Karnataka High Court
Smt. Byamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
WP No. 28743 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 28743 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BYAMMA
D/O. LATE APPALAPPA AND
W/O. SRI. MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 27,
1ST MAIN,ATTIGUPPE,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M SREENIVASA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally
signed by BANGALORE-560 001
KIRAN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH 2. THE CHAIRMAN
COURT OF BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
KARNATAKA
IIIRD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTHINAGAR, K. H. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMRCL,
OPP. TO KANTEERAVA STADIUM,
CRICKET ASSOCIATION,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
WP No. 28743 of 2023
PODIUM BLOCK,
3RD FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. SRI. CHINNAPPA.,
S/O LATE APPALLAPPA AND
LATE THAYAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT No.1002/A,
17TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
6. SRI. YOGESH.B.,
S/O LATE BYANA AND
LATE SARASWATHI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. SMT SUSHEELAMMA.,
W/O LATE BYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
8. SRI. SANTHOSH,
S/O LATE BYANNA AND
LATE SARASWATHI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
9. SRI. MADHU.B,
S/O LATE BYANNA AND LATE SARASWATHI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R-6 TO R-9 ARE R/AT No.196,
OLD BYAPPANAHALLI,
M.S.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH., AAG FOR
SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO 9;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
WP No. 28743 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2
TO R4, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ANNEXURE-A
DATED 10.02.2023, WHICH FOLLOWED BY THE LEGAL NOTICE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 10.11.2023 AND DIRECTING TO DEPOSIT
THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION AS PER ANNEXURE-H ALONG
WITH STATUTORY INTEREST BEFORE THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL
COURT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.15/2
MEASURING 1 ACRE 38 GUNTAS (OUT OF 2 ACRES 24
GUNTAS) SITUATED AT BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KR PURAM
HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. These facts are not in dispute:
(a) On 04.10.2008, a notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the
Act') was issued and the same was published in
the gazette on 06.10.2008 proposing to acquire
several lands, including the land measuring 01
acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.15/2 of Benniganahalli
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
The lands were acquired for the benefit of
establishing the Metro by Bangalore Metro Rail
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
Corporation Limited--the beneficiary (for short,
'the BMRCL'). While issuing the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, the urgency clause
under Section 17 of the Act was also invoked.
(b) The khatedars notified in Section 4(1) notification
in relation to Sy.No.15/2 were Byamma,
A.Chinnappa, Byanna and the Government. This
preliminary notification was followed by a
declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act dated
04.11.2008, which was published in the gazette
dated 10.11.2008.
(c) Under both the notification as well as the
declaration, a total extent of land measuring 01
acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.15/2 was acquired.
(d) On 29.11.2008, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer ('SLAO') took possession of these 01 acre
38 guntas of land and had handed over the same
to the BMRCL.
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
(e) It may be pertinent to state here that out of the
extent of 01 acre 38 guntas of land, 01 acre 16
guntas belonged to late Appalappa and the
remaining 0-26 guntas belonged to the public
sector undertaking i.e., NGEF (New Government
Electrical Factory).
(f) It appears that as per the directions of this Court,
an amount of Rs.59,50,52,640/- was deposited by
the State to the Official Liquidator in respect of
the lands which were acquired, belonging to NGEF
and this included an extent of 0-26 guntas of land
in Sy.No.15/2.
(g) Sri.Appalappa--the owner of the land along with
his children challenged the notification and
declaration mentioned above by filing Writ Petition
Nos.26752-754 of 2009. However, this petition
was dismissed by an order dated 19.04.2010.
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
(h) One more writ petition was filed in W.P. No.34714
of 2010 and this was also dismissed on
20.12.2012.
(i) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the above writ
petition, a writ appeal in W.A. No.1088 of 2013
was filed, but the Division Bench of this Court by
an order dated 08.04.2013 dismissed the said
appeal.
(j) The matter was carried further to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.15174 of 2013 and the SLP was also dismissed
on 02.09.2013. Thus, the challenge to the
acquisition by the land owners came to an end on
02.09.2013.
(k) It may be pertinent to state here that in the
interregnum, on 11.07.2010, an award came to
be passed determining the compensation in
respect of the lands in question at the rate of
Rs.1.5 crores per acre.
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
(l) It is pertinent note here that though the urgency
clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked,
80% of the amount as estimated by the SLAO was
not paid to the land owners. But, nevertheless,
possession was taken on 29.11.2008.
(m) As per the award, the compensation payable for
the land was as follows:
"CzÀgÀAvÉ, dAn C¼ÀvÉ PÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀÇgÉʹ ¨sÆ
À ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 6(1)gÀ
C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀÄvÀÄð «¢ü PÀ®A 17(4)gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ C¢ü¸Æ
À ZÀ£É
¸ÀASÉå: Drð 131 JPÀÆå 2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.11.2008 gÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.11.2008 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀgÁdå ¥Àvæz
À À°è ¥ÀæPl
À ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ d«ÄäUÉ gÀÆ.1,50,00,000/- UÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ
¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ :
ªÉÆvÀÛ
PÀæ..¸ÀA. «ªÀgÀ
(gÀÆ.)
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ , PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÅgÀ
ºÉÆç½, ¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÉð
1. £ÀA§gï 15/2 gÀ°è 1-38 J/UÀÄAmÉ 2,92,50,000/-
d«ÄäUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÌÉ gÀÆ.1.50
PÉÆÃn gÀAvÉ
±ÉÃ.12% gÀAvÉ C¢üPÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÖÉ ¨É¯É PÀ®A
2. 4(1) gÀ C¢ü¸Æ À ZÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-10- 5,07,000/-
2008 jAzÀ 28-11-2008 (¸ÀÄ¥ÀzÄÀ ð
¥ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ)
3. ±ÉÃ.30% gÀAvÉ ±Á¸À£À ¨sÀvåÉ 87,87,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
4. MlÄÖ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉƧ®UÀÄ 3,85,32,000/-
5. §rØ ±ÉÃ.9% gÀAvÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 34,67,880/-
29-11-2008 jAzÀ 28-11-2009 gÀªÀgÉUÉ
6. §rØ ±ÉÃ.15% gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-11-2009 33,71,550/-
jAzÀ 29-09-2010 gÀªÀgÉUÉ
7. MlÄÖ §rØ 68,39,430/-
MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ (04 + 07) 4,53,71,430/-
F ¥ÉÊQ ±Éà 80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ 3,62,97,144/-
2. The learned Additional Advocate General, on
instructions of the concerned official, submits that
making of an award was not notified to the land
owner as required under Section 12(2) of the Act.
3. It is also not in dispute that the award amount which
comprised of the afore-mentioned sum of
Rs.3,85,32,000/- as well as the interest component
of Rs.68,39,430/- (as indicated in the award), totally
amounting to Rs.4,53,71,430/- was also not
deposited in the Civil Court.
4. The learned counsel for the BMRCL submits that as
per Annexure 'R2' to its counter, the SLAO made a
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
demand for depositing a sum of Rs.116.32 crores. In
this demand, the SLAO has called upon the BMRCL to
deposit a sum of Rs.62.70 crores, in respect of the
lands acquired in Benniganahalli village at the rate of
Rs.1.5 crores per acre and he had also demanded
12% of the said amount as the additional market
value and 30% solatium as computed under Section
23(1-A) of the Act, which amounted to approximately
Rs.31.00 crores.
5. A demand was also made for payment of
establishment expenses at 10% of the above, 1% of
the audit fee and the publication charges of Rs.5/-
lakhs.
6. The learned counsel points out that this demand for
payment of Rs.116.32 crores, made on 23.06.2008,
was promptly complied by the BMRCL by depositing
the amount on 30.06.2008 itself and therefore, the
liability of the BMRCL to pay the compensation
amount to the State stood satisfied even before the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
Preliminary Notification was published on
06.10.2008. He therefore submits that no liability of
any kind can be fastened on the BMRCL.
7. This assertion of the BMRCL is not in dispute.
8. It is therefore clear that the entire compensation
payable for acquisition of the lands in Benniganahalli
village as demanded by the SLAO was complied with
by the BMRCL and the State was therefore under an
obligation to ensure that the compensation was
either disbursed to the land owners or in the
alternative, deposited before the appropriate Court, if
there were disputes regarding their entitlement.
9. As already noticed above, though the lands were
acquired by invoking urgency clause under Section
17 of the Act, 80% of the amount was not paid to the
land owners and an award came to be passed only
two years after the declaration.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
10. This, by itself, indicates the laxity on the part of the
State in ensuring payment of compensation to the
people who had lost their lands. The amount of
Rs.116.32 crores deposited by the BMRCL appears to
be in the coffers of the State right from 2010.
11. In the year 2009, the petitioner's mother, who is also
named Byamma, and others filed W.P. Nos.26752-54
of 2009 challenging the declaration dated
10.11.2008. This Court on consideration of the
arguments proceeded to allow the writ petitions in
part and set aside the order passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner, who had passed an order
under the Urban Land Ceiling Act holding that the
petitioner's father--Appalappa was holding land in
excess of an extent of 6891.34 sq.mtr. This Court
however upheld the preliminary notification as well
as the declaration and negatived the challenge to the
acquisition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to
give a representation to the BMRCL to relocate the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
landing of the foot over bridge and the BMRCL was
directed to consider the same in accordance with law
keeping in view the public interest.
12. Importantly, this Court held that the petitioners
therein were also entitled to withdraw the amount
pursuant to the acquisition by producing necessary
title deeds and establishing that they are the legal
representatives of the original owners.
13. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that a claim
application was made to the SLAO and the SLAO
initiated proceedings to conduct an enquiry regarding
disbursement of the compensation.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed
on record the order-sheet which indicates that the
claimant was shown to be Appalappa who is
admittedly no more and the respondents were
BMRCL, NGEF and the Railways. In these
proceedings, Chinnappa had appeared and that the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
applicants therein had produced their documents and
the SLAO had reserved his judgment. The last date
of enquiry was on 14.09.2021.
15. The learned AAG, on being queried as to whether any
order was passed, stated that no orders were passed
or were available in the records to indicate that any
decision taken regarding disbursal of compensation.
16. It is therefore clear that despite an order and despite
initiation of an enquiry, the question of disbursal of
compensation was not adjudicated upon despite the
lapse of 13 years.
17. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner's
mother--Byamma, Chinnappa and others had also
filed W.P. No.34714 of 2010 challenging the
acquisition, but this Court by an order dated
20.12.2012 negatived their claim and dismissed their
writ petitions.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
18. The writ appeal preferred against the said order in
W.A. No.1088 of 2013 was also dismissed and a
special leave petition preferred before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) CC No.15174 of 2013 was
also dismissed on 02.09.2013.
19. It is thus clear that the challenge made to the
acquisition came to an end way back in the year
2013 and yet no steps were taken by the SLAO to
disburse the compensation amount of at least to an
extent of 80%, nor was any step taken for depositing
the compensation amount into the Civil Court and
requesting the Civil Court for apportionment.
20. As the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 herein
has produced a copy of order dated 25.10.2023
passed by the SLAO regarding issuance of notice
dated 18.08.2021 to the land-owners, the NGEF and
Railways, as indicated at Page 154 of the documents
produced along with affidavit dated 09.12.2024 :
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
"EzÀgÀAvÉ, w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¸ÀASÉå: J¯ïJ¹/3-59/62-
63, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-08-2021 gÀAvÉ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ©.JA.Dgï.¹.J¯ï, J£ï.f.E.J¥sï ºÁUÀÆ
gÉʯÉé E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤Ãr, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-08-
2021 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02-09-2021 gÀAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ
£ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è MlÄÖ
¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀzÀ «¹ÛÃtð 1-38 J/UÀÄA ¥ÉÊQ 0-26 UÀÄAmÉ
d«ÄãÀÄ J£ï.f.E.J¥sï gÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è 0-26
UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¤ßvÀgÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt
gÀÆ.59,50,52,640/- (LªÀvÆ
É A§vÀÄÛ PÉÆÃn LªÀvÄÀ Û ®PÀëzÀ
LªÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ DgÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ £À®évÄÀ Û gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ)
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¦ü²AiÀÄ¯ï °QéqÉÃlgï, ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð D¥sï PÀ£ÁðlPÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (J£ï.f.E.J¥sï) gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV EªÀjUÉ
¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G½PÉ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«Ää£À
¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ® ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ
¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
21. In this case, the petitioner herein submitted a
representation on 10.02.2023, a copy of which is
produced at Annexure 'A'. In this representation, the
petitioner made a claim that she was the legal
representative of the original owner--Appalappa and
that she had 1/3rd share in the award amount and
she therefore requested the amount to be disbursed
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
in her favour or in the alternative, record her
objection and refer the matter to the Civil Court
under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act for proper
adjudication and for apportionment.
22. The SLAO, in light of this claim being made for 1/3rd
of the compensation, was required to refer the
matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of
the Act, especially when a specific demand was being
made that if the compensation was not being
disbursed as requested by the petitioner, that the
matter be referred to the Civil Court.
23. On 31.07.2023, another claim was made by
A.Chinnappa son of Appalappa and the children of
Byanna (the other son of Appalappa) i.e., Santhosh
Kumar B., Madhu B., and Yogesh B., contending that
Sy.No.15/2 was their ancestral property and their
father had two wives and A.Chinnappa was the son of
the first wife and was entitled to 0-31 guntas, while
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
Byanna was the son through the second wife and he
was entitled to 0-31 guntas.
24. They also contended that the second wife--Dodda
Byamma was entitled to 0-20 guntas of land. This
claim was made on the basis of an unregistered
partition deed dated 12.08.2021.
25. The SLAO, despite there being a claim for
compensation of 1/3rd of the compensation by the
petitioner, proceeded to adopt a strange procedure
which was obviously for extraneous considerations.
He proceeded to pass an order dated 25.10.2023 in
the following terms:
"DzÉñÀ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉÆç½,
¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 15/2 gÀ°è 1-38
J/UÀÄA ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀªÁzÀ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÉÊQ 1-16 J/UÀÄA
d«Ää£À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ²æÃ.a£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ
²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï.©, ²æà ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æÃ.AiÉÆÃUÉñï.©
©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
§UÉÎ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æêÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÄÌUÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀĪÀ
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ²æà a£ÀߥÀà
©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï.©,
²æà ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æà AiÉÆÃUÉñï.© ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ
F PÀbÉÃjUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹ FUÁUÀ¯Éà vÀªÀÄä fêÀ£À DzsÁgÀQÌzÀÝ
d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
ªÉÄïÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
¤ÃqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï.©
gÀªÀgÀ Qrß ªÉÊ¥sÀ®å«zÀÄÝ, aQvÉìUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ºÀt«®èzÉà ¸ÁªÀÅ
§zÀÄQ£À ªÀÄzsÉåºÉÆgÀl £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀªÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̼À
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ EvÁå¢ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑUÀ½UÁV ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ §½ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, zÀħð®
DyðPÀ ¥Àj¹Üw¬ÄAzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr 181 ¨sÀƸÁé ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-08-2009 gÀAvÉ ±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀzÀ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌUÁjPÉ §UÉÎ
ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀåwjPÀÛ
DzÉñÀªÁzÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ §zÀÞgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ
ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀgÀAvÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ
»£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è 1-
38 J/UÀÄA d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«Ää£À
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀÄ/¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ºÁUÀÆ F »AzÉ
¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ
DUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
oÉêÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÁUÀ°Ã
¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ
±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ
¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«Ää£À MlÄÖ
gÀÆ.3,25,35,334/- UÀ¼À CªÁqïð ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ¥ÉÊQ 3 ¨sÁUÀ
¯ÉPÀÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, JgÀqÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 1) ²æà a£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ
ºÁUÀÆ 2) ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï.©, ²æà ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æÃ
AiÉÆÃUÉñï.© ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä
¸ÀÆa¹, G½PÉ 3£Éà ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtPÉÌ ²æêÀÄw
¨ÉÊAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ 1/3£Éà ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ FªÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ²æêÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ
¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀzÀ d«Ää£À §UÉÎ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è,
¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À
PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ DzÉò¹zÉ.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-10-2023 gÀAzÀÄ
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ"
26. As could be seen from the above, even after noticing
the claim made by the petitioner on 10.02.2023, i.e.,
nearly five months before the claim was made by
A.Chinnappa and sons of Byanna, the SLAO
proceeded to conclude that the property was the
property of Appalappa and they were entitled to
1/3rdshare each and taking note of the difficulties of
B.Santhosh Kumar, who was stated to have suffered
kidney failure, proceeded to disburse 2/3rd of 80% of
the award amount.
27. Thus, essentially, the SLAO divided the compensation
amount into three shares and proceeded to disburse
2/3rd of 80% of the compensation amount to
A.Chinnappa and to the sons of Byanna.
28. The 80% of the award amount was obviously the
amount that the SLAO was required to pay to the
land owners when he took possession, as a result of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
the urgency clause invoked. As already stated
above, the urgency clause was invoked and a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued
on 04.10.2008 and possession was taken on
29.11.2008, but strangely, 80% of the amount which
was supposed to be paid on 29.11.2008 was
ultimately sought to be given to just two of the
claimants on 25.10.2023 i.e., after nearly 15 years.
29. The petitioner, on 18.12.2023, i.e., nearly two
months after the order of the SLAO, has filed this
writ petition seeking for a mandamus to consider her
representation dated 10.02.2023 which was followed
by a legal notice dated 10.11.2023 and for a
direction to deposit the compensation along with
statutory interest before the Civil Court.
30. On a perusal of this demand, it is obvious that the
petitioner was completely unaware of 2/3rd of the
compensation having been disbursed to her nephews
and to her half-brother A.Chinnappa.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
31. The petitioner has in fact sought for issuance of a
direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to disburse the
award amount in favour of the other co-owners and
this by itself was indicative of the fact that she was
unaware of the disbursal.
32. In my view, the act of the SLAO, in disbursing the
compensation to one set of co-owners, especially
when he was aware that a claim was being made by
another co-owner, is blatantly illegal.
33. It is obvious that the SLAO, who was definitely aware
of the requirement of referring the question of
apportionment to the Civil Court, has chosen to
become a Civil Court himself and has concluded that
the compensation amount was required to be divided
into three portions and he was satisfied that the two
co-owners had 2/3rd share and was entitled to the
same and at the same time, the petitioner who was
also a co-owner had not produced any documents to
establish her claim and therefore, he was depositing
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
1/3rd of the compensation amount into the Civil
Court.
34. It may be pertinent to notice here that it was
nobody's case, muchless the case of A.Chinnappa
and the children of Byanna, that the petitioner was
not related to them or that she was the daughter of
Appalappa through his second wife.
35. If the SLAO could hold that the son of the first wife of
Appalappa and the son of the second wife of
Appalappa were entitled to 1/3rd share each, it is
incomprehensible as to how he could hold that the
petitioner being the daughter of the second wife of
Appalappa was not entitled to the same extent of
share.
36. This singular conduct of the SLAO in asserting that
the entitlement of the petitioner could not be
ascertained, because she had not produced any
documents, by itself goes to show that he was
completely involved with A.Chinnappa and the sons
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
of Byanna. This is obviously because the SLAO
deliberately entertained the claim of only two of the
claimants, while negating the claim of the petitioner.
37. It may also be pertinent to state here that on
25.04.2024, this Court taking notice of the
adjudication upon the entitlement of the parties and
disbursement of compensation, had directed the
Deputy Commissioner (Urban District) to be present
before the Court to explain the conduct of the SLAO.
38. On 11.06.2024, the learned Additional Advocate
General produced a copy of the order dated
05.06.2024 which indicated that the Deputy
Commissioner had conducted an enquiry and had
recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the SLAO.
39. This would also indicate that the act of the SLAO in
adjudicating upon the entitlement of the children of
Appalappa to the exclusion of the petitioner was
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
found to be wrong even by the Deputy
Commissioner.
40. The statutory provisions of the Act specifically debar
the SLAO from embarking upon any enquiry into the
entitlement of the compensation when rival claims
are being made. It is the clear mandate of the law
that whenever rival claims are made, the SLAO has a
statutory obligation to refer the matter to the Civil
Court and that is obviously because, it is only the
Civil Court which is competent to determine the Civil
rights of a party and the land acquisition officer being
an administrative officer of the State has absolutely
no power/jurisdiction to decide on the entitlement or
the legal right of a claimant.
41. In this case, it is to be noticed here that the amounts
involved even in respect of a small extent of 01 acre
16 guntas was in excess of Rs.4.5 crores and despite
a large amount of money being involved, the SLAO
has proceeded to treat the matter in an extremely
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
cavalier manner and disbursed the compensation to
the persons of his choice in gross contravention of
the elementary legal principles relating to the
requirement of referring the matter relating to
apportionment of compensation to the Civil Court.
42. As already observed above, this approach of the
SLAO would clearly indicate that he was colluding
with A.Chinnappa and sons of the Byanna and this
can obviously be for extraneous considerations.
43. I am therefore of the view that it would be
appropriate to impose Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs) on the SLAO who has permitted the disbursal.
44. The SLAO shall deposit the said cost to the KIDWAI
Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore, within a
period of four weeks from today.
45. As far as the entitlement of the petitioner is
concerned, as noticed above, she is also the
daughter of Appalappa through his second wife and
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
this fact is not in dispute at all. Consequently, she
would be entitled to 1/3rd share of the compensation
awarded by the SLAO.
46. It must be noticed here that the son of Appalappa
through his first wife, i.e., A.Chinnappa and the sons
of Appalappa through his second wife i.e., children of
Byanna--the legal heirs have already taken 1/3rd of
the compensation amount each, out of the 80% of
the compensation amount and they have accepted
that their entitlement is only to 1/3rd share. In fact,
they have not even sought for reference to the Civil
Court and have thereby conceded that they were
only entitled to 1/3rd share each and as a
consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to the
remaining 1/3rd share of the compensation amount.
47. In this view of the matter, it would also be
appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the
remaining 1/3rd of the 80% of the compensation
amount.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
48. It may also be pertinent to sate here that on
29.01.2024 i.e., during the pendency of this writ
petition, Byamma had also filed O.S. No.753 of 2024
against A.Chinnappa and the children of Byanna. In
the said suit, she also has arrayed the SLAO as
defendant No.6. The suit is for partition and
apportionment of compensation of the plaintiff's 1/3rd
share in land bearing Sy.No.15/2.
49. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
this suit, an interim order was granted restraining the
SLAO from disbursing the compensation.
50. Another glaring illegality committed by the SLAO has
also become noticeable. The SLAO instead of
depositing the remaining extent of the 1/3rdshare of
the compensation, which according to him the
petitioner was entitled, into the Civil court under
Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, has proceeded to
deposit this 1/3rd of the amount in O.S. No.753 of
2024.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
51. It is stated that there was no direction in O.S.
No.753 of 2024 to deposit the money into the
account relating to O.S. No.753 of 2024 and yet the
money was deposited in the Civil Court.
52. Unless there was an order of the Civil Court to
deposit the amount into O.S. No.753 of 2024, the
question of the SLAO depositing the said amount in
that case would not arise. The fact despite there
being no order, the SLAO chose to deposit the
amount into O.S. No.753 of 2024 also establishes the
collusion that he had with A.Chinnappa and the
children of Byanna in this regard.
53. The decision regarding the entitlement of the
petitioner over the 1/3rd compensation amount would
not, however, bring the matter to a close.
54. As already noticed above, the possession of the land
was taken on 29.11.2008 and though the
requirement of the law was that 80% of the amount,
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
as estimated by the SLAO was to be paid to the land
owners, no such amount was paid.
55. The award was only passed on 11.07.2010 even
though the possession was taken nearly two years
prior thereto on 29.11.2008.
56. The land owners would therefore be entitled to the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 crores per acre
and in addition, they would also be entitled for an
amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum
on such market value, under Section 23(1-A) of the
Act, from the date of publication of Section 4(1)
notification in the gazette till the date of the award
and they would also be entitled for 30% of the
market value as solatium.
57. Section 34 of the Act mandates that if the
compensation amount is not paid or deposited before
taking possession, the SLAO is required to pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of taking possession until it has been paid or
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
deposited and if said amount is not paid within one
year, he would be liable to pay interest at 15% per
annum.
58. In that view of the matter, the award would also
include the interest under Section 34 of the Act at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking
possession for one year i.e., from 29.11.2008 to
28.11.2009, and the interest at the rate of 15%
per annum under the proviso to Section 34 of the
Act from 29.11.2010 till the same is paid or
deposited to the land owners.
59. Since, admittedly, the SLAO has not paid or
deposited the amount into the Civil Court as
contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act,
the State will have to necessarily pay the interest at
the rate of 15% per annum from 29.11.2009 till
the date of deposit or payment to the petitioner.
60. Since the petitioner has been deprived of the
compensation, though she lost the land along with
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
her brothers in the year 2008, it would be
appropriate to direct the State to pay the petitioner
of her 1/3rd share of the compensation amount
in the following manner.
61. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited by the SLAO in O.S. No.753 of
2024, subject to her executing an indemnity bond to
the satisfaction of the Civil Court.
62. The State shall pay the balance amount to the
petitioner, subject to her executing an indemnity
bond, which shall be as follows:
The petitioner would be entitled to:
1/3rd of Rs.3,62,97,144/- + Additional market
value at the rate of 12% p.a. + Solatium at the
rate of 30% + interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
for one year + interest at the rate of 15% p.a.
till date of payment.
Sl.
Particulars Amount to be paid
No.
Compensation
1 1/3rd of Rs.3,62,97,144/-;
amount :
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
Amount calculated At 12% per annum from the
on such market date of publication of Section
2 value under 4(1) notification in the gazette
Section 23(1-A) of i.e., from 06.10.2008 till the date
the Act : of the award;
3 Solatium : At 30% of the market value;
Interest under At 9% per annum from the date
4 Section 34 of the of taking possession i.e., from
Act : 29.11.2008 to 28.11.2009;
Interest under the
At 15% per annum from
proviso to Section
5 29.11.2009 till the same is paid
34 of the Act and
or deposited
as ordered above :
63. Out of this sum, the State shall be entitled to deduct
the amounts that are already deposited in O.S.
No.753 of 2024, which the petitioner shall be entitled
as already observed above.
64. The balance amounts shall be made over to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from
today, subject to her executing an indemnity bond.
65. This payment of compensation in favour of the
petitioner is being passed taking into consideration
the extraordinary situation prevalent in this case,
which is, firstly, the State has ensured that the
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
compensation has not been paid to the land loser
even after the lapse of more than 13 years, secondly,
the State had been in receipt of the entire
compensation from the BMRCL two months before
the preliminary notification was issued and thirdly,
the State through its SLAO had allowed the nephews
and the half brother of the petitioner to secure their
share of 2/3rd's of the compensation, while denying
the same benefit to the petitioner.
66. The writ petition is accordingly ALLOWED.
67. Re-list the matter on 03.03.2025 for the State and
the SLAO to report compliance.
68. It is hereby made clear that this order would not
preclude the State to recover the loss sustained by it
from the concerned officers including the present
SLAO who permitted the disbursal and who has
chosen to represent himself through a private
counsel in this writ petition.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4879
69. The State shall also be entitled to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against all the officers concerned who
were responsible for the absolutely brazen manner in
which the provisions of the Act have been flouted.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
