- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5659 OF 2010 (LAC-) BETWEEN: SRI. V. NARAYANSWAMY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR. SRI. N. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE V. NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 082. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE - 560 020. 2. SMT. MUNNARASAMMA W/O LATE V. NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT NO.243A, 37TH A CROSS, 1ST MAIN, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 082. 3. SRI. N.LOKESH S/O LATE V.NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.2, WOODFINES, ESSEX PM11 3HR, UNITED KINGDOM. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 4. SMT. N.RENUKA D/O LATE V.NARAYANSWAMY W/O SRI D.C.HALALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.180, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, ANAM ENCLAVE, ASHWATHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 045. 5. SMT. N.ANUSUYA D/O LATE V.NARAYANSWAMY W/O SRI. R.SUNDERMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.8, 6TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 6. SMT. N.VIJAYAKUMARI D/O LATE V.NARAYANSWAMY W/O DR.PRABHAKER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.17, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. HARSHITHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R5, R6 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DARED:2/1/2023, NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED:3/3/2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.2.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.127/1998 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.02.2010 passed in LAC No.127/1998 by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the Reference Court has not enhanced compensation amount towards construction of Tank Bund by the claimant, has filed this appeal. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.16 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas of Kathariguppe village, which was acquired by the respondent-authority for the public purpose under the preliminary and final notifications dated 13.06.1968 and 25.11.1971 respectively, and the same were published in the Gazette. The Assistant Engineer passed an award dated 01.10.1983, thereby determining compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre for arable lands, Rs.1,000/- per acre for reserved kharab land and Rs.1,26,891/- for malkies and structures. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted, the claimant filed reference under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act'). Under the reference, the reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.35,000/- per acre as against of Rs.10,000/- per acre and also enhanced the compensation of Rs.12,000/- as value of the malkies. However, the reference Court has not passed any award regarding enhancement of compensation towards structures/tank bund constructed by the claimant. Therefore, being aggrieved for not enhancing the compensation towards destruction of bund, the claimant has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no provision for the grant of compensation towards loss of bund or destruction of bund as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.183/1970 and 284/1970 decided on 04.09.1973 and submitted that there would be no grant of compensation towards destruction of bund. 4. Upon considering the rival submissions, it is clear that respondent No.1 acquired the land in question and there was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 existence of construction of bund around the land. The bund was in protection of the land, i.e., the land owner being an agriculturist has to protect the land apart from making construction of the bund around the land. When the damage is caused, due to acquisition of land, then the claimant is also entitled compensation towards bund. The Engineer attached to the respondent authority estimated appropriate cost of construction of bund and accordingly, has given report. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent while passing the award has also awarded compensation towards bund, that is the amount of Rs.2,40,571/-. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award based on the Engineer's report but the claimant was dissatisfied with the award passed in respect of the land is concerned, which is inadequate one. Therefore, the claimant is also entitled for compensation. 5. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation or not, is a different aspect but the Additional Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award also towards the damage caused towards the destruction made to the bund. This amount has been received by the claimant which was also disbursed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 respondent-authority. Now, the only question is regarding the enhancement of compensation towards bund. 6. Ex.P.5 is the estimate cost of the bund in survey No.16 of Kathriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk belonging to the appellant-claimant. The Engineer attached to the respondent-authority has prepared the estimation of cost of the bund based on 1973–74 schedule of rates and has made valuation, including sanding, watering and tamping with lead of 1 km to 1.5 km and estimated the amount spent for construction of bund at Rs.4,24,000/-. This Ex.P.5 proves the fact that the Engineer had inspected the land of the claimant and also inspected the construction of bund and made what would be the amount spent for construction of bund. Accordingly, reported to the respondent-authority, who accepted the same and has awarded lesser amount of Rs.2,40,571/-. Where this being the fact, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation towards bund. When the reference Court had enhanced the compensation towards land, including karab ad malkies structures, in the same way, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation, according to the estimation given by the Engineer of the respondent-authority. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14659 MFA No. 5659 of 2010 enhanced compensation of Rs.4,24,000/- towards bund. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the remaining balance of compensation amount towards bund after deduction of Rs.2,40,571/-. In this regard, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award passed dated 11.02.2010 passed in LAC No.127/1998 by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is hereby modified to the extent of the compensation amount towards bund is concerned. (iii) It is determined that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,24,000/- towards bund and after deducting the amount of Rs.2,40,571/-, the balance amount being the enhanced amount, the claimant is entitled for the same with interest and other statutory benefits with cost. (iv) Draw award accordingly. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26, CT:SK