[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri D V Lakshman Rao vs Chief Executive Officer on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6102/2017
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9484/2015
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9485/2015
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6103/2017 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.6102/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
Digitally signed by PARISHATH BUILDING
ARSHIFA BAHAR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
KHANAM BANGALORE-560 001
Location: HIGH REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
THE PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
5TH FLOOR, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
BANGALORE-560 001.
THE PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
5TH FLOOR, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5TH FLOOR, CHANDRAKIRAN BUILDING
KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
NOTE: THE CORRECT DESIGNATION AND
PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5TH FLOOR,NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,)
AND:
SRI. D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O LATE D. VENKATASUBBA RAO
MAJOR IN AGE
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LR'S.
1(a). SMT. V.L HEMAMALANI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(b) SMT. V.L. SRIRANJANI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(c) SMT. V.L. HARINI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(d) SRI. V.L. VIDYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(e) SMT. V.L. NALINI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(f) SRI. V.L. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
ALL ARE R/AT NO.71
SHANKARA PARK
SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA BHAVIKATTI, ADV., FOR R-1 (a to e)
R-1(f) SERVED
R-1 (b) SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V.C.O. DTD: 08.11.2025)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 19.09.2006 PASSED IN LAC NO.178/2006 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LOWER COURT & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.9484/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI. D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O LATE SRI D. VENKATA SUBBA RAO
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S).
1. V.L. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
2. V.L. HEMA MALINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3. V.L. VIDYA SHANKAR
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
4. V.L. SRIRANJINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5. V.L. HARINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
6. V.L. NALINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
7. V.L. RAVI SHANKAR
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.B-71
SHANKARA PARK
SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA .S BHAVIKATTI, ADV., FOR LR'S)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, II FLOOR
RP BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, II FLOOR, RP BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
5TH FLOOR, CHANDRAKIRANA BUILDING
KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN LAC NO.149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED IN LAC
NO.149/2006 MAY BE MODIFIED AND THIS MISCELLANEOUS
FIRST APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.9485/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI. D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O LATE SRI. D. VENKATA SUBBA RAO
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S).
1) V.L. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
2) V.L. HEMA MALINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3) V.L. VIDYA SHANKAR
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
4) V.L. SRIRANJINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5) V.L. HARINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
6) V.L. NALINI
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
7) V.L. RAVI SHANKAR
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.B-71
SHANKARA PARK, SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA S. BHAVIKATTI, ADV., FOR LR'S)
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
5TH FLOOR, CHANDRAKIRANA BUILDING
KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN LAC NO.178/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.09.2015 PASSED IN LAC
NO.178/2006 MAY BE MODIFIED AND THIS MISCELLANEOUS
FIRST APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
IN M.F.A. NO.6103/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
& EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
THE PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
5TH FLOOR, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
PARISHATH BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
THE PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
5TH FLOOR, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5TH FLOOR, CHANDRAKIRAN BUILDING
KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
NOTE: THE CORRECT DESIGNATION AND
PRESENT ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5TH FLOOR,NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,)
AND:
SRI. D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O LATE D. VENKATASUBBA RAO
MAJOR IN AGE.
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LR'S.
1(a). SMT. V.L. HEMAMALANI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(b) SMT. V.L. SRIRANJANI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(c) SMT. V.L. HARINI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(d) SRI. V.L. VIDYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(e) SMT. V.L. NALINI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
1(f) SRI. V.L. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE D.V. LAKSHMAN RAO.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.71
SHANKARA PARK
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
M.F.A. No.6102/2017
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA S. BHAVIKATTI, ADV., FOR R-1 (a to e)
R-1(f) SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PARYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18.09.2006 PASSED IN LAC NO.149/2006 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LOWER COURT & ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 09.02.2026, 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
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
MFA No.6102/2017 is filed by the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board and others and MFA
No.9485/2015 is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 19.09.2015 passed in LAC
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
No.178/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli (hereiafter referred to as the 'Reference
Court').
MFA No.6103/2017 is filed by the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and others.
MFA No.9484/2015 is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 18.09.2015 passed in LAC
No.149/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred as per their ranking before the Reference Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are
that the State Government issued preliminary notification
under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') to acquire
2481 acres 10 ½ guntas of land for establishment of
Bengaluru International Airport. The lands covered in
these appeals are situated at Bhuvanahalli Village and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
Udayagiri Village of Devanahalli Taluk. The final
notification was issued on 08.08.1996. The lands of the
claimant measuring 38 acre 28 guntas in Sy.No.1 to 6 and
Sy.No.76 of Udayagiri Village and land measuring 7 acre 4
guntas in Sy.No.40 of Bhuvanahalli Village were acquired,
which are the subject matter of these appeals. The
claimant challenged the acquisition proceedings in
W.P.25795/2000 which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 20.11.2000 by directing the Special Land Acquisition
Officer (for short, 'SLAO') to pay interest at the rate of
6% per annum from 08.08.1998 till the date of passing of
the award. Insofar as the lands in LAC No.178/2006, the
SLAO determined the market value at Rs.2,40,000/- per
acre vide award dated 21.11.2001, the possession of the
land was taken on 22.11.2001. The claimant sought the
reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, 'LA Act'). The claimant adduced oral evidence
and examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to
P-23. Insofar as the lands in LAC No.149/2006, the SLAO
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
determined the market value at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre
vide award dated 27.04.2002, the possession of the land
was taken on 18.05.2002. The claimant sought reference
under Section 18 of the Act. The claimant adduced oral
evidence and examined himself as PW-1 and got marked
Exs.P-1 to P-22. The KIDAB did not adduce any evidence.
The reference Court enhanced the market value from
Rs.2,40,000/- per acre to Rs.8,96,000/- per acre with
statutory benefits and interests as per the provisions of
the LA Act and additional interest at 6% as ordered by this
Court in W.P.25795/2000. Being aggrieved, the claimants
are seeking for higher compensation and the KIADB is
seeking for reduction of compensation.
4. Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the
appellant-KIADB submits that the Reference Court has
committed a grave error in enhancing the compensation to
Rs.8,96,000/- per acre without considering the evidence
on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the
sale deeds produced by the claimant are much prior to the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
date of acquisition and they are of different village, hence,
the same cannot be taken into consideration to determine
the market value. It is further submitted that the
Reference Court enhanced the market value to
Rs.8,96,000/- per acre by considering the judgment of
Reference Court in LAC No.151/2006 and LAC
Nos.180/2006 to 188/2006. It is also submitted that the
appellant-KIADB challenged the judgments passed in the
aforementioned LACs in W.P.34664/2017 and the learned
Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2018
allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgments and
awards of the Reference Court and the matters were
remitted back with a direction to dispose of the same after
hearing the contentions of all the parties. It is contended
that after remand, the Reference Court, vide common
judgment dated 14.06.2021 in the aforementioned LACs,
re-determined the market value at Rs.7,60,000/- per acre.
It is further contended that 95% of land owners, whose
lands have been acquired under same notification, have
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
consented to the acquisition and the consent award under
Section 29(2) of KIAD Act was passed by determining the
market value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and such an award
is the best piece of evidence to determine the
compensation in the case on hand. In support of his
contentions he relied on the following decisions:
i. V.M.Salgoacar & Brothers LTD. vs. Union of
India1.
ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and
another vs. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari
and others2.
iii. State of Maharashtra vs. Gurappa Hirojirao
and others3
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by KIADB
by dismissing the appeals filed by the claimants.
5. Per contra, Smt.Shobha Bhavikatti., learned
counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits
that the Reference Court has committed error in
(1995) 2 SCC 302
AIR 1995 SC 840
(1994) 2 SCC 331
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
appreciating the evidence on record. It is submitted that
the claimant has produced the sale deeds, more
particularly, Ex.P-11, the order of competent authority for
Undervaluation, wherein the sale deed of the year 1995
was the subject matter and as per the said order, the sale
consideration is Rs.22,01,400/- for 1 acre 20 guntas.
Hence, by considering the same the Reference Court ought
to have at least awarded Rs.18,00,000/- per acre after
deducting 25% towards the development cost. It is further
submitted that the Reference Court has recorded the
finding that no evidence is placed to seek for higher
compensation for malkis without appreciating that in the
acquired lands there were fruit bearing trees, sheds, bore
well and pump house. The KIADB officials have not made
available the report referred to in the award with regard to
the malkis to the claimant and also to the Reference
Court. It is also submitted that the Reference Court has
awarded interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation amount for first year from the date of taking
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
possession and thereafter 15% p.a. for subsequent years
till the deposit is made. It is for the KIADB to clarify to this
Court whether they have made any deposit pursuant to
the impugned order and in the absence of such
information, it would be difficult for this Court to consider
these appeals. It is contended that the judgment relied on
by learned counsel for KIADB dated 14.06.2021 passed by
the Reference Court in LAC No.183/2006 and connected
matters has no application to the cases on hand as the
said cases are decided after remand from this Court. It is
further contended that the lands acquired are adjacent to
National Highway and adjacent lands are fully developed
and these factors were not considered by the Reference
Court in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, she
seeks to allow the appeals filed by the claimants by
dismissing the appeals filed by the KIADB by re-
determining the market value at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre
and Rs.50,00,000/- for the malkis.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant-KIADB, learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants and perused the material available on record.
We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced on both the sides.
7. The point that arises for consideration in these
appeals are
"Whether the impugned judgments and awards
of the Reference Court calls for any
interference in these appeals?"
8. Before adverting to the issue involved in these
appeals, it would be useful to refer to the relevant
paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer4, wherein it was held as under:
4. The following factors must be etched on the
mental screen:
(1988) 3 SCC 751
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act is not an appeal against the award and the court
cannot take into account the material relied upon by
the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the
same material is produced and proved before the
court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is
not to be treated as a judgment of the Reference court
open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing
the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land
Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for
making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court
unless produced and proved before it. It is not the
function of the court to sit in appeal against the award,
approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its
error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion
reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were
an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original
proceeding before it and determine the market value
afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to
show that the price offered for his land in the award is
inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in
the court. Of course the materials placed and proved
by the other side can also be taken into account for
this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are
irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the
date line of valuation (date of publication of
notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from
the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable
price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that
the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable
price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most
comparable instance which provides the index of
market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of
acquisition of land.)
(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into
account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine
and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the
purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the
resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine
instances have to be identified on the following
considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the
index of market value the price reflected therein may
be taken as the norm and the market value of the land
under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable
adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis
land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be
drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has
thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected
in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and
unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to
be undertaken in a common sense manner as a
prudent man of the world of business would do. We
may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive)
factors:
Plus Factors Minus Factors
1. smallness of size 1. largeness of area
2. proximity to a 2. situation in the
road interior at a distance
from the road
3. frontage on a 3. Narrow strip of land
road. with very small
frontage compared to
depth
4. nearness to a 4. lower level requiring
development area the depressed portion
to be filled up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from
developed locality
6. level vis-à-vis land 6. some special
under acquisition disadvantageous
factor which would
deter a purchaser.
7. special value for
an owner of an
adjoining property to
whom it may have
some very special
advantage
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends
on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard
and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and
most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor
regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to
1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or
block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly
while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a
large block of land will have to be developed by
preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open
space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for
purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be
blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The
factor can be discounted by making a deduction by
way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging
approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to
account for land required to be set apart for carving
out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting
will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural
area or urban area, whether building activity is picking
up, and whether waiting period during which the
capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be
longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact
pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent
purchaser of land in which position the judge must
place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense.
9. The pleading and material on record indicate
that the State Government issued preliminary notification
under Section 28(1) of the Act to acquire 2481 acres 10 ½
guntas of land for establishment of Bengaluru
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
International Airport. The lands covered in these appeals
are situated at Bhuvanahalli Village and Udayagiri Village
of Devanahalli Taluk. The final notification was issued on
08.08.1996. The lands of the claimant measuring 38 acre
28 guntas in Sy.No.1 to 6 and Sy.No.76 of Udayagiri
Village and land measuring 7 acre 4 guntas in Sy.No.40 of
Bhuvanahalli Village were acquired which are the subject
matter of these appeals.
10. The claimant/land owner challenged the
acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.25795/2000. The
acquisition proceedings were upheld, however, the SLAO
was directed to pay interest at 6% p.a. from 08.08.1998
till the date of passing of the award.
11. In LAC No.178/2006, the SLAO determined the
market value at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. The possession of
the land was taken on 22.11.2001. The claimant sought
the reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. In order to
prove the correct market value of the acquired land, the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-23 before the Reference Court.
12. In LAC 149/2006, the SLAO determined the
market value at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. The possession of
the land was taken on 18.05.2002. In order to prove the
correct market value of the acquired land, the claimant
examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-
22 before the Reference Court.
13. The appellant-KIDAB did not adduce any
evidence. The Reference Court, after considering the oral
and documentary evidence, by mainly relying on
judgments in LAC No.151/2006 and LAC Nos.180/2006 to
188/2006, enhanced the market value from Rs.2,40,000/-
per acre to Rs.8,96,000/- per acre with statutory benefits
and interests as per the provisions of the Act and an
additional interest at 6% p.a. is awarded as per the order
of this Court in W.P.25795/2000.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
14. The oral evidence of PW-1 in both the cases
indicates that the acquired lands were owned by the
claimant through partition between the family and
thereafter revenue records were mutated in his name. It is
not in dispute that the lands acquired was for formation of
international airport and the compensation claimed by the
claimant was at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. The
oral evidence of the claimant indicate that the acquired
lands are situated beside National Highway-7, the land is
situated at the distance of 28km from Bengaluru City,
surrounding lands were totally developed with
infrastructure, communication facility, transport facility,
educational institutions and multinational companies have
come up near the acquired lands. PW-1 further deposed
that in the notified land, valuable trees, pakka building,
sheds, bore well and open wells were situated and
approximate value of malkis is more than Rs.50,00,000/-
as on the date of issuance of preliminary notification.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
15. It is also deposed that Doddasanne,
Yarthaganahalli, Arisinakunte, Chikkanahalli, Mylahalli,
Betkote, Begur, Gangamuthanahalli villages are situated at
a distance of 2 to 5 kms from the acquired lands and the
lands acquired are adjacent to National Highway, the SLAO
has not considered any aspects and awarded
Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. It is deposed that MNC companies
like ITC Filerona, ITC resorts, M.S.Ramaiah Farm, Central
Government Organizations like Indian Air Force, Border
Security Force are situated adjacent to the lands in
question. The claimant got marked the certified copies of
the sale deeds dated 25.02.1993 as Ex.P-1, sale deed
dated 25.01.1994 as Ex.P-2, sale deed dated 22.04.1994
as Ex.P-3, sale deed dated 10.04.1992 as Ex.P-4, sale
deed dated 15.11.1993 as Ex.P-5, sale deed dated
19.08.1993 as Ex.P-6, sale deed dated 29.12.1993 as
Ex.P-7, sale deed dated 25.05.1998 as Ex.P-8, sale deed
dated 23.09.1999 as Ex.P-9, sale deed dated 23.09.1999
as Ex.P-10. The aforesaid sale deeds are either prior to
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
preliminary notification in question or later in point and the
lands in the aforesaid sale deeds are situated at different
places and there is no evidence on record to come to the
conclusion that the lands covered under Exs.P-1 to P-10
are adjacent to the acquired lands and having same
potentiality, hence, those documents cannot be considered
to determine the market value of the lands in question. It
is to be noticed that the sale deeds produced of later in
point of preliminary notification cannot be considered as
the acquisition was for International Airport and generally
post notification sale would be on higher rates on account
of resultant improvement in development prospects. Ex.P-
11 is the interim order dated 15.07.1996 passed by the
District Registrar of Undervaluation, Bengaluru in case
No.DVL.283/1995-96. The said interim order indicates that
the market value is determined at Rs.22,01,400/- for 1
acre 20 guntas. It is not forthcoming from the evidence
that the order of the District Registrar at Ex.P-11 has
attained finality. Ex.P-11 does not provide sufficient
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
material to come to a conclusion that the market value of
the acquired lands was prevailing at Rs.14,67,000/- on the
date of preliminary notification, hence, the said document
also cannot be accepted. Similarly, Exs.P-12 to P-16 are
the orders of the District Registrar of Undervaluation.
Exs.P-12 to P-16 does not provide correct market value of
acquired land as they are the orders of adjudicating
authority of Undervaluation. The claimants have not
produced the copies of sale deeds covered under those
orders nor provided any materials particulars nor
examined the officials, author of the orders and in the
absence of such evidence it would be difficult to consider
these orders to determine the market value. The
Reference Court, considering the oral and documentary
evidence, has assigned detailed reasons for non-
consideration of exhibits referred supra. We do not find
any error in the said finding.
16. The Reference Court re-determined market
value at Rs.8,96,000/- per acre placing reliance on the
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
judgments rendered in LAC Nos.151/2006 and 180/2006
to 188/2006. The learned counsel for appellant-KIADB
has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Reference Court in the aforesaid LACs after remand and
contend that the claimants in these appeals cannot claim
more compensation than Rs.7,60,000/- per acre. The
Reference Court after remand in LAC No.183/2006 c/w
LAC Nos.151/2006, 180/2006 to 182/2006, 184/2006 to
188/2006 vide judgment dated 14.06.2021 considered the
evidence available on record and re-determined the
market value at Rs.7,60,000/- per acre after remand by
this Court in W.P.No.34669/2017. The finding of
Reference Court in the aforesaid LACs clearly
demonstrates that the lands covered in those proceedings
are situated at Bhuvanahalli Village of Devanahalli Taluk
and the lands are adjacent to National Highway and the
surrounding lands are fully developed. It is further noticed
that the lands in these appeals and lands covered in the
aforesaid LACs are acquired under the same notification
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
and for the same purpose. Having taken note of the fact
that the potentiality of the lands in both sets of cases is
identical and the subject matter in the aforesaid LACs and
in these appeals are one and the same, the claimants in
these appeals are also entitled to compensation at the rate
of Rs.7,60,000/- per acre.
17. The contention of appellant-KIADB that the
consent award received by 95% of land owners is best
piece of evidence to award the compensation as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddappa Omanna
Tumari referred supra cannot be considered for the simple
reason that the Reference Court, in the case of similarly
placed land losers, after remand, re-determined market
value at Rs.7,60,000/- per acre which is considered as the
basis to re-determine the market value in the cases on
hand. The other judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant-KIADB has no application to the
facts of the cases on hand.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas referred supra has held that
The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to
show that the price offered for his land in the award is
inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
court. In the case on hand, the appellant-claimant has
failed to produce acceptable evidence to enhance the
compensation. In the absence of legally acceptable
evidence, we are of the view that the reasoning of the
Reference Court in its judgment and award dated
14.06.2021 passed in LAC No.183/2006 and connected
matters are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. The
Reference Court in the said judgment analyzed the nature
of lands, its potentiality, it has also considered that the
lands are adjacent to National Highway and surrounding
lands are developed as on the date of issuance of
preliminary notification and re-assessed the compensation
at Rs.7,60,000/- per acre. We are of the clear opinion
that the cases on hand and the cases referred to by the
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
Reference Court referred supra are similar, hence, in the
absence of any independent evidence for the relevant
period to assess the market value by considering plus and
minus factors, we are of the view that the lands covered in
these appeals fetches similar market value.
19. Insofar as the contention of appellants-
claimants that the value of malkis is more than
Rs.50,00,000/- and the Reference Court has not
considered the said aspect, we have perused the oral and
documentary evidence on record, there is no cogent and
acceptable material on record to disbelieve the valuation
arrived in the award by the SLAO. In the absence of any
evidence before the Reference Court to enhance the
compensation for the malkis, the Reference Court is fully
justified in recording the finding on point No.2 under the
impugned judgment with regard to malkis. We do not find
any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the
Reference Court. The contention insofar as non deposit of
compensation amount, benefit and interest is concerned,
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
the claimants, shall work out their remedies in the
execution proceedings, hence we are not recording any
reasoning on the same.
20. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.6102/2017 and MFA No.6103/2017
filed by KIADB are allowed in part with
costs.
ii. MFA No.9484/2015 and MFA No.9485/2015
filed by the claimants are dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgments and awards dated
19.09.2015 passed in LAC No.178/2006
and 18.09.2015 passed in LAC
No.149/2006 by the by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, respectively,
are modified only to the extent of fixing the
market value at Rs.7,60,000/- per acre
with all statutory benefits.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11163-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
iv. The impugned judgments and awards in
respect of solatium, interest, is upheld.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
