Karnataka High Court
The Special Deputy Commissioner vs The Director on 14 February, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9663 OF 2017 (LAC)
BETWEEN :
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BMICP (METRO)
ARAVINDA BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001
2. THE SPECIAL ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO)
ARAVINDA BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE DIRECTOR
M/S SHRAVANEE PROPERTIES PVT LTD,
NO.142, AND 143, G.R.PLAZA
DR.D.V.G. ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE 560 004
2
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER
(LAND ACQUISITION AND ESTATE)
BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPLORATION LTD.,
SHANTINAGAR, K.H.ROAD
BANGALORE 560 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. MANU FOR
SHRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
SHRI. N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT.30.08.2014, PASSED IN
LAC.NO.58/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH.17), BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE U/SEC.30 AND 31(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH
KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board1 has
presented this appeal challenging the judgment and award
dated August 30, 2014 in LAC No.58/2014 on the file of II
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore with a
delay of 1113 days.
2. We have heard Shri. P.V. Chandra Shekar,
learned Advocate for appellants, Shri. Manu K, learned
'KIADB' for short
Advocate for first respondent and Shri. Harish N.N., learned
Advocate for second respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are, the State Government
issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of
KIAD Act2, dated January 17, 2006 followed by Final
Notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act, dated October
24, 2007, to acquire 1746.10 sq. mtrs. of property
belonging to the first respondent. The KIADB took
possession of 1746.90 sq. mtrs. of the property on March
23, 2010.
4. KIADB's case is, first respondent had purchased
1591.97 sq. mtrs. as per Sale deed dated November 21,
2005. The Reference Court has held that first respondent
has proved its title over 1746.90 sq. mtrs.
5. Shri. Chandra Shekar, arguing in support of the
appeal submitted that the first respondent has purchased a
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966
smaller area and therefore, the Reference Court has erred
in holding that first respondent had proved his title in
respect of 1746.90 sq. mtrs. The first respondent is entitled
for compensation only for 1591.97 sq. mtrs as mentioned
in the sale deed.
6. In reply, Shri. Manu, for the first respondent
submitted that appeal is filed with a delay of more than
three years. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay
are untenable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
7. He further submitted that even on merits, law is
settled that boundaries prevail over the extent mentioned in
the Sale deed. In support of this contention, he relied upon
Subhaga and Ors. Vs. Shobha and Ors.3
8. We have carefully considered rival contentions
and perused the records.
(2006)5 SCC 466 (para 6)
9. It is not in dispute that KIADB has taken
possession of 1746.90 sq. mtrs. The Reference Court, vide
judgment dated August 30, 2014 has held that first
respondent has proved its title over 1746.90 sq. mtrs.,
based on Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. KIADB has filed a Review
petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC and Section 53 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Misc.
No.41/2016. The Reference Court, by its order dated July
31, 2017 has dismissed the Review petition. In its order on
the Review petition, it has held in para 17 that, in W.P.
No.35396/2015, W.As. No.313/2016, 279/2016 and
306/2016; and SLP No.23721/2016, the area of land has
been held as 1746.90 sq. mtrs. This finding is not rebutted
by appellant.
10. Even otherwise, it is settled that boundaries
prevail over the area of land mentioned in a title document.
Admittedly, KIADB has taken possession of 1746.90 sq.
mtrs. Therefore, its argument that first respondent is
entitled for compensation only to the extent that is
mentioned in the Sale deed is untenable.
11. Having heard the learned Advocates both on
delay and merits, the reasons given by the appellant for the
delay in filing this appeal is accepted and delay in filing is
condoned. However, for the reasons stated above, the
appeal is dismissed on merits.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
