Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekaraiah vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
MFA No. 5963 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5963 OF 2014 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE SRI. B.L. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.50
KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD
KUVEMPUNAGARA
MYSORE-53.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
by DEVIKA M HARANGI PROJECT, HUNSUR
Location: HIGH MYSORE DITRICT-571 105.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2013
PASSED IN LAC NO.302/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
MFA No. 5963 of 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned AGA for respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the
Trial Court passed in LAC No.302/2009 dated 08.08.2013
on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur seeking
enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of case of the appellant
before the Trial Court that the appellant being the owner
of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 11
guntas and 1 acre 39 guntas respectively situated at
Bilikere village, Hunsur Taluk was acquired by the
respondent for the purpose of formation of State Highway.
The State fixed the compensation for a sum of Rs.60,000/-
per acre for garden land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry
land and the same is received under protest and an
application was filed before the authority under Section 18
of the L.A.Act dissatisfied with the award and hence, the
matter was referred to the reference Court. The reference
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
Court having considered the date of preliminary
notification dated 09.02.2006 and also date of award and
also considering the service of notice and payment of
compensation and also the application filed under Section
18 of the L.A.Act on 24.01.2008 re-consider the same. The
Trial Court considering particularly the document of Ex.P12
which is in respect of Chikkadanahally village of Bilikere
Hobli and the said land was acquired wherein fixed the
compensation of Rs.12,00,958/- and considering the
acquisition of the year 2006 in respect of this acquisition is
considered, for a period of 2½ years enhanced by
appreciating the rate of 10% for a sum of Rs.12,00,958/-
awarded an amount of Rs.15,25,818/- per acre with all
statutory benefits.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for
the appellant would vehemently contend that the market
value of the property as on the date of acquisition is more
than Rs.40,00,000/- and the Trial Court committed an
error and also the acquisition authority fails to consider
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
the sale inspite of document of sale deed are produced
and sale statistics are also placed before the Court for
having sold the property that is 1 gunta, 1½ gunta, 3
gunta and 4 gunta and property was also abutting to the
Highway.
5. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that property is also acquired for the expanding the State
Highway and fails to take note of the said fact into
consideration and only considered Ex.P12 and the same
was in respect of remote village and the same is not in the
village of Bilikere and the same was in the
Chikkadanahally of Bilikere hobli and fails to take note of
the said fact and ought to have consider the documents of
sale deeds produced before the Trial Court as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7. The counsel brought to notice of this Court Ex.P1
sale deed dated 17.09.2009 wherein to the extent of 1½
gunta, amount was fixed the sale consideration was
Rs.82,000/-. The counsel also brought to notice of this
Court Ex.P2 that is sale deed dated 14.02.2010 which
discloses Rs.55,000/- for 1 gunta of land and so also
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
brought to notice of this Court Ex.P3 an amount of
Rs.83,000/- for 3 guntas of land dated 27.02.2008 and
also sale deed Ex.P4 dated 12.10.2007 wherein also 2
guntas of land amount is Rs.54,000/- and sale deed Ex.P5
dated 17.07.2009, an amount of Rs.55,000/- for 1 gunta
of land and so also the document Ex.P6 dated 29.09.2007
4 guntas of land and sale consideration is Rs.1,10,000/-.
The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P7
dated 26.04.2010 sale deed wherein also Rs.1,10,000/- in
respect of 2 guntas of land and these are the sale deeds
which are in respect of property of Bilikere village and
hence, the counsel would contend that the Court can take
average sale consideration for all these years and award
the just and reasonable compensation.
6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for
respondent/AGA would vehemently contend that the Trial
Court taken note of acquisition of the year 2003
particularly relying upon Ex.P12 and also counsel would
vehemently contend that even enhancement is made
considering 10% increasing the value of the property and
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
rightly taken note of the value of the property and
awarded an amount of Rs.15,25,818/- and it does not
requires interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent and also having
taken note of the material on record, particularly the
documents which have been relied upon by the counsel for
the appellant, the point that would arise for consideration
of this Court are:
1) Whether the Trial Court committed an
error in fixing the rate of Rs.15,25,818/-
per acre requires modification for
enhancing the same?
2) What Order?
Point No.1:
8. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of material, it is not in dispute that preliminary
notification was made on 09.02.2006 and no dispute with
regard to the extent of land acquired by the State and also
Court has to take note of the purpose for which the
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
property was acquired and the same is for the purpose of
formation of Highway. The amount was fixed at the rate of
Rs.60,000/- per acre for garden land and an amount of
Rs.40,000/- for dry land. The Trial Court also while re-
considering the material on record in paragraph No.12
taken note of Ex.P12, the same is in respect of
Chikkadanahally and not in respect of the very same
village of Bilikere Hobli. It is also important to note that
the land is acquired for the purpose of formation of State
Highway and hence, it is very clear that the property is
abutting to the State Highway and the same ought to have
been taken note of by the Trial Court.
9. Having taken note of the sale deeds which have
been relied upon by the upon counsel for the appellant
i.e., the sale deed of Ex.P1 is dated 17.09.2009 and the
sale deed at Ex.P2 is dated 14.02.2010 and Ex.P5 is dated
17.07.2009 and same is in respect of one gunta of the
land and the amount is Rs.55,000/- per guntas. The sale
deed at Ex.P7 is dated 26.04.2010 and hence, Ex.P1, P2
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
and P7 are of more than three years and same cannot be
relied upon.
10. However, this Court can take note of the sale
deed at Ex.P3 dated 27.02.2008 i.e., within one year from
the date of notification wherein Rs.83,000/- is for three
guntas of land which comes around Rs.27,667/- and Ex.P4
is for two guntas and the amount is Rs.54,000/-. In
respect of one guntas, which I have already relied upon at
Ex.P5 is near to the within three years of acquisition in
respect of the very same notification. Having considered
the same, the Court has to take the average of the same,
particularly Ex.P3, P4 and P5 so also Ex.P6 an amount of
Rs.1,10,000/- for four guntas of land and almost all comes
within the purview of Rs.27,667/-. Having considered
Ex.P5 i.e., for one gunta Rs.55,000/-, if it is taken average
with Ex.P3, P4, P5 and P6 it will come to Rs.36,556/- and
for one acre it comes to Rs.14,62,240/-. Even considering
the documents which have been placed by the appellants
that is Ex.P3, P4 and P5 it comes within the lesser the
amount awarded by the Trial Court. The counsel would
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
vehemently contend that the land is garden land and in
order prove the said fact also, no material is placed before
the Court. Even in the appeal memo also nothing is
averred in this regard. No document is placed with regard
to that property is having coconut trees and areca nut
trees as deposed by the appellant before the Trial Court.
Except stating the same, nothing is placed on record for
having coconut and areca nut trees. The Trial Court also
considered the same based on the document at Ex.P12
and even enhanced the same having considered the 10%
increase. Hence, the contention of the appellant that
lesser compensation was awarded cannot be accepted.
11. However, taking into note of the appreciation at
the rate of 10% on the sum of Rs.12,00,958/- considering
Ex.P12, Trial Court enhanced the same. Even considering
the adding of 10% on a sum of Rs.12,000,958/- per year
also comes to the conclusion that pay compensation of
Rs.15,25,818/- and when such consideration was taken by
the Trial Court while enhancing the compensation, it does
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
not requires any interference by this Court to enhance the
same and even the same is comparing the sales statistics
as relied by the appellant as well as Ex.P12. Thus, it does
not requires any interference by this Court. I do not find
any error committed by the Trial Court while passing the
award.
12. The counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.5709/2015 dated
18.06.2021 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
16 wherein award was passed in respect of areca nut trees
and also coconut trees. But in the case on hand, nothing
is placed on record to show that the property consists of
areca nut trees or coconut trees as deposed in the
evidence of appellant. In the absence of documentary
evidence, relying upon the said judgment referred supra
does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error in the order
of the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer the above point
as negative.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10441
Point No.2:
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS/SN
