[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Mata Shanthaiah vs The Assistant Commissioner on 24 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH 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.5730/2021 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5732/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5733/2021 (LAC)
Digitally signed MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5735/2021 (LAC)
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5736/2021 (LAC)
Location: HIGH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5737/2021 (LAC)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5738/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5741/2021 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5742/2021 (LAC)
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.52/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.54/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.55/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.56/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.57/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.58/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.59/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.60/2022
M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.60/2023
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
IN M.F.A. NO.5730/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560 094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . SRI. PARASAPPA
S/O GIDDAPPA BHAGYANAGAR
AGED 69 YEARS
RETD. LECTURER
R/AT. NO.206, NEAR DEPOT NO.3
VIDHYANAGAR
GULBARGA-585 103.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR -561 203.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.9/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
LAC NO.9/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY &
ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5732/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA P.M.
S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA
AGED 58 YEARS
REP. BY LR'S.
1(a) SMT. PALAXI
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
1(b) VIJETH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
1(c) SMT. VIDUTA C
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/OF.
H.NO.1873/1, JEWARGI ROAD
NGO'S COLONY, KALABURGI
TQ & DIST, KALABURAGI.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
[AS PER ORDER DATED 15.06.2023
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT]
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR -561203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR LR'S OF R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.18/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.18/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.18/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5733/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560 094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . SRI. MATASHANTHAIAH
S/O PARAMAIAH MATA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AGED 70 YEARS
RETD. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
R/AT. NO.10/32, PAVANAGANGA
COLONY, SHAHABAD ROAD
GULBARGA-585103.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561203.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.06/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.06/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.06/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5735/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. BASAVALINGAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA POLISPATIL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
LECTURER
R/AT. NO.2-907/43, H 1
PRAGATHI COLONY, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA 585103.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR 561203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.08/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.08/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.08/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5736/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. AMARANATHA DEVARAMANI
S/O MALASIDDAPPA N. DEVARAMANI
AGED 35 YEARS
SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/AT. VEERENDRA PATIL NAGAR
B.D.A. LAYOUT, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA-585 105.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.12/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.12/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5737/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA
S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA BIRAHARA
AGED 64 YEARS
R/AT. 91, GURUKRUPA BUILDING
PRAGATHI COLONY, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA-585 105.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.11/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.12/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5738/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. KASHIRAO H. PATTANKAR
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.K H COLONY
SHANTHINAGARA M.S.K. MILLS ROAD
GULBARGA -585103.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA -561203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO LAC NO.02/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.02/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.02/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.5741/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVANA
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . SRI. SUDHAKAR K. PATAVARI
S/O KRISHNAJI PATAVARI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RETD. ENGINEER
R/AT QUARTERS NO.70
VIDHYANAGAR
M.S.K. MILLS ROAD
GULBARGA-585103.
2. DR. DINKAR K. PATAVARI
S/O KRISHNAJI PATAVARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETD. ENGINEER
R/AT. QUARTERS NO.70
VIDHYANAGAR
M.S.K. MILLS ROAD
GULBARGA - 585103.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR 561203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R3
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO LAC NO.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
NO.10/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.10/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
IN M.F.A. NO.5742/2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ISRO HEADQUARTERS
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . DR. SRI SANGAMESHA C. PATIL
S/O CHANNAVEERA GOWDA
AGED 69 YEARS
PRIVATE DOCTOR
R/AT. SAIKUNJA, NO.4-801/72, F-8
NEAR KANNDA CONVENT SCHOOL
AADHARSHA NAGAR
GULBARGA-585 103.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR -561203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO LAC NO.07/2017 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN LAC
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
NO.07/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE LAC NO.07/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.52/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. AMARANATHA DEVARAMANI
S/O MALASIDDAPPA N. DEVARAMANI
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT. 258, VEERENDRA PATIL NAGAR
B.D.A. LAYOUT, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA-585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU - 560231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.12/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
CROSS OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.54/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA
S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA BIRADAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT. 91, GURUKRUPA BUILDING
PRAGATHI COLONY, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560 021
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.11/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
CROSS OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.55/2022:
BETWEEN:
DR. SRI. SANGAMESH C. PATIL
S/O CHANNAVEERA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT. SALKUNJA NO.4-801/72, F-8
NEAR KANNADA CONVENT SCHOOL
ADARSHA NAGAR, GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU 560 021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.7/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.56/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. KASHIRAO H. PATTANKAR
S/O HANUMANTHARAO
AGED 70 YEARS
R/AT NO. K H B COLONY
SHANTHINAGAR
M S K MILLS ROAD
GULBARGA 585 103.
...CORSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU 560 231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
LAC NO.2/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS
OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.57/2022:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. SUDHAKAR K. PATAVARI
S/O KRISHNAJI PATAVAI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RTD. ENGINEER.
2 . DR. SRI. DINAKAR K. PATAVARI
S/O KRISHNAJI PATAVARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT. QUARTERS NO.70
VIDHYANAGAR, M S K ROAD
GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR- SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKASHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.10/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS
CROSS OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.58/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVALINGAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA POLISPATIL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. SALKUNJA, NO.2-907/43
H-1, PRAGATHI COLONY
SEDAM ROAD, GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
2. THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKASHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU-560231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.8/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS
OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.59/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. MATA SHANTHAIAH
S/O PARAMAIAH MATA
AGED 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.10/32
PAVANA GANGA COLONY
SHAHABAD ROAD
GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560 021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.6/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS
OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.60/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. PARASAPPA
S/O GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.206, NEAR DEPOT NO.3
VIDYANAGAR, GULBARGA 585 105.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560 021.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.9/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS
OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO.60/2023:
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR P.M.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1(a). SMT. PALAXI
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR P.M.
AGED 63 YEARS.
1(b). VIJETH
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR P.M.
AGED 38 YEARS.
RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 1873/1, JEWARGI ROAD,
NGOS COLONY, KALABURAGI,
TQ AND DIST. KALABURAGI
1(c). SMT. VIDUTA .C
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR P.M.
AGED 34 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/OF. H.NO.1873/1
JEWARGI ROAD
NGO'S COLONY, KALABURAGI
TQ AND DIST. KALABURAGI.
[LR'S ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS
PER ORDER DATED 15.06.2023]
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
2 . THE DIRECTOR
ISRO P AND P.R. UNIT
ISRO MAIN OFFICE
ANTHARIKASHA BHAVAN
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU - 560231.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R2)
*******
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN
LAC NO.18/2017 DATED 06.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS
CROSS OBJECTION AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS CONNECTED WITH M.F.A. CROSS
OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
13.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
M.F.A. No.5730/2021
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
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)
These Miscellaneous First Appeals and MFA.Cross
Objections arise out of the judgment and award dated
06.07.2018 passed in LAC Nos.2, 6 to 12 & 18 of 2017 by
the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Devanahalli
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court').
2. The particulars of the land with respect to the
appeals and cross objections filed are mentioned in the
table below:
Sl. Miscellaneous First MFA Cross- LAC Extent of Land
No. Appeal objection Number
1. MFA.No.5730/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 30 x 40 Ft
No.60/2022 9/2017 = 1200 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
2. MFA.No.5732/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 72 x 51 Ft
No.60/2023 18/2017 = 3672 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
3. MFA.No.5733/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 30 x 40 Ft
No.59/2022 06/2017 = 1200 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
4. MFA.No.5735/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 30 x 40 Ft
No.58/2022 08/2017 = 1200 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
5. MFA.No.5736/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 30 x 40 Ft
No.52/2022 12/2017 = 1200 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
6. MFA.No.5737/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 30 x 40 Ft
No.54/2022 11/2017 = 1200 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
7. MFA.No.5738/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 72 x 50 Ft
No.56/2022 02/2017 = 3600 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
8. MFA.No.5741/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 72 x 48 Ft
No.57/2022 10/2017 = 3456 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk
9. MFA.No.5742/2021 MFA CROB. LAC No. Site Measuring 46 x 72 Ft
No.55/2022 7/2017 = 3312 Sq feet in Sy
No.24 situated at
Abbachikkanahalli Village,
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Reference Court.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals
as well as cross objections are that the claimants are the
owners of the lands referred to in the above table. The
State Government issued a preliminary notification dated
28.01.2010 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') for
acquisition of the said lands. The State Government issued
a final notification dated 30.05.2011 under Section 6(1) of
the Act for acquisition of the land in question for the
benefit of Union of India/Indian Space Research
Organization (hereinafter referred as 'ISRO'). The Land
Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'LAO')
determined the market value and passed an award dated
10.06.2013 at Rs.180/- per sq.ft. The claimants aggrieved
by the meagre compensation amount awarded by the LAO,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
sought for enhancement of the compensation by filing
reference before the Reference Court. The Reference Court
recorded common evidence. The claimants adduced oral
evidence by examining as PWs-1 to PW-10 and got
marked Exhibits P-1 to P-34. The Reference Court after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence re-
determined the market value of the lands and enhanced
the compensation amount from Rs.180/- per sq.ft. to
Rs.960/- per sq.ft. Being aggrieved by the Judgement and
Award of the Reference Court, the beneficiary of
acquisition-ISRO as well as the claimants are in appeals
and cross-objections.
5. Sri. Madhukar M. Deshpande, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary-ISRO
submits that the Reference Court has erred in passing the
impugned judgement without any justifiable reason
enhancing the market value of the land in question to
Rs.960/- per sq.ft. It is further submitted that the
Reference Court failed to appreciate the fact that the sites
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
carved out of Sy.No.24 are though converted lands,
cannot be considered as developed sites. It is also
submitted that the Reference Court has made an
erroneous assumption that the lands in question are
developed sites and situated in a layout. It is contended
that the Reference Court has erred in concluding that the
acquired lands have access to electricity, water, sewage
connection, although the claimants have failed to produce
any documents for the same. It is further contended that
the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BIAAPA') has issued
a letter dated 15.09.2021 that it has not approved any
layout in respect of the lands in question. It is also
contended that the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court at the rate of Rs.960/- per sq.ft. is highly
exaggerated and contrary to the evidence on record.
Hence, the Judgement and Award passed by the Reference
Court is required to be interfered with. It is submitted that
the sale deed cannot be gospel truth and in support of this
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer
and Another vs. Smt.B.Hanumanthi and another . Hence,
he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the Beneficiary-
ISRO.
6. Per contra, Sri.Chandrashekar P.Patil, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that
the Judgement and Award passed by the Reference Court
is contrary to law and material on record. It is submitted
that Reference Court has erroneously awarded Rs.960/-
per sq.ft. instead of Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft as per their claim
and valuation report. It is submitted that the Reference
Court has failed to properly assess the evidence on record
and erroneously determined the market value of the lands
at the rate of Rs.960/- per sq.ft. It is further submitted
that the Reference Court though relied on Exs.P.2 and
Ex.P.3-sale deeds of 2008, applied escalation at only at
10% which is contrary to settled law and it ought to have
MFA No.100979/2022 and connected appeals Dtd. 26.11.2024
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
applied at least an escalation of 30% per year. It is also
submitted that the Reference Court has failed to consider
the valuation reports of Land Evaluator, who has opined
that the lands are fully developed and the market value of
the acquired lands is more than Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. In
support of his contention, he has relied on the following
decisions:
i. General Manager Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshabhai
Jivanbhai Patel and Another2
ii. Ramrao Shankar Tapase vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Corporation
Ltd. and others3
iii. U.P.Awas Evam Vikash Parishad vs.
Asha Ram (D) Thr.LRs. and others4
iv. Sri.C.Krishnappa vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru and
others
Hence, he seeks to allow the cross objections of the
claimants by enhancing the market value at Rs.1500/- per
sq.ft. by dismissing the appeals of the beneficiary-ISRO.
(2008) 14 SCC 745
Civil A. 2732/2022 and connected appeals dtd.19.04.2022
2021 SCC OnLine SC 250 : AIR 2021 SC 2832
MFA 10313/2018 Dtd. 02.07.2021
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the beneficiary-ISRO, learned
counsel appearing for the claimants and perused the
material available on record including the Reference Court
Records. We have given our anxious considerations to the
submissions advanced.
8. The only point that arises for our consideration
in these appeals and cross objections is:
"Whether the impugned common
Judgment and Award of the Reference
Court calls for any interference?"
9. The aforementioned point is answered in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down broader
guidelines to determine the market value of the acquired
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
land in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer6, wherein it was held as under:
"4. The following factors must be etched on the
mental screen:
(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.
(1988) 3 SCC 751
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(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
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.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(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 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 6.some special
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
land under disadvantageous
acquisition 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
(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.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense."
b) It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the lands
owned by the claimants in Sy.No.24 situated in
AbbachikKanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk
was acquired by the State Government by issuing
preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on
28.01.2010 and final notification under Section 6 of the
Act was issued on 30.05.2011. The LAO determined the
market value and passed an award on 10.06.2013
awarding compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lakhs only) per acre of agricultural land and Rs.180/- per
sq.ft for non-agricultural land. In the cases on hand,
admittedly, the lands are converted from agriculture to
non-agriculture and thereafter they were acquired. The
claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act
for enhancement of the compensation.
c) The Reference Court recorded the evidence, the
claimants examined themselves as PWs-01 to PW-09 and
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
jointly deposed that the acquired lands are located close to
Bengaluru City and Bengaluru Kempegowda International
Airport, many software companies are situated within the
projected area. It was further deposed that the National
Highway-7 Bengaluru-Hyderabad four lane road is situated
adjacent to the acquired lands and the lands in question
have electricity, water, road, sewage and is a developed
layout. The claimants examined one Sri.C.Manohar-Land
Evaluator as PW10, he deposed that he carried out spot
inspection of the lands and collected the documentary
evidence and based on such material he is of the opinion
that the market value of the acquired lands is Rs.1500/-
per sq.ft. PW-10-Land Evaluator was cross-examined by
the beneficiary of acquisition, however, nothing has been
elicited. It is to be noticed that the evidence of expert i.e.,
PW-10, has not been relied by the Reference Court on the
ground that the valuer has failed to substantiate the
market value by cogent and acceptable evidence. In our
considered view, the appreciation of evidence by the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
Reference Court insofar as evidence of PW-10 is justified,
we do not find any perversity or error. On re-appreciation
of the evidence of PW-10 and valuation report at Exs.P-26
to P-34 does not inspire the confidence of the Court to
accept the same in the absence of supporting acceptable
evidence to assess the market value at Rs.1,500/- per
sq.ft.
d) It is not in dispute that the claimants are the owners
of the residential sites carved out in a layout formed. The
records indicate that the lands were converted from
agricultural land to non-agricultural land and thereafter a
proper layout is formed. Merely because the layout is not
approved by the BIAAPA itself is not sufficient to come to a
conclusion that the lands in question is not a developed
layout. There is substantial evidence on record to accept
the contention of the claimants that the layout was formed
and the sites were ready for putting up construction and to
disprove the said assertion of the claimants, the
beneficiary-ISRO has not produced any evidence. It is
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
further noticed that the beneficiary-ISRO has failed to
adduce oral and documentary evidence before the
Reference Court hence, in the absence of any contrary
evidence, the Reference Court has rightly accepted the
evidence adduced by the claimants. We do not find any
error in accepting the oral and documentary evidence of
the claimants by the Reference Court.
e) The claimants got marked and relied on Ex.P1 and
Ex.P6 to P13, which are the objections to the application,
Ex.P2 & P3 - Certified copy of sale deeds dated
01.07.2008, Ex.P4 & P5 - Sub-registrar's property
valuation list, Ex.P14-Certified Copy of Original Memo,
Ex.P15 & P16 - Certified copy of degree certificates,
Ex.P17-Certificate of IT Department, Ex.P18 to 21-
Certificate of Registration, Ex.P22 to P25 - Bank Letters
and Ex.P-26 to P34 - Valuation Reports dated 22.03.2018.
The beneficiary-ISRO neither adduced anyone as a witness
nor produced any exhibits. The Reference Court on perusal
of the evidence and material on record, enhanced the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
compensation to Rs.960/- per square feet on the basis of
Exs-P2 and P3 - Sale deeds, wherein the land was sold for
Rs.800/- per square feet and further escalation of 10%
applied for two years.
f) It would be useful to refer to the case of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pehlad Ram v. HUDA7,
where it was held as under:
"10. In State of Haryana v. Gurbax Singh [(2008)
11 SCC 65] this Court approved the principle
adopted by the High Court while assessing the
market value under Section 23 of the Act, or giving
marginal enhancement of compensation @ 12%
per annum for two years since acquisition,
comparing the value with the land notified under
Section 4 of the Act, two years prior to the
notification under Section 4 involved in the case.
11. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745] this Court has applied
the same formula giving cumulative rate of
escalation @ 7.5% per annum, though found that
cumulative increase of 10 to 15% was permissible.
15. This Court in Dollar Co. [Dollar
Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730] has
categorically laid down that in case the land of the
claimant has been acquired in close vicinity of the
(2014) 14 SCC 778
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
purchase, the consideration paid by such claimant
to the vendor is the best evidence of the market
value of the land. The court should not award more
unless it is possible to reach a different conclusion.
Even the appellate court should not interfere in
such a fact situation unless the judgment is based
on wrong application of principle or because some
important point affecting valuation has been
overlooked or misapplied. The consideration paid
by the owner only a few months ago presents bona
fide evidence of value subject to certain exceptions
such as relationship of the parties, market
conditions and terms of sale and the date of sale.
17. It is also evident from the law referred to
hereinabove that a cumulative increase of 10 to
15% per year in the market value of the land may
be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring
authority prove otherwise."
g) It would also be useful to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam
Vikash Parishad referred supra, wherein it was held as
under:
"29. The potentiality of the acquired land is one
of the primary factors to be taken into consideration
to determine the market value of the land.
Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility for
changing or developing into the state of actuality.
The market value of a property has to be determined
while having due regard to its existing conditions
with all the existing advantages and its potential
possibility when led out in its most advantageous
manner. The question whether a land has potential
value or not primarily depends upon its condition,
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable
capability of being put and also its proximity to
residential, commercial or industrial
areas/institutions. The existing amenities like water,
electricity as well as the possibility of their further
extension, for instance whether near about town is
developing or has prospects of development have to
be taken into consideration. It also depends upon
the connectivity and the overall development of the
area.
30. The record in the present matter does not
suggest that there were large-scale development
activities. The evidence is rather of sale of small
areas. There is nothing on record as to when the
industrial units were set up and what was the cost of
land. Furthermore, there are no sale instances of
land situated in Village Makanpur prior to date of
Notification i.e. 26-6-1982. The sale instances
produced by the landowners pertain to Village
Sahibabad and Jhandapur which are at a distance of
about 3.5 km from Delhi border. This Court in Mohd.
Raofuddin v. LAO [Mohd. Raofuddin v. LAO, (2009)
14 SCC 367 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 361] while dealing
with comparable sale instances has held that :
(Mohd. Raofuddin case [Mohd. Raofuddin v. LAO,
(2009) 14 SCC 367 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 361] , SCC
p. 372, para 14)
"14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar
lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the
best guide for determination of the market value of
the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of
compensation payable to a landowner. Nevertheless,
while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the
Court to see that the compensation so determined is
just and fair not merely to the individual whose
property has been acquired but also to the public
which is to pay for it."
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
h) Similar view was also taken by this Court in the case
of Sri.C.Krishnappa referred supra.
i) Keeping in mind, the aforesaid enunciations of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the
considered view that the Reference Court was justified in
relying on the Exs-P2 & P3-Sale deeds to arrive at the
market value of the acquired lands as the property
involved in the said sale deeds is from the same village
and also close to the acquired lands. Exs.P2 and P-3 are
the sale deeds dated 01.07.2008 and the preliminary
notification to acquire the land in question is dated
28.01.2010, hence, there is a gap of nearly 2 years from
the execution of Exs.P-2 and P-3. Having considered
Exs.P-2 and P-3 as the basis to determine the market
value, now the question is what should be the percentage
of escalation required to be applied to Exs.P-2 and P-3 for
a period of two years. On the other hand, the beneficiary-
ISRO has contended that the sale deed cannot be basis to
determine market value. Such a contention is liable to be
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
rejected for the reason that Ex.P2 and P3 are the best
piece of evidence available on record to determine the
market value of the acquired land.
j) Insofar as the application of principle for escalation of
the market value is concerned, it would be useful to refer
to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
referred supra, wherein it was held at paragraph 13 & 18
as under:
"13. Primarily, the increase in land prices
depends on four factors: situation of the land,
nature of development in surrounding area,
availability of land for development in the area,
and the demand for land in the area. In rural
areas, unless there is any prospect of development
in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow,
steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or
jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban
areas, where the development is faster, where the
demand for land is high and where there is
construction activity all around, the escalation in
market price is at a much higher rate, as compared
to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to
rapid development and high demand for land, the
escalations in prices have touched even 30% to
50% or more per year, during the nineties.
18. The increase in market value is calculated
with reference to the market value during the
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
immediate preceding year. When market value is
sought to be ascertained with reference to a
transaction which took place some years before the
acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the
year to year increase. As the percentage of
increase is always with reference to the previous
year's market value, the appropriate method is to
calculate the increase cumulatively and not
applying a flat rate. The difference between the
two methods is shown by the following illustration
(with reference to a 10% increase over a basic
price of Rs 10 per square metre):
Year By flat rate increase method By cumulative increase method
1987 10.00 10.00
(Base
year)
1988 10 + 1 = 11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00
1989 11 + 1 = 12.00 11.00 + 1.10 = 12.10
1990 12 + 1 = 13.00 12.10 + 1.21 = 13.31
1991 13 + 1 = 14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64
1992 14 + 1 = 15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10
k) The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the escalation
rates will be higher for urban/semi-urban areas as
compared to rural areas. In the instant case, the lands in
question are located in urban vicinity and are also located
at a proximate distance from the Bengaluru International
Airport. The neighbouring lands have been rapidly
developed, there is a four-lane highway abutting the lands
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
and software companies have already come up in the
area. The records further indicate that the entire area was
in the process of rapid development. In view of the same,
we are of the considered view that the escalation in the
instant case is required to be enhanced to 15% per annum
of the market value determined by the Reference Court.
The Exs.P4 and P5, which are the notifications issued
under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 i.e the guidance
value for the registration of the sale deeds. As per the said
exhibits, the guidance value for the purpose of payment of
stamp duty and registration fees is Rs.400/- per sq. ft. for
converted lands and Rs.100/- per sq. ft. for gramatana
sites. It is to be noticed that the guidance value
notification cannot be the sole basis to arrive at a correct
conclusion with regard to the market value of the property
in question. It is common knowledge that the actual
market value would be more than the guidance value. The
market value of the land depends on several factors like
potentiality of the land, development of neighbouring
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
areas, availability and demand for the land. It is to be
noticed that the present acquisition is for the purpose of
international airport and there is sufficient evidence to
show that the surrounding lands of the proposed
international airport are developed and there is a
continuity of development from the Bengaluru City to the
proposed airport on the date of issuance of preliminary
notifications. Hence, the guidance value in the notification
cannot be the basis for determination of correct market
value of the acquired land. The other documentary
evidence produced by the claimants also would not help in
seeking higher compensation. Having accepted the
reasoning of the Reference Court with regard to the Exs.P2
and P3, comparative sale deeds and also for the reasons
recorded supra, the Reference Court after appreciating the
evidence on record, has rightly considered Ex.P2 and P3
and determined the market value of the land at Rs.800/-
per sq.ft., which in our view is correct. However, insofar as
the escalation is concerned, the same is required to be
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
enhanced to 15% on the market value determined by the
Reference Court. There is nearly 2 years gap between
Ex.P2 and P3 and the preliminary notification. Hence, by
applying the principle of escalation at 15% per annum on
Rs.800/- per sq ft for two years, the market value of the
acquired land would be at Rs.1040/- per sq ft. It is
needless to observe that the claimants are entitled to
solatium, statutory benefits and interests as per the
provisions of the LA Act.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals filed by the
beneficiary-ISRO are dismissed
ii. The Cross-objections of the
claimants are allowed-in-part
with costs.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11855-DB
AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
HC-KAR
iii. The compensation is re-
determined at Rs.1040/- per sq.ft.
It is needless to observe that the
claimants are entitled to solatium,
statutory benefits and interests as
per the provisions of the LA Act.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR/ABK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
