[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8679 OF 2024 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5171 OF 2025 (LAC)
IN MFA NO.8679 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1 . HEMARAJ K JAIN
S/O LATE KAPOOR CHAND
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
#10/3, 2-3RD FLOOR
JIYANI SADAN
SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET
OPP. V.V. PURAM COLLEGE
V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004
2 . DINESH SONEGARA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE KASTUR CHAND
RESIDING AT: No.26
KRUMBIGAL ROAD
LALBAGH MAVALLI
BENGALURU-560 004
3 . R. RAMESHA
S/O ESHWAR RAO @ ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
PRESENTLY AT: 169/2, 1
4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS
CHAMARAJPET
2
BENGALURU-560 018
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-02
KIADB, 1ST FLOOR
MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
3. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
(KIADB), 3RD FLOOR,
BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-562 107
4. SRI. BALAJI K.
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAM RAJU
AND MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. SMT. RASHMI. R.S.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O LATE K. SRINIVASAMURTHY
6. MASTER RAKSHITH
S/O LATE K. SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
SINCE MINOR,
REP. BY MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT No.5
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT No.41, 5TH TEMPLE ROAD
3
13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. SRIHARSHA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1891, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.12.2023 PASSED IN LAC No.126/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(CCH No.17) FILED U/S.30 AND 31 OF THE KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966.
IN MFA NO.5171 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAMRAJU
# 86, SARJAPURA THINDLU
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562 107
SINCE DEAD, BY HER LRS
AT SL. No.1, 2 AND 3 HERE BELOW
1 . SRI. BALAJI K.
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAM RAJU
AND MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2 . SMT. RASHMI R.S.
W/O LATE K. SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3 . SRI. RAKSHITH
S/O LATE K. SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
SMT. RASHMI R.S.
4
ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.41
5TH TEMPLE ROAD, 13TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-02
KIADB, 1ST FLOOR
MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 010
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 010
3. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
(KIADB), 3RD FLOOR
BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
4. SMT. PREMA A.R.
W/O LATE A.M. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
5. GAYATHRI A.R.
D/O LATE A.M. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6. SHRUTHI A.R.
D/O LATE A.M. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE
5
RESIDING AT No.536, 10TH MAIN ROAD
5TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 041
7. PRADEEP KUMAR B.R.
S/O SRI. RUDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.31234
23RD FLOOR, BUILDING No.3
TOWER-1, PRESTIGE FALCON CITY APARTMENT
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
KONANAKUNTE CROSS
BENGALURU-560 062
8. A. CHENNA REDDY
S/O SRI. GURUVI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT No.143, PHASE-2
CLASSIC ORCHARDS
MEENAKSHI TEMPLE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 076
9. M.V. RAMASWAMY RAJU
S/O VENKATARAMA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. No.401, AKSHAYA PRIDE APT.
KOTHANUR DINNE
J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU-560 076
6
10 . S. GOPINATH
S/O LATE SUBBARAJU
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT No.661, 6TH MAIN ROAD
RBI LAYOUT, J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU-560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R2;
V.C.O. DATED 26.09.2025, NOTICE TO R4 TO R10
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1891 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2025
PASSED IN LAC No.67/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH No.17),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S.30 AND 31(2)
OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
7
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
MFA No.8679/2024 and MFA No.5171/2025 are filed
against the Judgments dated 21.12.2023 and 19.03.2025
passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, At
Bangalore (C.C.H.No.17) passed in Land Acquisition Cases
No.126/2022 and 67/2022, respectively.
2. We have heard Shri. Purushotham R, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. P. V.
Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
(KIADB), Smt. Radha Ramaswamy, learned Additional
Government Advocate, appearing for respondent
No.2/State, Shri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.3/Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
Limited's (BMRCL) in MFA No.8679/2024 and Smt. Manasi
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3/BMRCL in MFA No.5171/2025 and Shri. Sriharsha K.V,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 in MFA
No.8679/2024 .
3. The appellants claimed to be the absolute owners
of property bearing Sy.No.87/3 and Sy.No.87/4 of Kothanur
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The
properties were proposed for acquisition for the construction
of the BMRCL Reach 6 Depot for the maintenance of metro
trains. From the recitals in the General Award dated
11.09.2018, it is noticed that the Preliminary Notification
was issued on 22.09.2015 under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD
Act' for short). The appellants challenged the Notification by
filing W.P.No.26244/2017. During the pendency of the writ
petitions, this Court passed an interim order on 21.11.2017
directing the KIADB to deposit the entire compensation
amount before the Court. Thereafter, the Final Notification
was issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on
22.02.2018. Even thereafter, in spite of the directions
issued, the KIADB passed a general award fixing a nominal
compensation on 11.09.2018. The possession of the land in
question was taken over on 21.04.2018. Thereafter, by an
order dated 07.02.2022, this Court directed the KIADB to
make reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the KIAD Act to
the Reference Court with a further direction to take back the
amount deposited pursuant to the earlier order.
4. Thereafter, it is submitted that a package
compensation was arrived at and the BMRCL transferred the
entire package compensation amount in terms of Section
29(2) of the KIAD Act to the KIADB, as early as on
28.07.2018. Writ Petition No.11878/2023 was filed by the
appellants seeking to quash the general award and direct
the KIADB to substitute the same with the package
compensation award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD
Act. The writ petition was allowed by order dated
19.06.2023.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that in almost identical circumstances, this Court in
its Judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in
MFA.No.7804/2023 and connected matters had clearly held
that landowners are entitled for interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of taking physical possession of
the land till the date of actual deposit of the package
compensation. It is submitted that in the instant case also
the appellants are entitled to interest on the unpaid package
compensation from the date of taking possession to the date
on which such package compensation was actually
deposited.
6. The beneficiary of the acquisition, that is, the
BMRCL has filed objections in the appeals. It is contended
that the BMRCL had sent the package compensation amount
of Rs.43,38,32,248/- to the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO), KIADB on 31.07.2018 as provided under Section
29(2) of the KIAD Act. The SLAO sent notice on 28.08.2018
requiring the appellants to communicate their acceptance or
otherwise of the offered package compensation amount
before 05.09.2018. However, an order was passed by the
Assistant Commissioner on 26.05.2017 holding that the
entire land in Sy.No.87 of the Kothanur Village measuring 67
acres and 9 guntas is B-Kharab land belonging to the
Government and the name of the Government is to be
entered in the revenue records. However, the order of the
Assistant Commissioner was set aside on 07.02.2022 in Writ
Petition No.24533/2017 and connected cases. Thereafter,
the possession of the acquired property was taken over by
the SLAO on 21.04.2018.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the KIADB
submits that the award of package compensation is under
the provisions of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. It is
submitted that package compensation under Section 29(2)
of KIAD Act does not contemplate the payment of interest to
persons who consent to such package compensation. It is
submitted that once the package compensation is accepted,
there would be no further question of payment of interest.
It is submitted that it is only on account of the pending
litigations that the package compensation amount was not
deposited within time. It is stated that the amount covered
by the general award was deposited well in time and that
there is absolutely no reason why the KIADB should be
forced to pay interest on the compensation which is arrived
at with the consent of the parties. The learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State also supports
the said contention of the KIADB.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We notice that the appellants in these appeals are similarly
situated as the private parties in MFA No.7804/2023 and
connected cases decided by this Court by its judgment dated
18.09.2025. This Court, considering the decision of a co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Akkayamma v. Deputy
Commissioner and Others passed in Writ Petition
No.46860/2018 dated 12.07.2023, held that the
landowners are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of taking possession till the date of
payment of the package compensation amount.
9. Section 29 of KIAD Act reads as follows:-
"29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is
acquired by the State Government under this Chapter,
the State Government shall pay for such acquisition
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
(2) Where the amount of compensation has been
determined by agreement between the State Government
and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in
accordance with such agreement.
(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the
State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy
Commissioner for determination of the amount of
compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the
person or persons to whom such compensation shall be
paid.
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (3),
the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner
or occupier of such land and on all persons known or
believed to be interested herein to appear before him and
state their respective interests in the said land."
10. Section 30 of the KIAD Act provides that the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 will apply in respect of enquiry and
award, reference and apportionment of compensation in
respect of lands acquired under the KIAD Act. Therefore, the
provision with regard to interest on unpaid compensation
also forms a part of the KIAD Act. If the amount of
compensation is determined by agreement between the
KIADB and the person to be compensated, the said amount
is to be paid in accordance with such agreement. Therefore,
if the amount is arrived at by consensus, then, such amount
must be paid at the earliest to the land losers. If such
amount is not paid, then, obviously the land losers would be
entitled to interest on the amount of compensation so
arrived at as well.
11. The learned counsel for appellants have placed
for our consideration the judgment in Writ Petition
No.51023/2013 and connected matters disposed of on
03.04.2014, which is referred to in Akkayamma's case as
well. In Akkayamma's case (supra), this Court specifically
found that 9% of interest is liable to be paid to land losers
even on a deemed consent award if the amount is not
deposited immediately. In the common judgment passed in
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7894/2023 and
connected matters disposed of on 18.09.2025, this Court
found that interest has been awarded to land losers in
several cases, even where what was awarded was package
compensation.
12. In the instant case, since the possession was
admittedly taken over on 21.04.2018 and since the package
compensation has not been deposited by the KIADB in full
till date, we are of the clear view that the landowners are
entitled to interest from 21.04.2018 till the date of actual
deposit of the package compensation.
13. Having given our anxious consideration to the
pleadings and the materials on record, we are of the opinion
that since the package compensation was arrived at on
05.09.2018 and has not been deposited in full till this date,
the contention that no interest is payable on package
compensation cannot hold good.
14. In the result:-
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award under appeal are
modified by awarding interest at the rate of
9% per annum on the package
compensation awarded from the date of
possession, that is, 21.04.2018 till the date
on which such package compensation is
deposited in full.
(iii) The amount due to the appellants herein as
package compensation will be deposited by
the KIADB within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
(iv) In case, the appellants have received any
amounts as compensation in the
interregnum, the said amount shall be
deducted from the principal to which they
are entitled as package compensation and
the balance amount due will be calculated
with interest accordingly.
(v) If no amount has been released to the
appellants herein, they will be entitled to
the package compensation with interest as
at 9% per annum as directed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
cp*
