- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7825 OF 2019 (LAC) BETWEEN: BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE RARE MATERIALS PROJECT, RATNAHALLI, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK -71 130. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MR. TAPAN KUMAR BOSE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VIJAYA KUMARI W/O SRI. DYAPEGOWDA R/O NO.5020, 6TH CROSS, TAVAREGERE, MANDYA SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI SINCE DECEASED BY PROPOSED LR'S A) SRI. DYAPEGOWDA S/O LATE DYAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2578/5020 6TH CROSS, TAVAREGERE, Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 NEAR S.B.SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, MANDYA-571 403. B) DR. S.D. MAMATHA D/O DYAPEGOWDA W/O ARAVIND K.N RESIDING AT NO.1324 'AMRUTHA' 12TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA 1ST STAGE MYSURU-570 017. C) SRI. MOHAN S.D S/O DYAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5020 6TH CROSS, TAVAREGERE NEAR S.B SAMUDAYA BHAVAN MANDYA-571 403. D) SRI. JEEVAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O DYAPEGOWDA RESIDING OF NO.33 'C' MARUTHINAGARA BUS STOP SONNEHALLI, ULLAL POST BENGALURU-560 056. 2. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVSIION, HUNSUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3 SRI. SHANKAR NARAYAN ABHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-D)) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED IN LAC.NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 ALLOWING THE REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The Appellant-Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment passed in LAC No.3/2013 dated 28.09.2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby the Reference Court, allowed the claim petition filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by respondent No.1 and reckoned the compensation at Rs.540 per Sq.ft along with other statutory benefits. 2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-Bhabha Atomic Research Centre had acquired land measuring 12 acres of non-agricultural land in Survey Nos.51, 56 and 58 at Chikkadanahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk, through respondent No.3 for expansion of its activities. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 The Assistant Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the respondent No.3 carried out the acquisition proceedings under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, a preliminary notification was issued on 15.03.2008 and a final notification was issued on 05.06.2009. Further, respondent No.3 passed an award with respect to aforesaid lands at the rate of Rs.30 per square feet along with other statutory benefits amounting to Rs.3,67,54,631/-, which was deposited by the appellant with respondent No.3. Accordingly, the possession of the lands was handed over to the appellant on 17.10.2011 by respondent No.3. 3. However, the land owner being dissatisfied with the compensation approached the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation by filing individual LAC cases. Respondent No.1 in the instant case being an owner of acquired land bearing Janjar No.123/80/10 site No.17 measuring 2400 Sq.ft situated at Chikkadanahalli, Bilikere Hobli, Honsur Taluk also filed a claim petition before the Reference Court in LAC No.3/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 4. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, respondent No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant-Bhabha Atomic Research Centre neither examined witnesses nor produced documents on its behalf. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents and awarded the compensation and passed the order as under: “The reference made by U/Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act is hereby allowed on the following terms: The market value of the acquired lands is determined at the rate of Rs.540/- per sq feet. The claimant is entitled for 30% Solatium on the enhanced market value U/Sec.23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The claimant is entitled for the additional amount @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of Preliminary Notification i.e., 15.03.2008 till the date of Award. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 Further, the claimant is entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation as stated above for the first year from the date of possession and for the remaining years @ 15% per annum till the date of deposit U/Sec.28 of Land Acquisition Act. The amount already paid and received by the respondent and claimant respectively towards the market value of the acquired land shall be deducted while computing the enhanced compensation. Further, the claimant is entitled for the cost and the Advocate Fee is fixed @ Rs.500/-." 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the appellant-Bhabha Atomic Research Centre preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Sri. Unnikrishnan M for the appellant, the learned HCGP Sri. G. S Aruna for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and the learned counsel Sri. Shankara Narayana Bhat for respondent No.1. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the acquisition in question was initiated by a Preliminary Notification on 15.03.2008. Final Notification was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 issued on 05.06.2009 and possession was taken on 17.10.2011. An award was passed reckoning a sum of Rs.30/- per Sq.ft. as land value with respect to Notification in question. Further, the property is a large tract of agricultural land and that the Reference Court has seriously erred in considering the sale deed dated 16.07.2007 in respect of a small item of property and fixing the market value on the basis of the same. Further, contended that the sale deed which was relied on was a concocted document and that the person who had actually sold the land was also a beneficiary of the acquisition and that he had come forward to accept the compensation as a claimant by instituting an LAC. He further contended that the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.540 by relying on the Deed of Sale dated 16.07.2007 where the market value was reckoned at Rs.270/- per sq. ft. The said approach by the Reference Court has misconstrued the facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2012 SAR (Civil) 441, Mehrawal Khewaja Trust V/s. State of Punjab. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Court has failed to understand that the base price of the land ought to be taken from the land in close proximity and to adopt appreciation method at 10% - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 from the date of notification till acquisition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Reference Court following a meticulous perusal of the comprehensive evidence and documents placed before it, passed a well reasoned judgment and awarded the compensation which does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point arising for our consideration is: "Whether the Reference Court is justified in enhancing the compensation by allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in LAC No.3/2013 dated 28.09.2018 by fixing the market rate at Rs.540 per square feet?" 11. Having heard the contentions advanced, we notice that it is an admitted fact that the Preliminary Notification was issued on 15.03.2008. The possession of the property in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 question was taken on 17.10.2011. In the said acquisition notification, the appellant had acquired about 12 acres of non- agricultural land in Sy.Nos.51, 56 and 58 in Chikkadanahalli Villange, Bilikere Hobli, Hunsuru Taluk. The said notification was challenged by respective land owners in individual Land Acquisition Cases. One of such claims is LAC 26/2018 before the Reference Court. In the said order the Reference Court reckoned and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.540 per square feet. The said order was challenged by the appellant- Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in MFA No. 3108/2019. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while reassessing the entire evidence and additional materials and on re-determining the market value observed in para 10-14 as under: "10. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894' for short) specifically provides that interest is to be paid on the excess at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date on which, possession of the land was taken till the date of payment of such excess into the Court. 11. It is also clear that the value of the land is to be ascertained as on the date of issuance of preliminary notification and that there can be no appreciation granted by the reference Court for the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 land value perse after such date. In the instant case, it appears that a document has been produced showing the land value of the property in question as Rs.270/- per sq.ft. The date of the sale deed was 16.07.2007. The preliminary notification in the instant case was one issued on 15.03.2008. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the document relied on was a concocted document and was executed only for the purpose of claiming compensation in this matter, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that a proximate document had been placed on record, which was relied on by the reference Court, the land value as shown in the said document could have been taken into account by the reference Court. However, we are of the clear view that the finding of the reference Court that appreciation at the rate of 10% p.a. has to be made from the date of preliminary notification till the date of the order of the reference Court has no support whatsoever in any of the statutory provisions. The land losers are entitled to solatium and interest on the amount fixed as land value with reference to the date of the preliminary notification. However, fixing of the land value by granting appreciation after the date of the preliminary notification till the date of the order of the reference Court is perse illegal. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 13. Further, it appears that interest has been granted from the date of preliminary notification on the enhanced amounts as well. Going by the provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1894, interest on the enhanced amounts is available from the date of taking possession of the property. 14. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to succeed in- part. The directions issued by the reference Court granting appreciation on the land value from 15.03.2008 to the date of passing of the order of the reference Court that is 28.07.2018 are unsupported by any provisions of law. The said direction as well as the direction for grant of interest from the date of the preliminary notification shall stand set aside. The land value shall be fixed at Rs.270/- per sq.ft. as on the date of the preliminary notification and the enhanced amount with 30% solatium and interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act of 1984 shall be granted from the date of taking possession that is 17.10.2011.” - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13418-DB MFA No. 7825 of 2019 12. Against the disposal order of MFA.No. 3108/2019 and the other connected matters, we are of the considered view that, this appeal is also liable to succeed in part. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The order of the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation award and the interest thereto stands modified. iii) The market value of the acquired land shall be reckoned and fixed at Rs.270/- per square feet as on the date of Preliminary Notification and the enhanced amount with 30% solatium and interest as stipulated in Section 28 of the Act of 1984 shall be granted from the date of taking possession of the land i.e., 17.10.2011. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28