Smt. Byamma Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH., AAG FOR SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO 9; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO R4, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.02.2023, WHICH FOLLOWED BY THE LEGAL NOTICE ANNEXURE-B DATED 10.11.2023 AND DIRECTING TO DEPOSIT THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION AS PER ANNEXURE-H ALONG WITH STATUTORY INTEREST BEFORE THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL COURT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.15/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 38 GUNTAS (OUT OF 2 ACRES 24 GUNTAS) SITUATED AT BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

These facts are not in dispute:

¶33

(a) On 04.10.2008, a notification under Section 4(1)

¶34

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘ the Act ’) was issued and the same was published in the gazette on 06.10.2008 proposing to acquire several lands, including the land measuring 01 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.15/2 of Benniganahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The lands were acquired for the benefit of establishing the Metro by Bangalore Metro Rail

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶37

Corporation Limited —the beneficiary (for short, ‘ the BMRCL ’). While issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was also invoked.

¶38

(b) The khatedars notified in Section 4(1) notification in relation to Sy.No.15/2 were Byamma, A.Chinnappa, Byanna and the Government. This preliminary notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 04.11.2008, which was published in the gazette dated 10.11.2008.

¶39

(c) Under both the notification as well as the declaration, a total extent of land measuring 01 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.15/2 was acquired.

¶40

(d) On 29.11.2008, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘ SLAO’ ) took possession of these 01 acre 38 guntas of land and had handed over the same to the BMRCL.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶42

(e) It may be pertinent to state here that out of the extent of 01 acre 38 guntas of land, 01 acre 16 guntas belonged to late Appalappa and the remaining 0-26 guntas belonged to the public sector undertaking i.e., NGEF (New Government Electrical Factory).

¶43

(f) It appears that as per the directions of this Court, an amount of Rs.59,50,52,640/- was deposited by the State to the Official Liquidator in respect of the lands which were acquired, belonging to NGEF and this included an extent of 0-26 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/2.

¶44

(g) Sri.Appalappa—the owner of the land along with his children challenged the notification and declaration mentioned above by filing Writ Petition Nos.26752-754 of 2009. However, this petition was dismissed by an order dated 19.04.2010.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶46

(h) One more writ petition was filed in W.P. No.34714 of 2010 and this was also dismissed on 20.12.2012.

¶47

(i) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the above writ petition, a writ appeal in W.A. No.1088 of 2013 was filed, but the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.04.2013 dismissed the said appeal.

¶48

(j) The matter was carried further to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15174 of 2013 and the SLP was also dismissed on 02.09.2013. Thus, the challenge to the acquisition by the land owners came to an end on 02.09.2013.

¶49

(k) It may be pertinent to state here that in the interregnum, on 11.07.2010, an award came to be passed determining the compensation in respect of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.1.5 crores per acre.

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶52

(l) It is pertinent note here that though the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked, 80% of the amount as estimated by the SLAO was not paid to the land owners. But, nevertheless, possession was taken on 29.11.2008.

¶53

(m) As per the award, the compensation payable for

¶54

the land was as follows:

¶55

“CzÀgÀAvÉ, dAn C¼ÀvÉ PÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¹ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 6(1)gÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀÄvÀÄð «¢ü PÀ®A 17(4)gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå: Drð 131 JPÀÆå 2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.11.2008 gÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.11.2008 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀgÁdå ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀlªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶56

¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ gÀÆ.1,50,00,000/- UÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ

¶57

¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ :

¶58

PÀæ..¸ÀA.	«ªÀgÀ	ªÉÆvÀÛ (gÀÆ.)
1.	¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÇªÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉÆÃ§½, ¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 15/2 gÀ°è 1-38 J/UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.1.50 PÉÆÃn gÀAvÉ	2,92,50,000/-
2.	±ÉÃ.12% gÀAvÉ C¢üPÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯É PÀ®A 4(1) gÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-10- 2008 jAzÀ 28-11-2008 (¸ÀÄ¥ÀzÀÄð ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ)	5,07,000/-
3.	±ÉÃ.30% gÀAvÉ ±Á¸À£À ¨sÀvÉå	87,87,000/-

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶60

4.	MlÄÖ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ	3,85,32,000/-
5.	§rØ ±ÉÃ.9% gÀAvÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-11-2008 jAzÀ 28-11-2009 gÀªÀgÉUÉ	34,67,880/-
6.	§rØ±ÉÃ.15% gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-11-2009 jAzÀ 29-09-2010 gÀªÀgÉUÉ	33,71,550/-
7.	MlÄÖ §rØ	68,39,430/-
	MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ (04 + 07)	4,53,71,430/-
	F ¥ÉÊQ ±ÉÃ80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ	3,62,97,144/-

¶61

The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the concerned official, submits that making of an award was not notified to the land owner as required under Section 12(2) of the Act.

¶62

It is also not in dispute that the award amount which comprised of the afore-mentioned sum of Rs.3,85,32,000/- as well as the interest component of Rs.68,39,430/- (as indicated in the award), totally amounting to Rs.4,53,71,430/was also not deposited in the Civil Court.

¶63

The learned counsel for the BMRCL submits that as per Annexure ‘R2’ to its counter, the SLAO made a

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶65

demand for depositing a sum of Rs.116.32 crores. In this demand, the SLAO has called upon the BMRCL to deposit a sum of Rs.62.70 crores, in respect of the lands acquired in Benniganahalli village at the rate of Rs.1.5 crores per acre and he had also demanded 12% of the said amount as the additional market value and 30% solatium as computed under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, which amounted to approximately Rs.31.00 crores.

¶66

A demand was also made for payment of establishment expenses at 10% of the above, 1% of the audit fee and the publication charges of Rs.5/lakhs.

¶67

The learned counsel points out that this demand for payment of Rs.116.32 crores, made on 23.06.2008, was promptly complied by the BMRCL by depositing the amount on 30.06.2008 itself and therefore, the liability of the BMRCL to pay the compensation amount to the State stood satisfied even before the

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶69

10 -

¶70

Preliminary Notification was published on 06.10.2008. He therefore submits that no liability of

¶71

any kind can be fastened on the BMRCL.

¶72

This assertion of the BMRCL is not in dispute.

¶73

It is therefore clear that the entire compensation payable for acquisition of the lands in Benniganahalli village as demanded by the SLAO was complied with by the BMRCL and the State was therefore under an obligation to ensure that the compensation was either disbursed to the land owners or in the alternative, deposited before the appropriate Court, if there were disputes regarding their entitlement.

¶74

As already noticed above, though the lands were acquired by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, 80% of the amount was not paid to the land owners and an award came to be passed only two years after the declaration.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶77

This, by itself, indicates the laxity on the part of the State in ensuring payment of compensation to the people who had lost their lands. The amount of Rs.116.32 crores deposited by the BMRCL appears to be in the coffers of the State right from 2010.

¶78

In the year 2009, the petitioner’s mother, who is also named Byamma, and others filed W.P. Nos.26752-54 of 2009 challenging the declaration dated 10.11.2008. This Court on consideration of the arguments proceeded to allow the writ petitions in part and set aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, who had passed an order under the Urban Land Ceiling Act holding that the petitioner’s father—Appalappa was holding land in excess of an extent of 6891.34 sq.mtr. This Court however upheld the preliminary notification as well as the declaration and negatived the challenge to the acquisition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to give a representation to the BMRCL to relocate the

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶81

landing of the foot over bridge and the BMRCL was directed to consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the public interest.

¶82

Importantly, this Court held that the petitioners therein were also entitled to withdraw the amount pursuant to the acquisition by producing necessary title deeds and establishing that they are the legal representatives of the original owners.

¶83

Pursuant to the said order, it appears that a claim application was made to the SLAO and the SLAO initiated proceedings to conduct an enquiry regarding disbursement of the compensation.

¶84

The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the order-sheet which indicates that the claimant was shown to be Appalappa who is admittedly no more and the respondents were BMRCL, NGEF and the Railways. In these proceedings, Chinnappa had appeared and that the

¶85

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶86

applicants therein had produced their documents and the SLAO had reserved his judgment. The last date of enquiry was on 14.09.2021.

¶87

The learned AAG, on being queried as to whether any order was passed, stated that no orders were passed or were available in the records to indicate that any decision taken regarding disbursal of compensation.

¶88

It is therefore clear that despite an order and despite initiation of an enquiry, the question of disbursal of compensation was not adjudicated upon despite the lapse of 13 years.

¶89

It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner’s mother—Byamma, Chinnappa and others had also filed W.P. No.34714 of 2010 challenging the acquisition, but this Court by an order dated 20.12.2012 negatived their claim and dismissed their writ petitions.

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶92

The writ appeal preferred against the said order in W.A. No.1088 of 2013 was also dismissed and a special leave petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) CC No.15174 of 2013 was also dismissed on 02.09.2013.

¶93

It is thus clear that the challenge made to the acquisition came to an end way back in the year 2013 and yet no steps were taken by the SLAO to disburse the compensation amount of at least to an extent of 80%, nor was any step taken for depositing the compensation amount into the Civil Court and requesting the Civil Court for apportionment.

¶94

As the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 herein has produced a copy of order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the SLAO regarding issuance of notice dated 18.08.2021 to the land-owners, the NGEF and Railways, as indicated at Page 154 of the documents produced along with affidavit dated 09.12.2024 :

¶95

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶96

“EzÀgÀAvÉ, w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¸ÀASÉå: J¯ïJ¹/3-59/6263, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-08-2021 gÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ©.JA.Dgï.¹.J¯ï, J£ï.f.E.J¥sï ºÁUÀÆ gÉÊ¯Éé E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤Ãr, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-08-

¶97

2021 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02-09-2021 gÀAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è MlÄÖ

¶98

¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ «¹ÛÃtð 1-38 J/UÀÄA ¥ÉÊQ 0-26 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ J£ï.f.E.J¥sï gÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è 0-26 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¤ßvÀgÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt gÀÆ.59,50,52,640/- (LªÀvÉÆA§vÀÄÛ PÉÆÃn LªÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ LªÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ DgÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ £À®évÀÄÛ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¦ü²AiÀÄ¯ï °QéqÉÃlgï, ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð D¥sï PÀ£ÁðlPÀ,

¶99

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (J£ï.f.E.J¥sï) gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV EªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G½PÉ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ® ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶100

In this case, the petitioner herein submitted a representation on 10.02.2023, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘A’. In this representation, the petitioner made a claim that she was the legal representative of the original owner—Appalappa and that she had 1/3^rd share in the award amount and she therefore requested the amount to be disbursed

¶101

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶102

in her favour or in the alternative, record her objection and refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act for proper adjudication and for apportionment.

¶103

The SLAO, in light of this claim being made for 1/3^rd of the compensation, was required to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, especially when a specific demand was being made that if the compensation was not being disbursed as requested by the petitioner, that the matter be referred to the Civil Court.

¶104

On 31.07.2023, another claim was made by A.Chinnappa son of Appalappa and the children of Byanna (the other son of Appalappa) i.e., Santhosh Kumar B., Madhu B., and Yogesh B., contending that Sy.No.15/2 was their ancestral property and their father had two wives and A.Chinnappa was the son of the first wife and was entitled to 0-31 guntas, while

¶105

17 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶107

Byanna was the son through the second wife and he was entitled to 0-31 guntas.

¶108

They also contended that the second wife—Dodda Byamma was entitled to 0-20 guntas of land. This claim was made on the basis of an unregistered partition deed dated 12.08.2021.

¶109

The SLAO, despite there being a claim for compensation of 1/3^rd of the compensation by the petitioner, proceeded to adopt a strange procedure which was obviously for extraneous considerations. He proceeded to pass an order dated 25.10.2023 in the following terms:

¶110

“ DzÉÃ±

¶111

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÇªÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉÆÃ§½, ¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 15/2 gÀ°è 1-38 J/UÀÄA ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÁzÀ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÉÊQ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«ÄÃ¤£À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ²æÃ.a£Àß¥Àà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï PÀÄªÀiÁgï.©, ²æÃ ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æÃ.AiÉÆÃUÉÃ±ï.© ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶113

18 -

¶114

§UÉÎ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æÃªÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀÄªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À ºÀPÀÄÌUÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀÄªÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶115

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ a£Àß¥Àà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï PÀÄªÀiÁgï.©, ²æÃ ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æÃ AiÉÆÃUÉÃ±ï.© ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ vÀªÀÄä fÃªÀ£À DzsÁgÀQÌzÀÝ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï PÀÄªÀiÁgï.© gÀªÀgÀ Qrß ªÉÊ¥sÀ®å«zÀÄÝ, aQvÉìUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ºÀt«®èzÉÃ ¸ÁªÀÅ §zÀÄQ£À ªÀÄzsÉåºÉÆgÀl £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀªÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ EvÁå¢ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑUÀ½UÁV ¸ÉßÃ»vÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ §½ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, zÀÄ§ð® DyðPÀ ¥Àj¹Üw¬ÄAzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr 181 ¨sÀÆ¸Áé ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-08-2009 gÀAvÉ ±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä ¨sÁUÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌUÁjPÉ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀåwjPÀÛ DzÉÃ±ÀªÁzÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ §zÀÞgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶116

EzÀgÀAvÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¨É¤ßUÁ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ°è 1- 38 J/UÀÄA d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÉÊQ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«ÄÃ¤£À

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶118

19 -

¶119

SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀÄ/¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ºÁUÀÆ F »AzÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ DUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ oÉÃªÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÁUÀ°Ã ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ ±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶120

¸À.£ÀA.15/2 gÀ 1-16 J/UÀÄA d«ÄÃ¤£À MlÄÖ gÀÆ.3,25,35,334/- UÀ¼À CªÁqïð ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ¥ÉÊQ 3 ¨sÁUÀ ¯ÉPÀÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, JgÀqÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ±ÉÃ.80% gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 1) ²æÃ a£Àß¥Àà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï C¥Á®¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2) ²æÃ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï PÀÄªÀiÁgï.©, ²æÃ ªÀÄzsÀÄ.©, ²æÃ AiÉÆÃUÉÃ±ï.© ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÊAiÀÄtÚ gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹, G½PÉ 3£ÉÃ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtPÉÌ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀÄªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ 1/3£ÉÃ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ FªÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ²æÃªÀÄw ¨ÉÊAiÀÄªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À §UÉÎ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶121

20 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶123

F DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-10-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É”

¶124

As could be seen from the above, even after noticing the claim made by the petitioner on 10.02.2023, i.e., nearly five months before the claim was made by A.Chinnappa and sons of Byanna, the SLAO proceeded to conclude that the property was the property of Appalappa and they were entitled to 1/3^rd share each and taking note of the difficulties of B.Santhosh Kumar, who was stated to have suffered kidney failure, proceeded to disburse 2/3^rd of 80% of the award amount.

¶125

Thus, essentially, the SLAO divided the compensation amount into three shares and proceeded to disburse 2/3^rd of 80% of the compensation amount to A.Chinnappa and to the sons of Byanna.

¶126

The 80% of the award amount was obviously the amount that the SLAO was required to pay to the land owners when he took possession, as a result of

¶127

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶128

the urgency clause invoked. As already stated above, the urgency clause was invoked and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 04.10.2008 and possession was taken on 29.11.2008, but strangely, 80% of the amount which was supposed to be paid on 29.11.2008 was ultimately sought to be given to just two of the claimants on 25.10.2023 i.e., after nearly 15 years.

¶129

The petitioner, on 18.12.2023, i.e., nearly two months after the order of the SLAO, has filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus to consider her representation dated 10.02.2023 which was followed by a legal notice dated 10.11.2023 and for a direction to deposit the compensation along with statutory interest before the Civil Court.

¶130

On a perusal of this demand, it is obvious that the petitioner was completely unaware of 2/3^rd of the compensation having been disbursed to her nephews and to her half-brother A.Chinnappa.

¶131

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶132

The petitioner has in fact sought for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to disburse the award amount in favour of the other co-owners and this by itself was indicative of the fact that she was unaware of the disbursal.

¶133

In my view, the act of the SLAO, in disbursing the compensation to one set of co-owners, especially when he was aware that a claim was being made by another co-owner, is blatantly illegal.

¶134

It is obvious that the SLAO, who was definitely aware of the requirement of referring the question of apportionment to the Civil Court, has chosen to become a Civil Court himself and has concluded that the compensation amount was required to be divided into three portions and he was satisfied that the two co-owners had 2/3^rd share and was entitled to the same and at the same time, the petitioner who was also a co-owner had not produced any documents to establish her claim and therefore, he was depositing

¶135

23 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶137

1/3^rd of the compensation amount into the Civil Court.

¶138

It may be pertinent to notice here that it was nobody’s case, muchless the case of A.Chinnappa and the children of Byanna, that the petitioner was not related to them or that she was the daughter of Appalappa through his second wife.

¶139

If the SLAO could hold that the son of the first wife of Appalappa and the son of the second wife of Appalappa were entitled to 1/3^rd share each, it is incomprehensible as to how he could hold that the petitioner being the daughter of the second wife of Appalappa was not entitled to the same extent of share.

¶140

This singular conduct of the SLAO in asserting that the entitlement of the petitioner could not be ascertained, because she had not produced any documents, by itself goes to show that he was completely involved with A.Chinnappa and the sons

¶141

24 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶143

of Byanna. This is obviously because the SLAO deliberately entertained the claim of only two of the claimants, while negating the claim of the petitioner.

¶144

It may also be pertinent to state here that on 25.04.2024, this Court taking notice of the adjudication upon the entitlement of the parties and disbursement of compensation, had directed the Deputy Commissioner (Urban District) to be present before the Court to explain the conduct of the SLAO.

¶145

On 11.06.2024, the learned Additional Advocate General produced a copy of the order dated 05.06.2024 which indicated that the Deputy Commissioner had conducted an enquiry and had recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the SLAO.

¶146

This would also indicate that the act of the SLAO in adjudicating upon the entitlement of the children of Appalappa to the exclusion of the petitioner was

¶147

25 -

¶148

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶149

found to be wrong even by the Deputy

¶150

Commissioner.

¶151

The statutory provisions of the Act specifically debar the SLAO from embarking upon any enquiry into the entitlement of the compensation when rival claims are being made. It is the clear mandate of the law that whenever rival claims are made, the SLAO has a statutory obligation to refer the matter to the Civil Court and that is obviously because, it is only the Civil Court which is competent to determine the Civil rights of a party and the land acquisition officer being an administrative officer of the State has absolutely no power/jurisdiction to decide on the entitlement or the legal right of a claimant.

¶152

In this case, it is to be noticed here that the amounts involved even in respect of a small extent of 01 acre 16 guntas was in excess of Rs.4.5 crores and despite a large amount of money being involved, the SLAO has proceeded to treat the matter in an extremely

¶153

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶154

cavalier manner and disbursed the compensation to the persons of his choice in gross contravention of the elementary legal principles relating to the requirement of referring the matter relating to apportionment of compensation to the Civil Court.

¶155

As already observed above, this approach of the SLAO would clearly indicate that he was colluding with A.Chinnappa and sons of the Byanna and this can obviously be for extraneous considerations.

¶156

I am therefore of the view that it would be appropriate to impose Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) on the SLAO who has permitted the disbursal.

¶157

The SLAO shall deposit the said cost to the KIDWAI Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore , within a period of four weeks from today .

¶158

As far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned, as noticed above, she is also the daughter of Appalappa through his second wife and

¶159

27 -

¶160

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶161

this fact is not in dispute at all. Consequently, she would be entitled to 1/3^rd share of the compensation awarded by the SLAO.

¶162

It must be noticed here that the son of Appalappa through his first wife, i.e., A.Chinnappa and the sons of Appalappa through his second wife i.e., children of Byanna—the legal heirs have already taken 1/3^rd of the compensation amount each, out of the 80% of the compensation amount and they have accepted that their entitlement is only to 1/3^rd share. In fact, they have not even sought for reference to the Civil Court and have thereby conceded that they were only entitled to 1/3^rd share each and as a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to the remaining 1/3^rd share of the compensation amount.

¶163

In this view of the matter, it would also be appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the remaining 1/3^rd of the 80% of the compensation amount.

¶164

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶165

It may also be pertinent to sate here that on 29.01.2024 i.e., during the pendency of this writ petition, Byamma had also filed O.S. No.753 of 2024 against A.Chinnappa and the children of Byanna. In the said suit, she also has arrayed the SLAO as defendant No.6. The suit is for partition and apportionment of compensation of the plaintiff’s 1/3^rd share in land bearing Sy.No.15/2.

¶166

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this suit, an interim order was granted restraining the SLAO from disbursing the compensation.

¶167

Another glaring illegality committed by the SLAO has also become noticeable. The SLAO instead of depositing the remaining extent of the 1/3^rd share of the compensation, which according to him the petitioner was entitled, into the Civil court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, has proceeded to deposit this 1/3^rd of the amount in O.S. No.753 of 2024.

¶168

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶169

It is stated that there was no direction in O.S. No.753 of 2024 to deposit the money into the account relating to O.S. No.753 of 2024 and yet the money was deposited in the Civil Court.

¶170

Unless there was an order of the Civil Court to deposit the amount into O.S. No.753 of 2024, the question of the SLAO depositing the said amount in that case would not arise. The fact despite there being no order, the SLAO chose to deposit the amount into O.S. No.753 of 2024 also establishes the collusion that he had with A.Chinnappa and the children of Byanna in this regard.

¶171

The decision regarding the entitlement of the petitioner over the 1/3^rd compensation amount would not, however, bring the matter to a close.

¶172

As already noticed above, the possession of the land was taken on 29.11.2008 and though the requirement of the law was that 80% of the amount,

¶173

30 -

¶174

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶175

as estimated by the SLAO was to be paid to the land owners, no such amount was paid.

¶176

The award was only passed on 11.07.2010 even though the possession was taken nearly two years prior thereto on 29.11.2008.

¶177

The land owners would therefore be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 crores per acre and in addition, they would also be entitled for an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value, under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification in the gazette till the date of the award and they would also be entitled for 30% of the

¶178

market value as solatium .

¶179

Section 34 of the Act mandates that if the compensation amount is not paid or deposited before taking possession, the SLAO is required to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession until it has been paid or

¶180

31 -

¶181

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶182

deposited and if said amount is not paid within one year, he would be liable to pay interest at 15% per annum.

¶183

In that view of the matter, the award would also include the interest under Section 34 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for one year i.e., from 29.11.2008 to 28.11.2009 , and the interest at the rate of 15% per annum under the proviso to Section 34 of the Act from 29.11.2010 till the same is paid or deposited to the land owners.

¶184

Since, admittedly, the SLAO has not paid or deposited the amount into the Civil Court as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the State will have to necessarily pay the interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 29.11.2009 till the date of deposit or payment to the petitioner.

¶185

Since the petitioner has been deprived of the compensation, though she lost the land along with

¶186

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶187

her brothers in the year 2008 , it would be appropriate to direct the State to pay the petitioner of her 1/3^rd share of the compensation amount in the following manner.

¶188

The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the SLAO in O.S. No.753 of 2024, subject to her executing an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the Civil Court.

¶189

The State shall pay the balance amount to the petitioner, subject to her executing an indemnity bond, which shall be as follows:

¶190

The petitioner would be entitled to :

¶191

1/3^rd of Rs.3,62,97,144/- + Additional market value at the rate of 12% p.a. + Solatium at the rate of 30% + interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year + interest at the rate of 15% p.a. till date of payment.

¶192

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount to be paid
1	Compensation amount :	1/3^rdof Rs.3,62,97,144/-;

¶193

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶194

2	Amount calculated on such market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act :	At12%per annum from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification in the gazette i.e., from 06.10.2008 till the date of the award;
3	Solatium :	At30%of the market value;
4	Interest under Section 34 of the Act :	At9%per annum from the date of taking possession i.e., from 29.11.2008 to 28.11.2009;
5	Interest under the proviso to Section 34 of the Act and as ordered above :	At 15% per annum from 29.11.2009 till the same is paid or deposited

¶195

Out of this sum, the State shall be entitled to deduct the amounts that are already deposited in O.S. No.753 of 2024, which the petitioner shall be entitled as already observed above.

¶196

The balance amounts shall be made over to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today , subject to her executing an indemnity bond.

¶197

This payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner is being passed taking into consideration the extraordinary situation prevalent in this case, which is, firstly, the State has ensured that the

¶198

34 - NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶199

compensation has not been paid to the land loser even after the lapse of more than 13 years, secondly,

¶200

the State had been in receipt of the entire compensation from the BMRCL two months before the preliminary notification was issued and thirdly, the State through its SLAO had allowed the nephews and the half brother of the petitioner to secure their share of 2/3^rd ’s of the compensation, while denying the same benefit to the petitioner.

¶201

The writ petition is accordingly ALLOWED .

¶202

Re-list the matter on 03.03.2025 for the State and the SLAO to report compliance.

¶203

It is hereby made clear that this order would not preclude the State to recover the loss sustained by it from the concerned officers including the present SLAO who permitted the disbursal and who has chosen to represent himself through a private counsel in this writ petition.

¶204

35 -

¶205

NC: 2025:KHC:4879 WP No. 28743 of 2023

¶206

The State shall also be entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all the officers concerned who were responsible for the absolutely brazen manner in which the provisions of the Act have been flouted.

¶207

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶208

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Smt. Byamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Byamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Habeebu Rehman Vs Chief Commissioner

Smt. Shilpashree Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri C Basavaraju Vs the Chief Officer

Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Manyata Residency Vs the Commissioner