Partly allowed

N Seenappa v. the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024MFA/7411/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against reference court awards enhancing compensation from Rs.30 to Rs.50 per sq ft for land acquired by BWSSB at Vajarahalli Village. Holding the court below wrongly ignored sale deed Ex.P4 of converted land in the same village, the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.200 per square feet with statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.200/- per square feet (from Rs.50/-), plus other statutory benefits.

N Seenappa Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7411 OF 2011 (LAC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7410 OF 2011 (LAC)

¶10

IN MFA NO.7411/2011

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

N. SEENAPPA.

¶13

N. JAYARAM.

¶14

N. SOMASHEKAR.

¶15

N. MANJUNATH.

¶16

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

ALL ARE MAJOR AND S/O NARAYANAPPA AND R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, TALAGHATTAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISWESWARAYYA BLDG., III FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER,

¶25

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.2.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.434/2000 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE U/SEC 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶29

IN MFA NO.7410/2011

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

N. SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAPPA AND R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, TALAGHATTAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶32

…APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISWESWARAYYA BLDG., III FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶38

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA, AGA FOR SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.2.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.436/2000 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

This court had heard the matters earlier and MFA No.7411/2011 and MFA No.7410/2011 and listed today for further arguments.

¶45

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶46

appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶47

The main contention of the counsel appearing

¶48

for the appellant in both the appeals is that Sy.No.75/3A

¶49

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶50

to the extent of 5 guntas and Sy.No.75/1 to the extent of 4 guntas along with house property were acquired by the BWSSB. Both the properties are situated at Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and they were acquired for the purpose of BWSSB and in respect of such acquisition of property, a preliminary notification in

¶51

both the cases were issued on 18.02.1997 and a final notification was issued on 18.09.1998. The date of taking possession was on 12.05.2000 and the date of award was 04.08.1989 and the extent of compensation amount awarded was Rs.2,48,882.75/- in respect of the land acquisition case No.436/2000. The date of taking possession was on 23.05.2000 and the award was dated 20.01.2000. The notice was served on 06.03.2000 and the extent of compensation amount awarded in respect of such property was Rs.4,52,738/-. In pursuance of such acquisition, reference was being made and notices were also issued by the reference court.

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶53

In both the cases, witnesses were examined as

¶54

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and closed their side. On behalf of the respondent, one Mahendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer got himself examined as RW2 and he got marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and having considered the material on record, the reference court in detail discussed the material on record and ordered Rs.50/- per square feet enhancing the same from Rs.30/per square feet awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the cases would vehemently contend that the property, which were acquired are the converted properties and the conversion was made in the year 1988 itself and acquisition was made in the year 1997. The counsel also does not dispute the issuance of preliminary and final notification and also the award passed by the respondent. The only contention is that when the property was converted and layout was formed in the said layout itself, one of the site was already sold in the year 1994

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶57

itself. The counsel would contend that hardly at the distance of 1 km, a site was formed in Sy.No.68, which was sold for an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- wherein a house is also included. If house is not included, it comes to Rs.187.08/- per square feet and the said sale deed was made in the year 1994. The learned counsel would also contend that if 10% is added as escalation for a period of 2 years, it comes to Rs.224/-. He further submits that he had restricted his claim only for an amount of Rs.200/-, since he had paid the court fee only for claiming Rs.200/-. The very approach of the trial court is erroneous. The counsel also vehemently contend that the observations made by the trial court that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 cannot be relied upon only on the ground that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the certified copies of the registered sale deeds and they are dated 10.10.1994, 13.11.1997 and 26.03.1992 respectively. The contents therein would reveal that they relate to the house properties and they were much earlier in point of time than the preliminary notification connected with this case. Such sale deeds cannot be made use of and

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶59

make them basis for awarding enhanced compensation amount as is being sought for by the learned counsel for the claimants. The said approach of the reference court is erroneous. However, considering Ex.P12 in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P12 was considered earlier and a compensation of Rs.50/- was fixed per square feet from Rs.30/- per square feet and the same needs to be awarded in this case also. The reliance on Ex.P12 is erroneous and the learned counsel would vehemently contend referring to discussion made from para 8 onwards and contend that the property which was acquired in terms of Ex.P12 is an agricultural land and the agricultural land property cannot be the basis for awarding compensation in respect of converted land and hence, it requires interference. The counsel also produced the village map to show that at a distance of 1 Km from Sy.No.68, which was sold in terms of Ex.P4 and the acquisition of the property, is Sy.No.75. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'ONGC LTD. VS. SENDHABHAI

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶61

VASTRAM PATEL AND OTHERS', (2005) 6 SCC 454 with regard to the determination of compensation and the best method would be the amount as may be evidenced by the deed of sale. The counsel in reference to this judgment would contend that when the sale deed is relied upon, the same ought to have been considered by the reference court. In the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods, which judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands made in the same village. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the sale deed is produced as Ex.P4, the reference court ought not to have considered Ex.P12, which is the judgment of award passed in other cases.

¶62

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the land which was acquired was a vacant land and only a house property is located in Sy.No.75/1 i.e., 4 guntas and Ex.D4 discloses with regard to house property also and hence,

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶64

the same has not been considered by the reference court

¶65

and made an observation in not accepting Ex.P4. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in MFA No.11180/2007 dated 19.01.2011 where the BWSSB challenged the awarding of amount of Rs.50/- per square feet and the same was dismissed and a reference was made in para 8 that reference court was justified in determining the market value at Rs.50/- per square feet as allotment of site by the Bangalore Development Authority was for more than Rs.100/- per square feet during the relevant date of acquisition. Even if Rs.50/- is considered as the market value in respect of a non agricultural land where the layout is not formed, if the cost of development and the area required for formation of roads, bridges, civil amenities is considered, Rs.50/- per square feet cannot be said to be on higher side. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this court in respect of the very same judgment is concerned, CROB was filed in 2011 itself in MFA Crob No.5/2011 connected with M.F.A.No.11180/2007 and the same was disposed of

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶67

10 -

¶68

on 13.07.2016, wherein also discussion was made in respect of LAC No.435/2000 when the Balaji Housing Building Cooperative Society filed an appeal for enhancement and this court had enhanced the amount taking into note the fact that the acquisition is of the year 1997 and Ex.P1 is in respect of the earlier acquisition of the year 1988 and escalation was considered as 10%. Since, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs for getting the very land in the year 1988, if 10% escalation per year is added, then it comes to about Rs.15,20,000/per acre as in the year 1997. Prima facie it appears that the market value of the non agricultural land as in the year 1997 may be around Rs.15,20,000/- per acre and adding 10% escalation comes to Rs.15,20,000/- per acre.

¶69

In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the learned counsel would submit that even if Rs.15,20,000/- is awarded and the same is less than Rs.50/- as awarded and confirmed, it comes to Rs.39.48/- and though it is enhanced, the cross objector has not got the benefit. The

¶70

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶71

learned counsel also brought to the notice of this court that a discussion was made in para Nos.4 and 6 wherein the reference court has awarded compensation at Rs.50/per square feet, the same appears to be on the lesser side. The reference court though has observed that land is converted for non agricultural purpose and the society has spent certain amount for development, it has not granted any compensation in that regard. The counsel referring this observation also contends that the compensation awarded by the trial court is erroneous and hence, it requires interference.

¶72

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent and having regard to the very contentions, this court has to look into the evidence available on record. PW1 who has been examined before the trial court and got marked the documents, in the cross examination, has not disputed that the land was converted. Ex.P4 pertains to land in Sy.No.73/1B. When a question was put, the said land was

¶73

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶74

more fertile than their land, the same was denied. However, he denies the suggestion that the land is 1Km away from the acquired land. He also admits that after the conversion, he got the layout plan approved from the panchayat. These are the answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 when learned counsel for the respondent No.1 cross-examined the witness. He admits that he has got the documents to show the payment of conversion fee after the order, but he has not produced the conversion order after the payment of conversion fee and claims that the same is in the house and he would produce the same. During the year 1988-89, he has got these lands converted and also he says that he has got layout plan with him and he can give it to the court.

¶75

Having considered the evidence of PW1, it is clear that Ex.P4 pertains to land in Sy.No.73/1B. Having considered the document particularly Ex.D7 it is clear that the land in question, which was acquired, was converted in the year 1988 itself. No doubt, the plaintiff also relies upon

¶76

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶77

the document Ex.P11 i.e., in respect of Sri.Kamakshi Residential Layout, Sy.No.75/1, J.P.Nagar 4^th Phase, Vajrahalli, Bangalore and states that it is very near to Kanakapura main road. From the village map relied upon by the learned counsel, it is clear that the property acquired under Ex.P4 is in respect of Sy.No.73/1B. Though learned counsel contends that it is Sy.No.68, but there is an admission on the part of PW1 that Sy.No.75 is the subject matter of acquisition. When such material is placed before the court, the very approach of the reference court is erroneous in considering only the document viz., Ex.P12 which is in respect of acquisition of other land. It is also important to note that when Sy.No.75/3A is a land acquired to the extent of 5 guntas i.e., the vacant land and in respect of Sy.No.75/1, 4 guntas of land with a house and when a document viz., Ex.P4 is relied upon, the only reasoning given by the reference court is that Ex.P12 can be relied upon and not Ex.P4 and the reason assigned by the trial court that the contents therein would reveal that they relate to the house properties and they were

¶78

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶79

much earlier in point of time than the preliminary notification connected with this case. When the document Ex.P4 is produced and the sale is of the year 1994 and the acquisition is made in the year 1997, it ought to have considered the earlier document of notification since the said document is not subsequent to the notification and the very observation made by the reference court that such sale deeds cannot be made use of and make them a basis for awarding enhanced compensation, the very approach is erroneous and ought to have relied upon the document viz., Ex.P4 and not Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 as those documents are subsequent to the preliminary notification. When the document Ex.P4 discloses the sale deed value is for Rs.2,15,000/- and no doubt, there was a house in the same property and merely because there was a house and that too it was a asbestos house, it is rightly pointed by learned counsel for the appellant that even excluding this, the said asbestos house, it comes to Rs.18,887.08/- and also the sale is of the year 1994 and ought to have taken note of 2 years escalation. If an escalation of 10% is

¶80

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶81

taken, it comes to Rs.224/- as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. When the sale statistics is available before the reference court, it ought to have relied upon it and no doubt, the property is in the same village and may be a different survey number, but when the property is acquired for the purpose of using the same

¶82

for public purpose and also land is situated at Vajrahalli and sale deed is also in respect of the very same Vajrahalli and the survey number is Sy.No.73/1B as admitted by PW1, the same is elicited from the mouth of PW1 by the counsel for respondent No.1. When such being the case, the very approach of appellate court is erroneous and it requires interference since, there is sale statistics.

¶83

No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this court passed in M.F.A.No.11180/2007 wherein when the challenge was made by the respondent / Bangalore Water Supply Board, the court has made an observation in the order itself, the same is on the lesser side and also in Crob, an observation

¶84

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶85

is made that reference court has awarded a compensation at Rs.50/- per square feet in para 6, the same appears to be on the lesser side. The reference court though has observed that the land is converted for non agricultural purpose, the society has paid certain amount for development, it has not granted any compensation in that regard. In the case in hand also only the reference court has considered Ex.P12 in respect of other property, which was acquired and the same is also the survey number properties. In the case on hand, when the property was converted in the year 1988 itself and almost after 9 years,

¶86

the property was acquired and when the property was converted and similar property was sold in terms of Ex.P4 ought to have considered the same. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he restricted his claim only to Rs.200/-. Though escalation exceeds Rs.200/-, but in view of restriction made by the appellant, it is appropriate to consider the contention of the appellant granting an amount of Rs.200/- per square feet. The reference court committed an error in not relying

¶87

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:13408 MFA No. 7411 of 2011 C/W MFA No. 7410 of 2011

¶88

upon the earlier document of Ex.P4 as the same was 3 years prior to the preliminary notification and the same is also a converted property, which was sold in the year 1994 itself and hence, it requires interference of this court. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

(i) The appeal is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.200/- per square feet as against Rs.50/- awarded by the reference court. The appellant is also entitled for other statutory benefit.

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶93

N Seenappa v. the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Seenappa v. the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anil Kumar M R Vs Sri Umesh P

Sri Ubedur Rehaman, Vs H.E. Thimmachari

K. Madhava Rao Vs Smt G M Shanthakumari

Kallappa S/O Madappa Vs M. Murthappa

Sri Karigowda Vs Sri Eregowda

Sri Laxmipathi Naik Vs Hanumanthappa S