- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3403/2020 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. N. JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE SMT. SUNITHA G AND N.A. NARAYANA REDDY R/AT 15/15, DODDANEKKUNDI VILLAGE POST OFFICE ROAD BANGALORE-560037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V. ADV.,) AND: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKY ROAD, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEGDE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR, ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND SQUARE FEET AT THE RATE OF RS.75/- PER SQUARE FEET, GRANT ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2006 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN LAC NO.299/2002 TOGETHER WITH COSTS & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.12.2006 passed by the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in LAC No.299/2002, by the son of the original claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Heard Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Hegde Sripad Gangadhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-BDA has issued preliminary notification on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 17.09.1992 to acquire 20 guntas of the appellant's land in Sy.No.11 of Doddanekkundi Village, Bangalore East Taluk. Later, final notification came to be issued on 24.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land at Rs.3,30,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the mother of the appellant sought reference and the Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.6,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined by the Reference Court, the appellant is in appeal seeking for higher compensation. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.9621/2011 has re- determined the market value at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. and the subject matter of the said appeal is also from the same notification. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the market value determined by the Reference Court is based on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 evidence before it and the same does not call for any interference. It is submitted that insofar as the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench referred by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the said judgment also arises from the notifications in question. He seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 6. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was the owner in possession and enjoyment of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Doddanekkundi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now Bangalore East Taluk. The State Government and the BDA, for the purpose of formation of the outer ring road between Varthur Road - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 and Sarjapur Road, issued preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act') to acquire various extents of land including the land of the appellant. The final notification came to be issued on 24.11.1995. The respondent - Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,33,000/- per acre. The mother of the appellant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the pleading and evidence on record, re- determined the market value at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Admittedly, the original claimant died on 14.09.2017 and the appellant being the son of the original claimant filed this appeal seeking for higher compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIYAPPA Vs. THE - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA1 and seeks to re-determine the market value at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. The learned counsel for the BDA also does not seriously dispute that the judgment relied on by the appellant in the case of MUNIYAPPA is arising out of the same acquisition proceedings. We have meticulously perused the reasons assigned in the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench and noticed that the subject matter of the land involved in the aforesaid judgment and the present appeal are acquired under the same notification and the nature of the land involved in both cases is also similar and the said judgment has attained finality. Considering the aforesaid factors and keeping in mind that similarly placed land looser cannot be treated dissimilarly when the subject matter of the property is similar, the acquisition is for the same purpose and under the same notification. The appellant is also entitled to the benefit of re- determination of market value at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. as 1 MFA No.9621/2011 dt. 18.02.2014 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 against Rs.6,00,000/- per acre awarded by the Reference Court. It is needless to observe that the appellant is entitled to all the statutory benefits in accordance with law. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The market value of the subject land is re- determined at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. with all statutory benefits. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI. N.JAYAPRAKASH VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER] 28.01.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORDERS ON BEING SPOKEN TO (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) Learned counsel for the appellant moved a memo for being spoken to, on the ground that this Court vide order dated 17.01.2025 condoned the delay in filing the appeal by denying the interest to the appellant if he succeeds in the appeal. However, the said order is not incorporated in the final judgment. Perused the memo. Heard both sides. By inadvertence, order passed on the application for condonation of delay was not incorporated in the final judgment. In view of the said order, the appellants are not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 4703 days in filing the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1882-DB MFA No.3403/2020 This order shall be read as part and parcel of the final judgment dated 17.01.2025. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1