This special leave petition appeals the High Court's dismissal of two first appeals regarding land acquisition compensation for land near Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary.
High Court order dismissing both appeals and confirming the acquisition award was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7954/2014 (LAC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6429/2015 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.7954/2014
BETWEEN:
N. SAVITHA D/O. NARAYANASWAMY, W/O. ARJIN SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.14 PASSED ON LAC NO.35/11 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SRIRANGAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. No.6429/2015
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
AND:
SMT. N. SAVITHA D/O. NARAYANASWAMY W/O. ARJIN SRINIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.8.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.35/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
These two Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed
against the common Judgment and Award dated 14.8.2014 made in LAC No.35/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna, determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,49,200/- per acre and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees on the land along with other statutory benefits.
compensation and MFA No.6429/2015 is filed by the State seeking for reduction of compensation awarded by the reference Court.
the State Government issued preliminary notification on 24.11.2008 under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land belonging to her bearing Sy.No.81/2 measuring 20 guntas of Bechavk
revenue village (Karimanti ) , Belagola Hobli,
Srirangapatna taluk for expansion of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary at Srirangapatna taluk followed by the final notification under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act in the year 2009. Accordingly, on 28/10/2010, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to pass award fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.21,488/- per gunta. Being not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed reference petition under Section 18(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, and on re-appreciation of the documents relied upon by both the parties, the Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award dated 14/08/2014 awarded Rs.30,49,200/- per acre and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees standing on the land. Hence, these appeals filed by the owner of the land for enhancement of compensation and the State Government for reduction.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties to the lis.
appellant/land loser contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court at Rs.30,49,200/- per acre is very meagre contrary to both oral and documentary evidence on record and therefore, he sought to enhance the compensation. He would further contend that vide Ex.P10 sale deed dated 05/12/2008 sold the land measuring 40 x 55 ft. approximately 0.02 guntas of the same village, for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- and Ex.P-11 is the award passed in MFA.No.6146/2011 fixing the market value at Rs.400/- per sq.ft. and the concerned Reference Court in LAC.No.134/2008 awarded Rs.375/per sq.ft. in MFA.No.11008/2011. The said material facts have not been considered by the Reference Court in a proper perspective and proceeded to award compensation which is on the lower side.
award passed by the Reference Court requires further enhancement. Therefore, sought to allow the appeal filed by the landlord and dismiss the appeal filed by the State Government.
land measuring 40 x 55 ft. situated within the limits of gramatana. The said documents are no way helpful to the case of the landlord. He would further contend that Ex.P-11, the judgment of this Court in MFA.No.6146/2011 and Misc.Civil No.14675/2011 dated 02/01/2012 awarding Rs.400/- per sq.ft. is not in respect of the lands adjoining the lands involved in the present appeals and it is a different land away from the land in question. Therefore, the said judgment has no relevancy to the case on hand. He further contended that the Reference Court was not justified in awarding Rs.30,49,200/- per acre and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees on the land as the same is exorbitant and contrary to the material on record as the claimant has not produced any record since the claimant/land loser/owner has not produced any material documents to show that the land acquired in the present case has high potential value. Admittedly, it is the agricultural land and no conversion order has been passed by the concerned
Deputy Commissioner and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal filed by the land loser/claimant for enhancement and allow the appeal filed by the State for reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arises for our Consideration in these appeals are:
to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original records of the Reference Court carefully.
the land owner/claimant is examined as PW.1 and three more witnesses are examined as PWs.2, 3 and 4 and marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the State, RW.1 is examined and the documents Exs.R-1 to R-6 are marked.
11. It is not in dispute that the appellant in MFA.No.7954/2014 is the land owner in possession of
the land bearing No.81/2, measuring 0.20 guntas of Bechark Revenue Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, was acquired by respondent No.1/Special Land Acquisition Officer, by a Preliminary Notification dated 24/11/2008 under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act followed by Final Notification under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act in the yearn 2009 and subsequently award came to be passed on 10/07/2010 and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.21,488/- per gunta and Rs.13,348/- for four coconut trees. It is also
not in dispute that being aggrieved by the said award, the landlord filed a petition and the same was numbered as LAC.No.35/2011. It is the specific case of the landlord that the property acquired for the purpose of expansion of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary is virtually for a commercial purpose and the land surveyed is more suitable for commercial and non-agricultural purpose having high potential and therefore, compensation has to be paid to the extent of land acquired in terms of square feet. Since the land has high potential and commercial value, the land owner was intending to open
a hotel/lodge/resort and make it a good source of income for his family and his next generation.
claimant examined herself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments made in the claim petition stating that the land acquired is situated at Karimanti village and there are no residential houses in the vicinity. The residential houses
are situated at Palahalli. Therefore, the lands situated at Karimanti near the world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary are suitable for non-agricultural purposes. On both the shores of Cauvery river running in front of Ranganathittu, there are resorts and many hermitages viz., Omkareshwara hermitage, Chandravana hermitage, Bambam hermitage, Sairam hermitage, etc. Though many people are ready to purchase the land, no lands are available for sale and therefore, most of the properties are not sold for correct market value. PW.1 further stated that the land acquired is more suitable for commercial and non-agricultural purpose having high potentiality and therefore, has to be paid by measuring the extent of acquired area in terms of square feet. It is further stated that though the land owner/claimant made a request for conversion of land to nonagricultural purpose, it was rejected by the authorities mainly on the ground that the property is situated adjacent to the world famous Ranganathittu Bird
Sanctuary. Therefore, the claimant/land owner’s desire was not fulfilled. It is further stated that there are number of coconut trees existing in the acquired land and their age, yield and market value of each tree has to be determined. It is further stated that at the time of fixing market value before the SLAO, the respondents had assured and agreed to provide a Government job to one person in the family of each awardees and one shop to do business and had agreed to pass a consent award. But they failed to fulfill the same. She further stated that in respect of the land belonging to Smt. Rathna Vasudev acquired for Bengaluru Mysuru Highway layout, Rs.375/per sq. ft. was awarded in LAC No.18/2018. When said award was challenged in MFA No.6146/2011, this Court enhanced it to Rs.400/- per sq.ft. But the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the same material while fixing the market value in respect of the claimant’s land.
specifically deposed that the land acquired by the State is her ancestral property. Except the said bit of land, she has no other land. The land is irrigated land and she denied the suggestion that she received the compensation amount as per the market value prevailing during the year 2008. She further deposed that there is no lodge or resort in the vicinity, but they are situated at a distance of half a kilometer. She admits that there are no resorts in Ranganathittu, but there is a hotel. There is no Inspection Bungalow at Ranganathittu, but there is a Guest House. Omkareshwara hermitage is situated at Enneholekoppalu and Bambam hermitage is in Belagola village, but no document is produced to show that the value of the land during the year 2008 was Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. She denied the suggestion that the distance to the acquired land from various places stated by her in the evidence is false and that her land is not a fertile land.
examined and he deposed that he has seen the land of the claimant. It is adjacent to the world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. The said land is more suitable to do non-agricultural activities like running hotel, lodge etc., as tourists from different parts of the world visit the bird sanctuary. The claimant's land acquired by the Government is 50 times more valuable than the land sold by him. He produced the sale deed executed by him as per Ex.P-9. In the crossexamination, PW.2 has admitted that the land mentioned in the schedule to the sale deed (Ex.P-9) belongs to him. Four acres of land was given to the Grama Panchayath. In turn, three sites were allotted in their favour. He does not know the survey numbers and extent of claimant's property. He also admitted that except hotel, there is no resort near Ranganathittu. He also admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that the claimant's land is 50 times more
valuable than his land. He further stated that since the land is situated adjacent to Ranganathittu, it has high potentiality.
and denied the suggestion that in order to support the claimant, he has deposed falsely.
one M. Shivappa, Range Forest Officer was examined as RW.1 on behalf of the respondents. He deposed that the claimant's land has been acquired for the purpose of developing Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. There are no hotels, resorts, residential houses, industries, bus stand, railway station or schools and colleges near the acquired land. Mahazar will be drawn in respect of the crop, open well, trees, house situated in the acquired land in the presence of the claimant and on the basis of revised rates provided by the officials of the concerned departments, compensation will be granted. Accordingly,
the claimant was paid compensation at the rate of Rs.21,488/- per gunta i.e., Rs.8,59,520/- per acre. He further deposed that National parks, wild life sanctuaries are income fetching places for the Government. Therefore, the claimant's land is required for expansion
of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. To bring an
atmosphere where the birds and wild life animals can wander freely, it is essential to bring down the number of resorts around the sanctuary, though it decreases the income to the Government. Therefore, he deposed that the market value fixed in respect of the land in question is just and proper. He produced Exs.R.1 to R.5.
he has no personal knowledge of the case and he has given evidence based on the documents. He is aware that, earlier the land of the claimant was acquired twice and on the third occasion, the possession was taken. He denied the suggestion that the claimant agreed for acquisition of land on the assurance given by the Government that one shop, one employment and 1/4th of the income derived from the land acquired will be given to the claimant. He admitted that the birds are not staying in the acquired land and denied that the
acquired land is being developed only for the benefit of the tourists.
documentary evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the land of the claimant was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of expansion of the world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. According to the claimant, the land acquired is valued more than Rs.1.00 crore. Though the claimant produced Exs.P-1 to P-24, has not produced any sale deed pertaining to the adjacent lands to show the correct market value of his land. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that in MFA.No.6146/2011 and Misc. Cvl.No.14675/2011 dated 02/01/2012, this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.ft. in respect of the land situated on BengaluruMysuru Road, Srirangapattana. But, the land acquired in the present appeals is situated by the side of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary, near to Mysuru-Bengaluru Highway, but very near to Palahalli and Srirangapattana. Therefore, the said judgment and award passed by this
Court in the aforementioned Miscellaneous First Appeal will in no way assist the case of the claimant/land owner. Exs.P-7 to P-10 are the certified copies of the sale deeds executed prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification, in the year 2008. As stated supra, the said sale deeds pertain to house sites measuring 40 ft. x 55 ft. situated in Gramatana limits and the same cannot be the basis for awarding compensation in respect of agricultural lands. It is also not in dispute that though the landlord made every effort to convert the land to non-agricultural purpose, the concerned Deputy Commissioner rejected the same mainly on the ground that the property is situated adjacent to the world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. Though the material on record clearly depicts that the land in question is acquired for the purpose of expansion of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary which attracts tourists from different parts of the world, the fact remains that there are hotels and the Government has to establish
boating centre, gardens and guest house, no resorts are found in the vicinity. The market value of the property has to be determined having regard to its existing conditions with all 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, situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable capacity of being put and also its proximity of the residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility of further extension and development or prospects of development or prospects of development has to be taken into consideration.
Therefore, taking into consideration the fate of the land owners who lost their lands forever, they are entitled to proper and reasonable market value as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant/claimant already lost the land in the acquisition for the purpose of expansion of world famous Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary and now, the land is only a dream for the land loser, and the State Government developed the Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary, which is now world famous and the fact that the acquired land is well developed with good connectivity and has potentiality. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record relied upon by learned counsel on both sides and the evidence adduced, Ex.P-17, we are of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Reference Court fixing the market value at Rs.30,49,200/- per acre in respect of the land in
question and Rs.33,600/- for coconut trees are just and proper.
raised in the present appeals, is answered in the negative holding that the claimant has not made out any case for further enhancement of compensation and the second point is answered accordingly holding that the State has not made out any case for reduction of compensation and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in respect of the land acquired by the respondents is just and proper.
following:
ORDER
for reduction of compensation are hereby
dismissed as devoid of merit.
the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapattana is hereby *confirmed .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
S*
*Correction carried out vide Court Order dated 03.02.2023.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimant land loser has made out a case for enhancement of compensation given the land's proximity to the bird sanctuary?
Whether the State Government has made out a case for reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court?
5 provisions across 1 enactments
N. SAVITHA D/O. NARAYANASWAMY
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. N. SAVITHA D/O. NARAYANASWAMY
B VEERAPPA
K S HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
