- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1017/2021 (LAC) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.64/2022 IN M.F.A. No.1017/2021: BETWEEN: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MARI GOWDA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. ANDANAPPA S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. NO.95/A, 3RD STAGE 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079. 2. SRI. R. HUCHANNA S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. NO.95/A 3RD STAGE Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079. 3. SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE K. BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.669, 5TH MAIN ROAD M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV., FOR SRI. UDAY K.S. ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-17) IN LAC NO.75/2009 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A. CROB NO.64/2022: BETWEEN: 1. ANDANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH R/AT. NO.95/A, 3RD STAGE 4TH BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGLAURU-560 079. 2. HUCHANNA .R AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE K. RANGAIAH R/AT NO.96/A, 3RD STAGE 4TH BLOCK, SHARADA COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGLAURU-560 079. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 3. R. RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE K. BORAIAH R/AT NO.669, 12TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, M.C. LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 040. ... CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV., FOR SRI. UDAY K.S. ADV., FOR CROSS OBJECTOR) AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST BENGLAURU-560 020. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MARI GOWDA,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL TOGETHER WITH COSTS, BY ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE @ RS.200/- PER SQ.FT., WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.75/2009, BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-17), REFERENCE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA CONNECTED WITH MFA CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) MFA.No.1017/2021 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA Bengaluru and MFA.CROB.No.64/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking for higher compensation. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 11.10.2019 passed in LAC.No.75/2009 by the Court of II Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 17). 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Reference Court for the convenience. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal and cross objection are that the claimants' land bearing Sy.No.43 measuring 1 acre situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was acquired by the State Government and the BDA for the purpose of widening of outer ring road. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs.9,25,000/- per acre. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 4. The claimants sought the reference. The Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimants examined PW.1 and PW.2, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. The respondent examined RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. The Reference Court enhanced the same at Rs.167/- per square feet. Being aggrieved, the BDA is in appeal seeking for reduction of the market value and claimants are seeking for higher compensation. 5. Sri.Mari Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - BDA submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error in solely relying on Ex.P18, sale deed dated 22.10.2001, in which a residential plot measuring 40 x 30 was sold at Rs.4,00,000/-. Whereas the claimants' lands are agricultural lands acquired for widening of the outer ring road. Hence, the Reference Court ought to have determined the market value on lower side. It is submitted that the small extent of land cannot be basis to determine the market value. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 Co-ordinate Bench in Land Acquisition Officer and Another v. H.Munireddy and Others in MFA.No.6781/2006 (LAC) disposed of on 28.08.2007 and seeks to allow the appeal filed by the BDA by reducing the market value and dismissing the cross objection. 6. Per contra, Sri.C.M.Nagabushana, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error in deducting 50% towards development charges and determining the market value at Rs.167/- per square feet. It is submitted that the acquired land cannot be treated as an agricultural land. It is abutting to the existing outer ring road and it has a potentiality of commercial purpose. It is further submitted that the claimants in cross objection has sought enhancement of compensation at Rs.200/- per square feet and accordingly, court fee is paid. However, the claimants are entitled to the compensation at Rs.333/- per square feet as per Ex.P18 and the claimants would make good of the deficit court fee for the difference amount. In support - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another.1 ii) M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd., v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another2. iii) The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, By its Secretary and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner cum Land Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi and Others.3 He seeks to enhance the compensation at Rs.333/- per square feet with all statutory benefit and interest by dismissing the appeal filed by the BDA. 1 (2009) 11 SCC 75 2 MFA.No.4435/2009 and connected appeal disposed of on 30.08.2011 3 ILR 2004 KAR 4240 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/beneficiary, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 8. The admitted facts between the parties are that State Government and the appellant - BDA issued the preliminary notification on 13.12.2001 followed by the final notification dated 14.08.2002 to acquired the claimants land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.43 situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 24.09.2004 by determining the market value of the property at Rs.9,25,000/- per acre. The claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'LA Act' for short). The Reference Court re-determined the market value placing reliance on Ex.P18 registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001 and deducted 50% towards the development charges and awarded Rs.167/- per square feet with all statutory benefits and interest. 9. It is not in dispute that the acquisition of the land in question is for the purpose of widening of the existing outer ring road by the appellant - BDA. The purpose of acquisition itself indicates that the land in question is abutting to the existing outer ring road and having commercial potentiality. The subject land is required to be treated as a converted land for the purpose of determination of market value of the land. The contrary contention of the appellant - BDA that the subject land is the agricultural land is required to be rejected, in view of the fact that the acquired land is in the developed area and abutting to the existing outer ring road formed by the appellant. Having considered the nature of acquired land - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 as a converted land for non-agricultural purpose, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in deducting 50% towards the development charges as there is no development required for the land in question, as the acquired land is for the purpose of widening of the existing outer ring road. Our view gain support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.R. Nagaraja Shetty's case referred supra, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein below: "18. The situation is no different in the present case. All that the acquiring body has to achieve is to widen the national highway. There is no further question of any development. We again, even at the cost of repetition, reiterate that no evidence was shown before us in support of the plea of the proposed development. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred in directing the deduction on account of the developmental charges at the rate of Rs 25 per square foot out of the ordered compensation at the rate of Rs 75 per square foot. We set aside the judgment to that extent. 19. The claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs 75 per square foot with all the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 statutory benefits like solatium under Section 23(2), 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) on the enhanced market value and interest at 9% and 15% as provided under Section 34 of the Act for one year and the rest of the period from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant." 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in M/s. T.T.K. Prestige Ltd., referred supra, considering the C.R. Nagaraja Shetty's case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "6. In our considered opinion, no deductions should have been made by the trial Court, inasmuch as, the properties in question need not be developed by the acquiring authority for the purpose of laying/widening the road or for construction of cable stayed railway over bridge. It is by now well settled that, in case if the acquiring authority need not develop the property for the purpose for which it is acquired, then, the claimant would be entitled to compensation in respect of the entire land which is the subject matter of the acquisition***." 11. The Co-ordinate Bench in The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, By its Secretary and Another's case referred supra, has held that when there - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 is difference in the sale consideration shown in two sale transactions, while determining the market value of comparable lands which are similarly and identically situated, the sale consideration shown in the sale transaction, which is on higher side, has to be generally preferred while determining the market value of the land in question. 12. The Reference Court has rightly placed reliance on Ex.P18, the registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001. However, it has committed an error in deducting 50% towards the development charges. We are of the considered view that the Ex.P18, should be the basis to determine the market value of the land in question without there being any deduction towards the development charges. The sale deed at Ex.P18 is dated 22.10.2001 and preliminary notification in the present case is dated 13.12.2001. The said sale deed indicates that the lands involved are of Laggere Village and very near to the acquired land having same potentiality. Hence, we are of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 the considered view that the market value of the land in question is required to be re-determined at Rs.333/- per square feet. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the small extent of land cannot be the basis to determine the market value is settled preposition of law. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Another referred supra, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, the acquisition of the vast extent of agricultural land was for the formation of the road for first time and in the instant case, the acquisition is for widening of the existing outer ring road. The land involved in the case on hand clearly indicates that the land is abutting to the existing outer ring road and there is sufficient evidence on record that the surrounding of the acquired land is fully developed and having commercial potentiality. Hence, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the acquired land is required to be treated as non-agricultural land for the purpose of determination of the market value. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 13. The learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors has rightly relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagsingh and others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh4 and the judgment of this Court in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Rajanna and Others5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagsingh referred supra, has ordered to pay the enhanced compensation more than the prayer in the appeal by permitting the appellants/claimants to make good of the difference of Court fee. Applying the said principle, we are of the considered view that claimants/cross objectors cannot be denied the benefit of higher compensation, if they are otherwise, entitled under law only on the ground that they have paid the court fee to the lesser amount. We are of the considered view that the claimants/cross objectors are entitled for the higher compensation at the rate of Rs.333/- per square feet with all statutory benefits and 4 AIR 1985 SC 1576 5 MFA.No.4154/2003 and connected appeals disposed of on 24.08.2006 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 interest, subject to the claimants/cross objectors make good of the deficit court fee in cross objection. 14. For the aforementioned reason, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.1017/2021 is dismissed. ii) MFA.CROB.No.64/2022 is allowed with cost. iii) The market value of the land in Sy.No.43 measuring 1 acre situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is enhanced to Rs.333/- per square feet with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the LA Act. iv) The Registry shall calculate the deficit Court fees and make demand from cross objectors/claimants. On such demand, the cross objectors/claimants - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8252-DB M.F.A. No.1017/2021 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.64/2022 shall pay the deficit court fees as per the demand of Registry within four weeks. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2