Karnataka High Court
N Seenappa vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 2 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
MFA No. 7411 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7411 OF 2011 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7410 OF 2011 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.7411/2011
BETWEEN:
1. N. SEENAPPA.
2. N. JAYARAM.
3. N. SOMASHEKAR.
4. N. MANJUNATH.
ALL ARE MAJOR AND
Digitally signed S/O NARAYANAPPA AND
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE,
COURT OF TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISWESWARAYYA BLDG., III FLOOR,
PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
MFA No. 7411 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR
SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.2.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.434/2000 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE U/SEC 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MFA NO.7410/2011
BETWEEN:
N. SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA AND
R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISWESWARAYYA BLDG., III FLOOR,
PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
MFA No. 7411 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR
SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.2.2011
PASSED IN LAC NO.436/2000 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING
THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This court had heard the matters earlier and MFA
No.7411/2011 and MFA No.7410/2011 and listed today for
further arguments.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellant in both the appeals is that Sy.No.75/3A
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
to the extent of 5 guntas and Sy.No.75/1 to the extent of
4 guntas along with house property were acquired by the
BWSSB. Both the properties are situated at Vajarahalli
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and they
were acquired for the purpose of BWSSB and in respect of
such acquisition of property, a preliminary notification in
both the cases were issued on 18.02.1997 and a final
notification was issued on 18.09.1998. The date of taking
possession was on 12.05.2000 and the date of award was
04.08.1989 and the extent of compensation amount
awarded was Rs.2,48,882.75/- in respect of the land
acquisition case No.436/2000. The date of taking
possession was on 23.05.2000 and the award was dated
20.01.2000. The notice was served on 06.03.2000 and the
extent of compensation amount awarded in respect of
such property was Rs.4,52,738/-. In pursuance of such
acquisition, reference was being made and notices were
also issued by the reference court.
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
4. In both the cases, witnesses were examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and closed their
side. On behalf of the respondent, one Mahendra Kumar,
Assistant Engineer got himself examined as RW2 and he
got marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and having
considered the material on record, the reference court in
detail discussed the material on record and ordered
Rs.50/- per square feet enhancing the same from Rs.30/-
per square feet awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
in both the cases would vehemently contend that the
property, which were acquired are the converted
properties and the conversion was made in the year 1988
itself and acquisition was made in the year 1997. The
counsel also does not dispute the issuance of preliminary
and final notification and also the award passed by the
respondent. The only contention is that when the property
was converted and layout was formed in the said layout
itself, one of the site was already sold in the year 1994
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
itself. The counsel would contend that hardly at the
distance of 1 km, a site was formed in Sy.No.68, which
was sold for an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- wherein a house
is also included. If house is not included, it comes to
Rs.187.08/- per square feet and the said sale deed was
made in the year 1994. The learned counsel would also
contend that if 10% is added as escalation for a period of
2 years, it comes to Rs.224/-. He further submits that he
had restricted his claim only for an amount of Rs.200/-,
since he had paid the court fee only for claiming Rs.200/-.
The very approach of the trial court is erroneous. The
counsel also vehemently contend that the observations
made by the trial court that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 cannot be
relied upon only on the ground that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the
certified copies of the registered sale deeds and they are
dated 10.10.1994, 13.11.1997 and 26.03.1992
respectively. The contents therein would reveal that they
relate to the house properties and they were much earlier
in point of time than the preliminary notification connected
with this case. Such sale deeds cannot be made use of and
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
make them basis for awarding enhanced compensation
amount as is being sought for by the learned counsel for
the claimants. The said approach of the reference court is
erroneous. However, considering Ex.P12 in coming to the
conclusion that Ex.P12 was considered earlier and a
compensation of Rs.50/- was fixed per square feet from
Rs.30/- per square feet and the same needs to be
awarded in this case also. The reliance on Ex.P12 is
erroneous and the learned counsel would vehemently
contend referring to discussion made from para 8 onwards
and contend that the property which was acquired in
terms of Ex.P12 is an agricultural land and the agricultural
land property cannot be the basis for awarding
compensation in respect of converted land and hence, it
requires interference. The counsel also produced the
village map to show that at a distance of 1 Km from
Sy.No.68, which was sold in terms of Ex.P4 and the
acquisition of the property, is Sy.No.75. In support of his
arguments, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'ONGC LTD. VS. SENDHABHAI
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
VASTRAM PATEL AND OTHERS', (2005) 6 SCC 454
with regard to the determination of compensation and the
best method would be the amount as may be evidenced
by the deed of sale. The counsel in reference to this
judgment would contend that when the sale deed is relied
upon, the same ought to have been considered by the
reference court. In the absence of any direct evidence on
the said point, the court may take recourse to other
methods, which judgments and awards passed in respect
of acquisition of lands made in the same village. The
learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the
sale deed is produced as Ex.P4, the reference court ought
not to have considered Ex.P12, which is the judgment of
award passed in other cases.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents would vehemently contend that the land
which was acquired was a vacant land and only a house
property is located in Sy.No.75/1 i.e., 4 guntas and Ex.D4
discloses with regard to house property also and hence,
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
the same has not been considered by the reference court
and made an observation in not accepting Ex.P4. The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in MFA
No.11180/2007 dated 19.01.2011 where the BWSSB
challenged the awarding of amount of Rs.50/- per square
feet and the same was dismissed and a reference was
made in para 8 that reference court was justified in
determining the market value at Rs.50/- per square feet
as allotment of site by the Bangalore Development
Authority was for more than Rs.100/- per square feet
during the relevant date of acquisition. Even if Rs.50/- is
considered as the market value in respect of a non
agricultural land where the layout is not formed, if the cost
of development and the area required for formation of
roads, bridges, civil amenities is considered, Rs.50/- per
square feet cannot be said to be on higher side. The
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this court in
respect of the very same judgment is concerned, CROB
was filed in 2011 itself in MFA Crob No.5/2011 connected
with M.F.A.No.11180/2007 and the same was disposed of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
on 13.07.2016, wherein also discussion was made in
respect of LAC No.435/2000 when the Balaji Housing
Building Cooperative Society filed an appeal for
enhancement and this court had enhanced the amount
taking into note the fact that the acquisition is of the year
1997 and Ex.P1 is in respect of the earlier acquisition of
the year 1988 and escalation was considered as 10%.
Since, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs for
getting the very land in the year 1988, if 10% escalation
per year is added, then it comes to about Rs.15,20,000/-
per acre as in the year 1997. Prima facie it appears that
the market value of the non agricultural land as in the
year 1997 may be around Rs.15,20,000/- per acre and
adding 10% escalation comes to Rs.15,20,000/- per acre.
7. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the learned
counsel would submit that even if Rs.15,20,000/- is
awarded and the same is less than Rs.50/- as awarded
and confirmed, it comes to Rs.39.48/- and though it is
enhanced, the cross objector has not got the benefit. The
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this court
that a discussion was made in para Nos.4 and 6 wherein
the reference court has awarded compensation at Rs.50/-
per square feet, the same appears to be on the lesser
side. The reference court though has observed that land
is converted for non agricultural purpose and the society
has spent certain amount for development, it has not
granted any compensation in that regard. The counsel
referring this observation also contends that the
compensation awarded by the trial court is erroneous and
hence, it requires interference.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent
and having regard to the very contentions, this court has
to look into the evidence available on record. PW1 who has
been examined before the trial court and got marked the
documents, in the cross examination, has not disputed
that the land was converted. Ex.P4 pertains to land in
Sy.No.73/1B. When a question was put, the said land was
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
more fertile than their land, the same was denied.
However, he denies the suggestion that the land is 1Km
away from the acquired land. He also admits that after
the conversion, he got the layout plan approved from the
panchayat. These are the answers elicited from the mouth
of PW1 when learned counsel for the respondent No.1
cross-examined the witness. He admits that he has got the
documents to show the payment of conversion fee after
the order, but he has not produced the conversion order
after the payment of conversion fee and claims that the
same is in the house and he would produce the same.
During the year 1988-89, he has got these lands
converted and also he says that he has got layout plan
with him and he can give it to the court.
9. Having considered the evidence of PW1, it is
clear that Ex.P4 pertains to land in Sy.No.73/1B. Having
considered the document particularly Ex.D7 it is clear that
the land in question, which was acquired, was converted in
the year 1988 itself. No doubt, the plaintiff also relies upon
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
the document Ex.P11 i.e., in respect of Sri.Kamakshi
Residential Layout, Sy.No.75/1, J.P.Nagar 4th Phase,
Vajrahalli, Bangalore and states that it is very near to
Kanakapura main road. From the village map relied upon
by the learned counsel, it is clear that the property
acquired under Ex.P4 is in respect of Sy.No.73/1B. Though
learned counsel contends that it is Sy.No.68, but there is
an admission on the part of PW1 that Sy.No.75 is the
subject matter of acquisition. When such material is placed
before the court, the very approach of the reference court
is erroneous in considering only the document viz., Ex.P12
which is in respect of acquisition of other land. It is also
important to note that when Sy.No.75/3A is a land
acquired to the extent of 5 guntas i.e., the vacant land
and in respect of Sy.No.75/1, 4 guntas of land with a
house and when a document viz., Ex.P4 is relied upon, the
only reasoning given by the reference court is that Ex.P12
can be relied upon and not Ex.P4 and the reason assigned
by the trial court that the contents therein would reveal
that they relate to the house properties and they were
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
much earlier in point of time than the preliminary
notification connected with this case. When the document
Ex.P4 is produced and the sale is of the year 1994 and the
acquisition is made in the year 1997, it ought to have
considered the earlier document of notification since the
said document is not subsequent to the notification and
the very observation made by the reference court that
such sale deeds cannot be made use of and make them a
basis for awarding enhanced compensation, the very
approach is erroneous and ought to have relied upon the
document viz., Ex.P4 and not Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 as those
documents are subsequent to the preliminary notification.
When the document Ex.P4 discloses the sale deed value is
for Rs.2,15,000/- and no doubt, there was a house in the
same property and merely because there was a house and
that too it was a asbestos house, it is rightly pointed by
learned counsel for the appellant that even excluding this,
the said asbestos house, it comes to Rs.18,887.08/- and
also the sale is of the year 1994 and ought to have taken
note of 2 years escalation. If an escalation of 10% is
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
taken, it comes to Rs.224/- as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant. When the sale statistics is
available before the reference court, it ought to have
relied upon it and no doubt, the property is in the same
village and may be a different survey number, but when
the property is acquired for the purpose of using the same
for public purpose and also land is situated at Vajrahalli
and sale deed is also in respect of the very same Vajrahalli
and the survey number is Sy.No.73/1B as admitted by
PW1, the same is elicited from the mouth of PW1 by the
counsel for respondent No.1. When such being the case,
the very approach of appellate court is erroneous and it
requires interference since, there is sale statistics.
10. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent relied upon the judgment of this court passed
in M.F.A.No.11180/2007 wherein when the challenge was
made by the respondent / Bangalore Water Supply Board,
the court has made an observation in the order itself, the
same is on the lesser side and also in Crob, an observation
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
is made that reference court has awarded a compensation
at Rs.50/- per square feet in para 6, the same appears to
be on the lesser side. The reference court though has
observed that the land is converted for non agricultural
purpose, the society has paid certain amount for
development, it has not granted any compensation in that
regard. In the case in hand also only the reference court
has considered Ex.P12 in respect of other property, which
was acquired and the same is also the survey number
properties. In the case on hand, when the property was
converted in the year 1988 itself and almost after 9 years,
the property was acquired and when the property was
converted and similar property was sold in terms of Ex.P4
ought to have considered the same. There is a force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he
restricted his claim only to Rs.200/-. Though escalation
exceeds Rs.200/-, but in view of restriction made by the
appellant, it is appropriate to consider the contention of
the appellant granting an amount of Rs.200/- per square
feet. The reference court committed an error in not relying
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13408
upon the earlier document of Ex.P4 as the same was 3
years prior to the preliminary notification and the same is
also a converted property, which was sold in the year
1994 itself and hence, it requires interference of this court.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part granting
compensation of Rs.200/- per square feet as against
Rs.50/- awarded by the reference court. The appellant is
also entitled for other statutory benefit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
