3 - G.Nayanchandra and the persons he represents, are rejected. Said P.W.1 - S. Basappa and P.W.2 - Kumara are also entitled for the statutory benefits, viz., interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired survey number for the initial period of one year, and thereafter, such rate of interest shall be 15 per cent, till such amount is paid or deposited in the Court. Said P.W.1 - S. Basappa and P.W.2 - Kumara each shall execute an indemnity bond to the extent of the compensation amount they are entitled to, together with a survey for the like sum each. This impugned order is challenged in this present appeal.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, who is dead and their legal representatives are brought on record is that impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable either under law or on facts and as such, the same is liable to be modified to the entire extent of land measuring 2 acre 13 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.31/2 situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshvanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is also contended that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the documents in proper perspective and does not apply his mind properly and failed to appreciate the documents and evidence adduced and produced in support of the case of the appellants. It is very clear in the case of the appellants that, they have been in settled possession and enjoyment of the land in question, since the tenure of their ancestors i.e., since 1974 and all revenue documents are standing in the name of the appellants' mother, the said aspect has not been considered while rendering the judgment and award. It is further contended that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that, till the land was taken possession from the deceased-claimant No.1, all revenue records are standing in her name. Possession was also taken from her, the said aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment and award. There was no finding about the document produced at Ex.P17 i.e., the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge Bangalore District, wherein it is very clear that the suit filed claiming possession from the mother of the appellants' mother was dismissed, in that, it is very clear that prior to 1976, the appellants' mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and she was in settled possession and in view of the fact that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since more than 28 years as on the date of taking possession of the land by the Bangalore Development Authority. The counsel would vehemently contend that when possession is with the appellants and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court and committed an error in passing such an order.