The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3681/2019 (LAC) C/W M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO.63/2020 IN M.F.A. No.3681/2019: BETWEEN: THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY NO.18, MILERS ROAD CANTONMENT, BANGALORE - 560046. (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADV.,) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SRI. SATHISH S/O K.T. KANTHARAJASHETTI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NEW LAYOUT, RAJKUMARNAGAR KUNIGAL TOWN. KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CHANNEL TUMKUR AND HASSAN BANGALORE RAILWAY LANE, TUMKUR - 572105. 3. THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER FOREST DEPARTMENT HULIYURDURGA HOBLI - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.K. NARENDRA BABU, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2018 IN LAC NO.231/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN LAC NO.231/2011 ON THE FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL & ETC. IN M.F.A.CROB NO.63/2020: BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI. SATISH S/O K.T. KANTHARAJA SETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEW LAYOUT RAJKUMARANAGAR, KUNIGAL TOWN KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. (BY SRI. B.K. NARENDRA BABU, ADV.,) ...CROSS OBJECTOR AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CHANNEL TUMAKURU AND HASSAN BENGALURU RAILWAY LANE TUMAKURU-572 101. 2. THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER FOREST DEPARTMENT HULIYURDURGA HOBLI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTH WEST RAILWAY (WEST) NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, CANTONMENT BENGALURU-560046. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADV., FOR R3) - - - THIS MFA CROB IN MFA.NO.3681/2019 IS FILED U/O. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W. SEC. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED IN LAC NO.231/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL AND BE PLEASED TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CROSS-OBJECTOR LANDS BEARING SY.NO.109/2 MEASURING 17 GUNTAS OF CONVERTED INDUSTRIAL LANDS THAT IS AROUND 18,513 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT NADEMAVINAPURA, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT THE RATE OF RS.900/- PER SQUARE FEET AND TO FIX PROPER PRICE FOR 368 TEAK WOOD TREES AND ALSO FOR OTHER TREES ALONG WITH ALL ASSETS ATTACHED TO THE LAND AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA CONNECTED WITH MFA CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) MFA No.3681/2019 is filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South Western Railway. MFA Crob.No.63/2020 is filed by the claimant seeking for higher compensation. Both the appeal and cross objection are filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.12.2018 passed in LAC No.231/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (for short, 'Reference Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the appeal and the cross objection are that, the preliminary notification came to be published on 18.01.2007 to acquire various extents of land, including the land of the claimant measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru for laying - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 of new railway line between Hassan and Benglauru. The final notification came to be issued on 01.11.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'LAO') passed the award on 16.02.2009 determining the market value of the land & malkies and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,54,184/-. 4. The claimant, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the LAO, has sought Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P49. The respondents examined RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.250/- per sq.ft. and awarded enhanced compensation for trees and structures standing in the property with all statutory benefits. The beneficiary of acquisition is in appeal seeking for reduction of compensation and the claimant has filed the cross objection seeking for higher compensation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 5. Sri.Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel for the appellant-beneficiary submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.250/- per sq.ft. placing reliance on LAC No.25/2009. It is submitted that in the said LAC, the said Reference Court has considered the sale deed of the year 2006 and the said sale deed is pertaining to small site measuring 60 x 40' feet at KRS Agrahara and sold at Rs.5,30,000/- which comes to Rs.120/- sq.ft and if 10% escalation is applied it cannot be Rs.250/- per sq.ft. hence, he seeks to re-determine the compensation as per the decision of the coordinate bench in MFA No.2207/2016 by allowing the appeal filed by the Railways. 6. Sri.B.K.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Reference Court has recorded detailed reasons and determined the market value at Rs.250/- per sq.ft., however the same is contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the land of the claimant is converted wayback in the year 1994 and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 considering the same the claimant is entitled to re- determination of market value at Rs.700 to 900/- per sq.ft. It is submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not considering Ex.P-23 the joint mahazar drawn by the LAO and other Officers. The said mahazar indicates that the LAO, without any justifiable reason, has not awarded any compensation to 157 teak, 18 coconut and other trees. It is submitted that the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court on the trees is also on the lower side, hence, he seeks to enhance the same appropriately by allowing the cross objection filed by the claimant. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-beneficiary and the learned counsel for the cross objector - claimant, meticulously perused the material available on record including the Reference Court records. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal and cross objection is "Whether the impugned judgment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 8. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the preliminary notification came to be published on 18.01.2007 to acquire various extents of land including the land of the claimant measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. The final notification came to be issued on 01.11.2007. The lands were acquired for laying of new railway line between Hassan and Benglauru. The LAO passed the award on 16.02.2009 determining the market value of the land and malkies and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,54,184/- to the land in question. The claimant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value of the land at Rs.250/- per sq. ft. and enhanced the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of 150 teak trees, Rs.86,400/- for loss of 15 coconut trees and Rs.2,000/- each for loss of 1 banyan tree, 1 elli tree and 1 jackfruit - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 tree, Rs.36,000/- for loss of 1 mango tree, Rs.13,500/- for loss of 27 hercules trees and Rs.20,000/- for loss of 10 silver trees. It has also enhanced the compensation for structures i.e. Rs.30,000/- for the loss of bathroom, Rs.3,50,000/- for the loss of Mangalore tile roof house and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of steel water tank. It has also awarded interest and statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Act. 9. Insofar as the determination of market value to the land in question, the Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.250/- per sq. ft. considering the fact that the land in question is converted to non- agricultural purpose as per Ex.P8 dated 19.03.1994. The Reference Court has also taken note of Exs.P5, P7 and P9 and has come to the conclusion that the property was used for industrial purpose i.e. brick factory. On close perusal of the aforesaid exhibits, it is evident that the land is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose by the Competent Authority on 19.03.1994. Hence, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 determination of the market value of the land should be as per square feet basis taking into account its potentiality. On perusal of the evidence of RW-1 and his cross- examination, nowhere it is found that RW-1 has admitted that the market value of the site is at Rs.250/- per sq. ft. Hence, the finding of the Reference Court that based on the admission of RW-1, the market value determined is contrary to the evidence available on record. Admittedly, the land is situated adjacent to the National Highway No.48. However, no legally acceptable evidence is placed by the claimant before the Reference Court with regard to the actual market value of the land at the relevant point of time i.e. on 18.01.2007 when the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. Ex.P49- certificate dated 24.03.2018 was issued by the Sub- Registrar, Kunigal indicating that the market value of the residential properties is Rs.500/- and Rs.1,100/- for the approved layouts. However, the said market value is of the year 2018. Hence, the same cannot be taken note of for the purpose of determination of the market value of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 the land in question which was acquired in the year 2007. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VENKATARAMANAIAH Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE-HASSAN RAILWAY AND OTHERS1, taking note of the judgment passed in R.A.No.248/2017 has re-assessed the market value of the land at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. In the said case, the acquisition is under the same notification and for the same purpose. The lands involved in both the cases are similarly situated. Hence, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if we re-assess the market value of the land in question at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-beneficiary that the site dimension considered by the Reference Court in LAC No.25/2009 is 60 ft. x 40 ft. and when the sale consideration is divided, it would come to Rs.120/- per sq. ft., is factually incorrect as the consideration shown in the sale deed is Rs.5,30,000/- for 2,400 sq. ft. The value per square feet would be 1 MFA No.2207/16 dt. 28.09.21 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 Rs.220/-. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-beneficiary is contrary to the material available on record and is accordingly rejected. 10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the cross-objector that the Reference Court has committed grave error in not considering Ex.P23 mahazar, which indicates that no compensation is awarded to 157 teak and other trees, 18 coconut trees and the compensation awarded to the trees by the Reference Court is also required to be enhanced. To consider the said submission, it would be useful to refer the compensation awarded by the LAO and the Reference Court for the trees standing in the land in question which is extracted in a tabular form as follows: SL. NO. NAME OF TREES NO. OF TREES LAO AWARD in Rs. ENHANCED AMOUNT in Rs. REFERENCE COURT AWARD in Rs. 1. TEAK 150 22,670 3,00,000 2. COCONUT 15 15,071 86,400 3,22,670 (2151 per tree) 1,01,471 (6764 per tree) 2,290 (2290 per tree) 3. 4. PONGAMIA PINNATA (HONGE) ELLI 1 1 290 2,000 513 2,000 2,513 (2,513 per tree) - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 5. 6. JACK FRUIT MANGO 1 1 125 2,000 2,378 36,000 7. HERCULES 27 2,905 13,500 8. SILVER 10 1,400 20,000 2,125 (2,125 per tree) 38,378 (38,378 per tree) 16,405 (607 per tree) 21,400 (2,140 per tree) 11. There is no evidence on record to consider further enhancement of compensation for the trees standing in the land in question. The Reference Court, considering the various factors and evidence available on record, has enhanced the compensation for each category of the trees referred supra. We do not find any error in the enhancement made by the Reference Court. Hence, seeking further enhancement of compensation on the standing trees is rejected. Insofar as not awarding any compensation to 157 teak and other trees and 18 coconut trees is concerned, the claimant has produced mahazar dated 09.03.2009 which is marked as Ex.P23. Ex.P23 clearly demarcates that out of 358 teak and other trees, the LAO has considered only 201 trees and no compensation is determined for 157 remaining trees. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 Similarly, there were 33 coconut trees in the land in question but the LAO has determined the compensation for only 15 coconut trees and no compensation is determined for the remaining 18 trees. In support of non- consideration of the aforesaid trees by the LAO and the Reference Court, the appellant has raised a specific ground in the cross-objection. Admittedly, the LAO as well as the Reference Court have not awarded any compensation to the remaining trees as per Ex.P23. We are of the considered view that the cross-objector / claimant would be entitled to compensation for the remaining trees i.e. 157 teak and other trees at Rs.2,151/- per tree. Similarly, for the remaining 18 coconut trees the cross-objector / claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,764/- per tree. In total, the claimant / cross-objector would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- (157 teak trees x Rs.2,151/- = Rs.3,37,707/- + 18 coconut trees x Rs.6,764/- = Rs.1,21,752/-). The award of enhanced compensation by the Reference Court for the trees, structures, water tank, etc. is upheld. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3114-DB M.F.A. No.3681/2019 C/W M.F.A.CROB No.63/2020 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. MFA No.3681/2019 is allowed in part. The market value of the land measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.109/2 situated at Nademavinapura Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru is re-determined at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. with interest and statutory benefits. ii. MFA.Crob.No.63/2020 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- with all benefits as per the law. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1