Karnataka High Court

The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Sri Sathish on 24 January, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB
                                                           M.F.A. No.3681/2019
                                                    C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                           DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                           PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                              AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3681/2019 (LAC)
                                             C/W
                              M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.63/2020

                   IN M.F.A. No.3681/2019:

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
                   SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
                   NO.18, MILERS ROAD
                   CANTONMENT, BANGALORE - 560046.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADV.,)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM       1.    SRI. SATHISH
Location: HIGH           S/O K.T. KANTHARAJASHETTI
COURT OF                 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
KARNATAKA                R/AT NEW LAYOUT, RAJKUMARNAGAR
                         KUNIGAL TOWN. KUNIGAL TALUK
                         TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130.

                   2.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                         HEMAVATHI CHANNEL
                         TUMKUR AND HASSAN BANGALORE
                         RAILWAY LANE, TUMKUR - 572105.

                   3.    THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
                         FOREST DEPARTMENT
                         HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB
                                       M.F.A. No.3681/2019
                                C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020



     HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572123.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.K. NARENDRA BABU, ADV., FOR R1
    SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
                           ---

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.12.2018 IN LAC NO.231/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISSED THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN LAC NO.231/2011 ON THE
FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL & ETC.


IN M.F.A.CROB NO.63/2020:

BETWEEN:

    SRI. SATISH
    S/O K.T. KANTHARAJA SETTY
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    RESIDENT OF NEW LAYOUT
    RAJKUMARANAGAR, KUNIGAL TOWN
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
                                    ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. B.K. NARENDRA BABU, ADV.,)

AND:

1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     HEMAVATHI CHANNEL
     TUMAKURU AND HASSAN
     BENGALURU RAILWAY LANE
     TUMAKURU-572 101.

2.   THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
     FOREST DEPARTMENT
     HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
                           -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB
                                       M.F.A. No.3681/2019
                                C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020



     HULIYURDURGA,
     KUNIGAL TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123.

3.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     SOUTH WEST RAILWAY (WEST)
     NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, CANTONMENT
     BENGALURU-560046.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
    SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADV., FOR R3)
                         ---
     THIS MFA CROB IN MFA.NO.3681/2019 IS FILED U/O.
41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W. SEC. 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED IN LAC
NO.231/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT KUNIGAL AND BE PLEASED TO DETERMINE THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE CROSS-OBJECTOR LANDS
BEARING SY.NO.109/2 MEASURING 17 GUNTAS OF
CONVERTED INDUSTRIAL LANDS THAT IS AROUND 18,513
SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT NADEMAVINAPURA, YEDIYUR
HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT THE RATE
OF RS.900/- PER SQUARE FEET AND TO FIX PROPER PRICE
FOR 368 TEAK WOOD TREES AND ALSO FOR OTHER TREES
ALONG WITH ALL ASSETS ATTACHED TO THE LAND AND
AWARD ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS MFA CONNECTED WITH MFA CROSS OBJECTION
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.01.2025,
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:3114-DB
                                               M.F.A. No.3681/2019
                                        C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020



                           CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

MFA No.3681/2019 is filed by the Deputy Chief

Engineer (Construction), South Western Railway. MFA

Crob.No.63/2020 is filed by the claimant seeking for

higher compensation. Both the appeal and cross objection

are filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award

dated 04.12.2018 passed in LAC No.231/2011 by the

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (for short, 'Reference

Court').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Reference

Court.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the appeal and the

cross objection are that, the preliminary notification came

to be published on 18.01.2007 to acquire various extents

of land, including the land of the claimant measuring 17

guntas in Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura

Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru for laying

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

of new railway line between Hassan and Benglauru. The

final notification came to be issued on 01.11.2007. The

Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'LAO') passed the

award on 16.02.2009 determining the market value of the

land & malkies and awarded total compensation of

Rs.3,54,184/-.

4. The claimant, being aggrieved by the

compensation awarded by the LAO, has sought Reference

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short, 'the Act'). The Reference Court recorded the

evidence of the parties. Claimant examined himself as

PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P49. The respondents

examined RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Reference

Court re-determined the market value at Rs.250/- per

sq.ft. and awarded enhanced compensation for trees and

structures standing in the property with all statutory

benefits. The beneficiary of acquisition is in appeal seeking

for reduction of compensation and the claimant has filed

the cross objection seeking for higher compensation.

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

5. Sri.Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel for the

appellant-beneficiary submits that the Reference Court has

committed grave error in determining the market value of

the land in question at Rs.250/- per sq.ft. placing reliance

on LAC No.25/2009. It is submitted that in the said LAC,

the said Reference Court has considered the sale deed of

the year 2006 and the said sale deed is pertaining to small

site measuring 60 x 40' feet at KRS Agrahara and sold at

Rs.5,30,000/- which comes to Rs.120/- sq.ft and if 10%

escalation is applied it cannot be Rs.250/- per sq.ft.

hence, he seeks to re-determine the compensation as per

the decision of the coordinate bench in MFA No.2207/2016

by allowing the appeal filed by the Railways.

6. Sri.B.K.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the

claimant submits that the Reference Court has recorded

detailed reasons and determined the market value at

Rs.250/- per sq.ft., however the same is contrary to the

material on record. It is submitted that the land of the

claimant is converted wayback in the year 1994 and

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

considering the same the claimant is entitled to re-

determination of market value at Rs.700 to 900/- per

sq.ft. It is submitted that the Reference Court has erred in

not considering Ex.P-23 the joint mahazar drawn by the

LAO and other Officers. The said mahazar indicates that

the LAO, without any justifiable reason, has not awarded

any compensation to 157 teak, 18 coconut and other

trees. It is submitted that the compensation enhanced by

the Reference Court on the trees is also on the lower side,

hence, he seeks to enhance the same appropriately by

allowing the cross objection filed by the claimant.

7. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-beneficiary and the

learned counsel for the cross objector - claimant,

meticulously perused the material available on record

including the Reference Court records. We have given our

anxious consideration to the material available on record,

the point that arises for consideration in this appeal and

cross objection is "Whether the impugned judgment

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

and award passed by the Reference Court calls for

any interference?"

8. The pleading and evidence on record indicate

that the preliminary notification came to be published on

18.01.2007 to acquire various extents of land including

the land of the claimant measuring 17 guntas in

Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura Village, Yediyur

Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. The final notification came to be

issued on 01.11.2007. The lands were acquired for laying

of new railway line between Hassan and Benglauru. The

LAO passed the award on 16.02.2009 determining the

market value of the land and malkies and awarded total

compensation of Rs.3,54,184/- to the land in question.

The claimant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the

Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value

of the land at Rs.250/- per sq. ft. and enhanced the

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of 150 teak trees,

Rs.86,400/- for loss of 15 coconut trees and Rs.2,000/-

each for loss of 1 banyan tree, 1 elli tree and 1 jackfruit

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

tree, Rs.36,000/- for loss of 1 mango tree, Rs.13,500/- for

loss of 27 hercules trees and Rs.20,000/- for loss of 10

silver trees. It has also enhanced the compensation for

structures i.e. Rs.30,000/- for the loss of bathroom,

Rs.3,50,000/- for the loss of Mangalore tile roof house and

Rs.20,000/- for the loss of steel water tank. It has also

awarded interest and statutory benefits as per the

provisions of the Act.

9. Insofar as the determination of market value to

the land in question, the Reference Court re-determined

the market value at Rs.250/- per sq. ft. considering the

fact that the land in question is converted to non-

agricultural purpose as per Ex.P8 dated 19.03.1994. The

Reference Court has also taken note of Exs.P5, P7 and P9

and has come to the conclusion that the property was

used for industrial purpose i.e. brick factory. On close

perusal of the aforesaid exhibits, it is evident that the land

is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose

by the Competent Authority on 19.03.1994. Hence, the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

determination of the market value of the land should be as

per square feet basis taking into account its potentiality.

On perusal of the evidence of RW-1 and his cross-

examination, nowhere it is found that RW-1 has admitted

that the market value of the site is at Rs.250/- per sq. ft.

Hence, the finding of the Reference Court that based on

the admission of RW-1, the market value determined is

contrary to the evidence available on record. Admittedly,

the land is situated adjacent to the National Highway

No.48. However, no legally acceptable evidence is placed

by the claimant before the Reference Court with regard to

the actual market value of the land at the relevant point of

time i.e. on 18.01.2007 when the preliminary notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. Ex.P49-

certificate dated 24.03.2018 was issued by the Sub-

Registrar, Kunigal indicating that the market value of the

residential properties is Rs.500/- and Rs.1,100/- for the

approved layouts. However, the said market value is of

the year 2018. Hence, the same cannot be taken note of

for the purpose of determination of the market value of

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

the land in question which was acquired in the year 2007.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

VENKATARAMANAIAH Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE-HASSAN

RAILWAY AND OTHERS1, taking note of the judgment

passed in R.A.No.248/2017 has re-assessed the market

value of the land at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. In the said case,

the acquisition is under the same notification and for the

same purpose. The lands involved in both the cases are

similarly situated. Hence, we are of the considered view

that the interest of justice would be met if we re-assess

the market value of the land in question at Rs.200/- per

sq. ft. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellant-beneficiary that the site dimension

considered by the Reference Court in LAC No.25/2009 is

60 ft. x 40 ft. and when the sale consideration is divided, it

would come to Rs.120/- per sq. ft., is factually incorrect as

the consideration shown in the sale deed is Rs.5,30,000/-

for 2,400 sq. ft. The value per square feet would be

MFA No.2207/16 dt. 28.09.21

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

Rs.220/-. Hence, the submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant-beneficiary is contrary to the

material available on record and is accordingly rejected.

10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel

for the cross-objector that the Reference Court has

committed grave error in not considering Ex.P23 mahazar,

which indicates that no compensation is awarded to 157

teak and other trees, 18 coconut trees and the

compensation awarded to the trees by the Reference Court

is also required to be enhanced. To consider the said

submission, it would be useful to refer the compensation

awarded by the LAO and the Reference Court for the trees

standing in the land in question which is extracted in a

tabular form as follows:

SL. NAME OF NO. OF LAO ENHANCED REFERENCE NO. TREES TREES AWARD AMOUNT COURT AWARD in Rs. in Rs. in Rs.

1. TEAK 150 22,670 3,00,000 3,22,670 (2151 per tree)

2. COCONUT 15 15,071 86,400 1,01,471 (6764 per tree)

3. PONGAMIA 1 290 2,000 2,290 PINNATA (2290 per tree) (HONGE)

4. ELLI 1 513 2,000 2,513 (2,513 per tree)

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

5. JACK 1 125 2,000 2,125 FRUIT (2,125 per tree)

6. MANGO 1 2,378 36,000 38,378 (38,378 per tree)

7. HERCULES 27 2,905 13,500 16,405 (607 per tree)

8. SILVER 10 1,400 20,000 21,400 (2,140 per tree)

11. There is no evidence on record to consider

further enhancement of compensation for the trees

standing in the land in question. The Reference Court,

considering the various factors and evidence available on

record, has enhanced the compensation for each category

of the trees referred supra. We do not find any error in

the enhancement made by the Reference Court. Hence,

seeking further enhancement of compensation on the

standing trees is rejected. Insofar as not awarding any

compensation to 157 teak and other trees and 18 coconut

trees is concerned, the claimant has produced mahazar

dated 09.03.2009 which is marked as Ex.P23. Ex.P23

clearly demarcates that out of 358 teak and other trees,

the LAO has considered only 201 trees and no

compensation is determined for 157 remaining trees.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

Similarly, there were 33 coconut trees in the land in

question but the LAO has determined the compensation

for only 15 coconut trees and no compensation is

determined for the remaining 18 trees. In support of non-

consideration of the aforesaid trees by the LAO and the

Reference Court, the appellant has raised a specific ground

in the cross-objection. Admittedly, the LAO as well as the

Reference Court have not awarded any compensation to

the remaining trees as per Ex.P23. We are of the

considered view that the cross-objector / claimant would

be entitled to compensation for the remaining trees i.e.

157 teak and other trees at Rs.2,151/- per tree. Similarly,

for the remaining 18 coconut trees the cross-objector /

claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,764/-

per tree. In total, the claimant / cross-objector would be

entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- (157

teak trees x Rs.2,151/- = Rs.3,37,707/- + 18 coconut

trees x Rs.6,764/- = Rs.1,21,752/-). The award of

enhanced compensation by the Reference Court for the

trees, structures, water tank, etc. is upheld.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB

12. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. MFA No.3681/2019 is allowed in part. The

market value of the land measuring 17 guntas

in Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura

Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru

is re-determined at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. with

interest and statutory benefits.