Sri N Suresh Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT BEARING LAQ/CR/15/2009-10 DATED 20/06/2023 AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an endorsement bearing No.J¯ïJPÀÆå/¹Dgï/15/2009-10 dated 20.06.2023 issued by the

¶28

respondent No.1 in terms of which, it rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of 50% of compensation as determined in LAC No.38/2016, in view of pendency of MFA No.6323/2023.

¶29

(i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a property bearing No.CTS No.134, PID No.66 1-78 (old No.78) situate at Madiwala Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru. A portion of the said property was acquired by the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP') for widening the Hosur Road from Silk Board Junction to Yenkay Factory in terms of a preliminary notification dated 16.07.2012 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1894') and followed

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

by a final notification dated 03.11.2012 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894.

¶33

(ii) An award was passed on 06.02.2015 determining the market value of the acquired property at Rs.2,278/- per square feet. The petitioner for reasons unknown, did not seek enhancement under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894. Thereafter, certain similarly placed property owners, who had lost their properties for acquisition sought enhancement under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894. The same was registered as LAC No.38/2016. The reference Court in terms of its judgment and award dated 18.06.2020 enhanced the market value from Rs.2,278/- per square feet to Rs.6,930/- per square feet and granted all statutory benefits.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner therefore sought similar compensation by filing an application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 before the land acquisition officer of the respondentBBMP. In meanwhile, the respondents had challenged the order passed in LAC No.38/2016 before this Court in MFA No.6321/2021 and connected appeals. In MFA No.6321/2021 and connected appeals, this Court granted stay of the operation

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and execution of the award passed in LAC No.38/2016 subject to the respondent-BBMP depositing 50% of the compensation determined and also ordered release of the compensation so deposited.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner therefore sought for the same benefit by filing a request before the respondent-BBMP, which was turned down by the respondent-BBMP on the ground that the compensation determined in LAC No.38/2016 is challenged in MFA No.6321/2021. The petitioner therefore being aggrieved by the said endorsement is before this Court.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in LAC No.38/2016, which is the basis of the petitioner making a claim under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, the respondent No.1 has already deposited 50% of the compensation as per the direction issued by this Court in MFA No.6321/2021. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for similar benefit. He invites the attention of the Court to the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by this Court, whereby this Court directed the respondent-BBMP to deposit 50% of compensation determined in LAC No.38/2016, as was done pursuant to the order passed

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

in MFA No.6321/2021. The learned counsel submits that as directed by this Court, the amount is already deposited by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in view of the order passed in MFA No.6321/2021, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-BBMP if the amount deposited is ordered to be released. He contends that the property of the petitioner which was acquired is similar to the properties which are subject matter of LAC No.38/2016 and is covered under the very same notification and for the same purpose. He thus contends that the petitioner is entitled for release of 50% of the amount deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶43

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 however submits that the question whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or not is yet to be considered by the land acquisition officer of the respondent-BBMP. She therefore submits that no blanket order could be granted to the petitioner giving away 50% of the amount as is done MFA No.6321/2021. She therefore prays that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶48

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the property that is the subject matter of LAC No.38/2016 and the property of the petitioner are acquired in terms of the same notification and for the same purpose. It is also not in dispute that soon after the judgment and award was passed in LAC No.38/2016, the petitioner sought for a reference under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894. Ideally, the land acquisition officer of the respondents must have followed the judgment and award passed in LAC No.38/2016 and disposed of the request of the petitioner and must have enhanced the compensation as is done in LAC No.38/2016. Since the land acquisition officer of the respondent has not considered the application of the petitioner, but in the meanwhile, the judgment and award passed in LAC No.38/2016 is challenged before this Court MFA No.6321/2021 and connected appeals, where this Court has directed the respondent to deposit 50% of the compensation amount and has also released the same to the land losers, it would be

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:34602 WP No. 18952 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

inequitable and inappropriate to deny the said benefit to the petitioner. It is also seen that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27576/2023 has granted the benefit to a similarly situated land loser.

¶54

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶55

passed:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶58

ii. The impugned endorsement is quashed. Registry is directed to release 50% of the compensation as determined in LAC No.38/2016 which is deposited by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court in the favour of the petitioner, subject however to the petitioner, filing an indemnity before respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance with law.

¶59

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri N Suresh v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Suresh v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. R. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Paramashivaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Valabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Children'S Education Society Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt. Yashodama Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sheshagiri J v Vs State of Karnataka