Karnataka High Court
Andanappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
M.F.A. No.1017/2021
C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1017/2021 (LAC)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.64/2022
IN M.F.A. No.1017/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MARI GOWDA, ADV.,)
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI. ANDANAPPA
S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT. NO.95/A, 3RD STAGE
4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
2. SRI. R. HUCHANNA
S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. NO.95/A 3RD STAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
M.F.A. No.1017/2021
C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022
4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE K. BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.669, 5TH MAIN ROAD
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV., FOR
SRI. UDAY K.S. ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-17) IN LAC
NO.75/2009 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.64/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
R/AT. NO.95/A, 3RD STAGE
4TH BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGLAURU-560 079.
2. HUCHANNA .R
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH
R/AT NO.96/A, 3RD STAGE
4TH BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGLAURU-560 079.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
M.F.A. No.1017/2021
C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022
3. R. RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE K. BORAIAH
R/AT NO.669, 12TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, M.C. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 040.
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV., FOR
SRI. UDAY K.S. ADV., FOR CROSS OBJECTOR)
AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMAR PARK WEST
BENGLAURU-560 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MARI GOWDA,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22
OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
TOGETHER WITH COSTS, BY ENHANCING THE MARKET
VALUE @ RS.200/- PER SQ.FT., WITH STATUTORY
BENEFITS BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.75/2009, BY THE
HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-17), REFERENCE COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA CONNECTED WITH MFA CROSS OBJECTION
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
M.F.A. No.1017/2021
C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
MFA.No.1017/2021 is filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, BDA Bengaluru and MFA.CROB.No.64/2022 is filed
by the claimants seeking for higher compensation. Both
the appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated
11.10.2019 passed in LAC.No.75/2009 by the Court of II
Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-
17).
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Reference Court for the convenience.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal and
cross objection are that the claimants' land bearing
Sy.No.43 measuring 1 acre situated at Laggere Village,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was
acquired by the State Government and the BDA for the
purpose of widening of outer ring road. The Land
Acquisition Officer determined the market value at
Rs.9,25,000/- per acre.
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
4. The claimants sought the reference. The
Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties.
Claimants examined PW.1 and PW.2, got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P32. The respondent examined RW.1 and got marked
Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. The Reference Court enhanced the same
at Rs.167/- per square feet. Being aggrieved, the BDA is in
appeal seeking for reduction of the market value and
claimants are seeking for higher compensation.
5. Sri.Mari Gowda, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant - BDA submits that the Reference Court has
committed grave error in solely relying on Ex.P18, sale
deed dated 22.10.2001, in which a residential plot
measuring 40 x 30 was sold at Rs.4,00,000/-. Whereas
the claimants' lands are agricultural lands acquired for
widening of the outer ring road. Hence, the Reference
Court ought to have determined the market value on lower
side. It is submitted that the small extent of land cannot
be basis to determine the market value. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
Co-ordinate Bench in Land Acquisition Officer and
Another v. H.Munireddy and Others in
MFA.No.6781/2006 (LAC) disposed of on 28.08.2007 and
seeks to allow the appeal filed by the BDA by reducing the
market value and dismissing the cross objection.
6. Per contra, Sri.C.M.Nagabushana, learned
counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the
Reference Court has committed grave error in deducting
50% towards development charges and determining the
market value at Rs.167/- per square feet. It is submitted
that the acquired land cannot be treated as an agricultural
land. It is abutting to the existing outer ring road and it
has a potentiality of commercial purpose. It is further
submitted that the claimants in cross objection has sought
enhancement of compensation at Rs.200/- per square feet
and accordingly, court fee is paid. However, the claimants
are entitled to the compensation at Rs.333/- per square
feet as per Ex.P18 and the claimants would make good of
the deficit court fee for the difference amount. In support
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
of his contention, he placed reliance on the following
decisions:
i) C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer and Estate
Officer and Another.1
ii) M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd., v. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer and
Another2.
iii) The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, By its Secretary and
Another v. The Assistant Commissioner
cum Land Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi
and Others.3
He seeks to enhance the compensation at Rs.333/-
per square feet with all statutory benefit and interest by
dismissing the appeal filed by the BDA.
(2009) 11 SCC 75
MFA.No.4435/2009 and connected appeal disposed of on
30.08.2011
ILR 2004 KAR 4240
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/beneficiary, the
learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross
objectors and meticulously perused the material available
on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the
material available on record. The point that arises for
consideration in these appeals is "Whether the
impugned judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court calls for any interference?"
8. The admitted facts between the parties are that
State Government and the appellant - BDA issued the
preliminary notification on 13.12.2001 followed by the
final notification dated 14.08.2002 to acquired the
claimants land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.43 situated at
Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on
24.09.2004 by determining the market value of the
property at Rs.9,25,000/- per acre. The claimants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
1894 (hereinafter referred as 'LA Act' for short). The
Reference Court re-determined the market value placing
reliance on Ex.P18 registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001
and deducted 50% towards the development charges and
awarded Rs.167/- per square feet with all statutory
benefits and interest.
9. It is not in dispute that the acquisition of the
land in question is for the purpose of widening of the
existing outer ring road by the appellant - BDA. The
purpose of acquisition itself indicates that the land in
question is abutting to the existing outer ring road and
having commercial potentiality. The subject land is
required to be treated as a converted land for the purpose
of determination of market value of the land. The contrary
contention of the appellant - BDA that the subject land is
the agricultural land is required to be rejected, in view of
the fact that the acquired land is in the developed area
and abutting to the existing outer ring road formed by the
appellant. Having considered the nature of acquired land
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
as a converted land for non-agricultural purpose, we are of
the considered view that the Reference Court has
committed a grave error in deducting 50% towards the
development charges as there is no development required
for the land in question, as the acquired land is for the
purpose of widening of the existing outer ring road. Our
view gain support from the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of C.R. Nagaraja Shetty's
case referred supra, the relevant paragraphs are extracted
herein below:
"18. The situation is no different in the
present case. All that the acquiring body
has to achieve is to widen the national
highway. There is no further question of
any development. We again, even at the
cost of repetition, reiterate that no
evidence was shown before us in support
of the plea of the proposed development.
We, therefore, hold that the High Court
has erred in directing the deduction on
account of the developmental charges at
the rate of Rs 25 per square foot out of
the ordered compensation at the rate of
Rs 75 per square foot. We set aside the
judgment to that extent.
19. The claimant would, therefore, be
entitled to the compensation at the rate
of Rs 75 per square foot with all the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
statutory benefits like solatium under
Section 23(2), 12% interest under
Section 23(1-A) on the enhanced market
value and interest at 9% and 15% as
provided under Section 34 of the Act for
one year and the rest of the period from
the date of taking possession till the date
of payment of the compensation awarded
in favour of the claimant."
10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in M/s.
T.T.K. Prestige Ltd., referred supra, considering the C.R.
Nagaraja Shetty's case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:
"6. In our considered opinion, no
deductions should have been made by the
trial Court, inasmuch as, the properties in
question need not be developed by the
acquiring authority for the purpose of
laying/widening the road or for
construction of cable stayed railway over
bridge. It is by now well settled that, in
case if the acquiring authority need not
develop the property for the purpose for
which it is acquired, then, the claimant
would be entitled to compensation in
respect of the entire land which is the
subject matter of the acquisition***."
11. The Co-ordinate Bench in The Agricultural
Produce Market Committee, By its Secretary and
Another's case referred supra, has held that when there
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
is difference in the sale consideration shown in two sale
transactions, while determining the market value of
comparable lands which are similarly and identically
situated, the sale consideration shown in the sale
transaction, which is on higher side, has to be generally
preferred while determining the market value of the land
in question.
12. The Reference Court has rightly placed reliance
on Ex.P18, the registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001.
However, it has committed an error in deducting 50%
towards the development charges. We are of the
considered view that the Ex.P18, should be the basis to
determine the market value of the land in question without
there being any deduction towards the development
charges. The sale deed at Ex.P18 is dated 22.10.2001 and
preliminary notification in the present case is dated
13.12.2001. The said sale deed indicates that the lands
involved are of Laggere Village and very near to the
acquired land having same potentiality. Hence, we are of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
the considered view that the market value of the land in
question is required to be re-determined at Rs.333/- per
square feet. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the small extent of land cannot be the basis
to determine the market value is settled preposition of
law. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
appellant of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Land
Acquisition Officer and Another referred supra, has no
application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the said case, the acquisition of the vast extent of
agricultural land was for the formation of the road for first
time and in the instant case, the acquisition is for widening
of the existing outer ring road. The land involved in the
case on hand clearly indicates that the land is abutting to
the existing outer ring road and there is sufficient evidence
on record that the surrounding of the acquired land is fully
developed and having commercial potentiality. Hence, we
have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the acquired
land is required to be treated as non-agricultural land for
the purpose of determination of the market value.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
13. The learned counsel for the claimants/cross
objectors has rightly relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bhagsingh and others Vs.
Union Territory of Chandigarh4 and the judgment of
this Court in the case of The Special Land Acquisition
Officer and Another Vs. Rajanna and Others5. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagsingh referred
supra, has ordered to pay the enhanced compensation
more than the prayer in the appeal by permitting the
appellants/claimants to make good of the difference of
Court fee. Applying the said principle, we are of the
considered view that claimants/cross objectors cannot be
denied the benefit of higher compensation, if they are
otherwise, entitled under law only on the ground that they
have paid the court fee to the lesser amount. We are of
the considered view that the claimants/cross objectors are
entitled for the higher compensation at the rate of
Rs.333/- per square feet with all statutory benefits and
AIR 1985 SC 1576
MFA.No.4154/2003 and connected appeals disposed of on 24.08.2006
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
interest, subject to the claimants/cross objectors make
good of the deficit court fee in cross objection.
14. For the aforementioned reason, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA.No.1017/2021 is dismissed.
ii) MFA.CROB.No.64/2022 is allowed
with cost.
iii) The market value of the land in
Sy.No.43 measuring 1 acre situated at
Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk, is enhanced to
Rs.333/- per square feet with all
statutory benefits and interest as per
the provisions of the LA Act.
iv) The Registry shall calculate the
deficit Court fees and make demand
from cross objectors/claimants. On such
demand, the cross objectors/claimants
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB
shall pay the deficit court fees as per the
demand of Registry within four weeks.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
