Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 171 (KAR)

D. Subrahmanya Raje v. Land Acquisition Officer

2023-02-01

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. These appeals are filed under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the LA Act') challenging the order dtd. 26/2/2011 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Land Acquisition Case Nos.307-312/1999, whereby the compensation has been enhanced from Rs.3.30, 000 to Rs.6, 00, 000.00 per acre. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants are the owners of the property in dispute. The said property has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA') for formation of ring road by issuing a preliminary notification on 4/11/1992 which is gazetted on 17/6/1993 followed by final notification dtd. 20/5/1997 which is gazetted on 23/5/1997. The BDA has taken the possession of the said property on 19/11/1997. The Land Acquisition officer has passed an award fixing the compensation at Rs.3, 30, 000.00per acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed applications under Sec. 18 of the LA Act before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of the compensation which applications were numbered as LAC Nos.307 to 312 of 1999. After considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3, 30, 000.00 to Rs.6, 00, 000.00 per acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed these appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation. 4. Sri A.Anil Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, in the very same notification an adjacent land has been acquired in Sy.No.37/2 of Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore for the very same purpose. In that case, i.e., in LAC No.43/1999, the Reference Court, by order dtd. 16/1/2001 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.100.00 per sq. ft. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 16/1/2001, the BDA has filed an appeal before this Court in MFA No.2020/2001 wherein the judgment and award passed by the reference court has been confirmed and the same has been brought to the notice of the trial court. 16/1/2001 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.100.00 per sq. ft. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 16/1/2001, the BDA has filed an appeal before this Court in MFA No.2020/2001 wherein the judgment and award passed by the reference court has been confirmed and the same has been brought to the notice of the trial court. Even though the same has been noted in the judgment since the certified copy of the order of the High Court has not been produced, the trial court has not considered the same and enhanced the compensation to Rs.6, 00, 000.00 per acre thereby erred in not considering the same. Secondly, the trial court has failed to consider its own judgment in LAC No.364/2004 of Sy.No.27 of the same village, acquired under the same notification for the same purpose which is adjacent to the property in question. In support of his case he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. BALRAM reported in (2010) 5 SCC 747 . Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 5. None appeared for the respondent. Even on the last occasion also there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the appeal papers and the impugned order. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant in MFA No.6500/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 3, 300 sq.ft, appellant in MFA No.6501/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 1, 650 sq.ft, appellant in MFA No.6502/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 7, 897 sq.ft, appellant in MFA No.6503/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 1, 100 sq.ft, appellant in MFA No.6505/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 1, 200 sq.ft and the appellant in MFA No.6505/2021 was the owner of a site measuring 1, 200 sq.ft. These properties situated in Sy.No.25/2, Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore. The said lands have been acquired by the BDA for the formation of the ring road by issuing preliminary notification dtd. 4/1/1992, the same is published in the gazette on 17/6/1993 and the final notification was issued on 20/5/1997 and the same was published in the gazette on 23/5/1997. The possession of the above said land has been taken by the BDA on 19/11/1997 and the Land Acquisition officer has awarded a compensation of Rs.3, 30, 000.00 per acre. 4/1/1992, the same is published in the gazette on 17/6/1993 and the final notification was issued on 20/5/1997 and the same was published in the gazette on 23/5/1997. The possession of the above said land has been taken by the BDA on 19/11/1997 and the Land Acquisition officer has awarded a compensation of Rs.3, 30, 000.00 per acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed applications under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court, which are numbered as LAC Nos.307 to 312 of 1999. 8. In respect of the adjacent land in Sy.No.37/2 which is also acquired for the very same purpose, under the very same preliminary notification dtd. 17/6/1993 and final notification dtd. 23/5/1997, the land acquisition officer has awarded compensation of Rs.3, 30, 000.00 per acre. On request of the land-owner in that case, the matter has been referred to the Reference Court. The Reference Court in LAC Nos.43/1999 and 86/1999 has passed an award on 16/1/2001 wherein compensation has been enhanced to Rs.100.00 per sq. ft. The said judgment has been challenged by the BDA before a Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.2020/2021 and connected matters. This Court, by order dtd. 1/6/2006 dismissed the appeals confirming the order passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.43/1999 and 86/1999. Even in respect of Sy.No.27 situated in the very same village, which is also acquired under the very same notification, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.100.00per sq. ft in LAC No.364/2004. 9. In view of the above factual position and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BALRAM (supra), since the land of the claimants is also acquired under the very same notification and for the very same purpose, their cases also to be considered for enhancement of compensation at Rs.100.00per sq. ft. However, in these cases there is a reference that earlier they have filed a writ petition and the reference court has given a specific direction that during the period of stay, the claimants are not entitled to interest, i.e., from 15/7/2005 to 6/3/2007. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in the following terms: The order passed by the reference court is modified. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.100.00 per sq. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in the following terms: The order passed by the reference court is modified. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.100.00 per sq. ft., including interest @ 9% p.a. from the date on which possession was taken for the initial period of one year, thereafter such interest shall be 15% per annum till the said amount is deposited as provided under Sec. 28 of the LA Act. The claimants are also entitled to solatium at 30% on the market value as provided under Sec. 23(2) of the LA Act. It is made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest from 15/7/2005 to 6/3/2007.