- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100525 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNJALLI ONI, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORK, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-580 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE, KOPPAL-583 231. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORD (DDLR) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 231. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA) YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE BY ENHANCING THE DAMAGES/COMPENSATION OF RS.4 LACKS WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. TO RS.1 CRORE WITH INTEREST OF 15% P.A FROM THE DATE OF DISPOSSESSION TO TILL THE REALIZATION OF AMOUNT AND ALSO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO 9 GUNTA IN SY NO.297/1/1 SITUATED AT GANGAVATHI TALUK AS PER RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION ACT 2013 IN O.S. NO.76/2017 DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal by the plaintiff in OS No.76/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court whereby the said suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for damages/compensation and other reliefs was partly decreed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 2. The brief facts as borne out from the material on record are as under: (a) The appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that; he was the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated within City Municipality limits, Gangavathi City, Koppal District. It was contended that out of the aforesaid suit schedule property, an extent of 24 guntas was utilised and used by the respondents without following due process of law and without initiating acquisition proceedings on 10.03.2005, as per the notification issued by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and consequently, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the following reliefs: “The plaintiff prays as under:- i) Draw decree awarding damages of Rs.1,0000,000/- from the defendants which has caused by the encroachment for road widening. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 ii) Pass a decree awarding any other benefits which deem fit to this Hon’ble Court. iii) Cost of the suit may be awarded. iv) Draw decree accordingly.” 3. The respondents/defendants filed written statement disputing and denying the various contentions and allegations urged by the appellant/plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property, which is an ancestral property by virtue of inheritance after the demise of his father? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule land has been encroached while undertaking widening and upgrading the road from Gangavathi to Siddiker, Basavapattana, as per the notification dated 10/3/2005 issued by defendant No.1? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have caused monetary loss and damages by encroaching the suit schedule property? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court the defendant No.2 conducted enquiry as provided U/s 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964? 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? 6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages, as prayed for? 8. What Order or decree?” 5. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one witness, K. H. Ramesh who was the surveyor was examined as PW2 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P41 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, the defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. 6. After hearing the parties, The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by holding as under: “9. The defendant No.2 official has admitted that the plaintiff was made a representation to grant the compensation. After conducting the enquiry, he rejected the claim of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.10711/2015. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, he would enquiry the matter under Sec.82 of the Karnataka Municipal Act 1964. Accordingly, he conducted the enquiry and rejected the request of the plaintiff. Already in the disputed land there is old PWD road is in existence and it has been utilized by the public at large. Earlier it was maintained by the PWD department and thereafter on 28102013, the said old road was transferred to City Municipality, Gangavathi. After the said order, the City Municipality, Gangavathi is maintaining the said road and already it has constructed the drainage, valve chamber and laid water supply pipeline. 10. The plaintiff has approached his office to convert the land bearing Sy.No.297/1/7 measuring 2 acres for non agricultural purpose and clearly mentioned in the said application that towards northern side, there is road existed. At the time of approving of the said NA land, the Town Planning Authority shown that towards northern side of the NA land, there is a public road is situated. After the road, some houses constructed in the area measuring 07 guntas. The said Town Planning Authority clearly mentioned that the road existed in the area measuring 24 guntas towards northern side of NA land. These facts clearly shows that already old public road is existed. The plaintiff did not have any right over the said old road. Their authority could not encroach the suit land for upgrading the road. 11. There is no cause of action to file the suit. When they never encroached the suit land to upgrade the road, at this juncture, there is no question arose to cause monitory loss and damages to the land of the plaintiff and they could not damage to the feelings and emotions of the plaintiff’s family members. He denied that the present market value of the suit land is more than 4 crore. The plaintiff has not properly valued the the suit property and not paid the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 proper court fees. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with imposing costs. 12. Go through the pleadings and available materials on record, the learned predecessor was framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property, which is an ancestral property by virtue of inheritance after the demise of his father? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule land has been encroached while undertaking widening and upgrading the road from Gangavathi to Siddiker, Basavapattana, as per the notification dated 10/3/2005 issued by defendant No.1? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have caused monetary loss and damages by encroaching the suit schedule property? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the defendant No.2 conducted enquiry as provided U/s 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964? 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? 6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages, as prayed for? 8. What Order or decree? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 13. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and one witness by name H. Ramesh was examined as PW2 and he got marked Ex.P1 to 41 documents. On the other hand, the defendants could not choose to lead oral or documentary evidence. 14. Learned counsel for plaintiff was filed written arguments and relied the judgment reported in 2019(2) AKR 416. 15. Learned A.G.P. was argued. 16. My findings to the above issues are as follows: Issue No.1 : Partly In the affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly In the affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly In the affirmative Issue No.4 : Does not survive for consideration Issue No.5 : suit is maintainable Issue No.6 : paid court fee is sufficient Issue No.7 : Partly In the affirmative Issue No.8 : As per final order for the following; R E A S O N S 17. Issue No. 1 to 5 and 7 : These issues are inter connected with each other and in order to avoid repetition on discussion of facts and evidence, these are taken together for common discussion. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant authorities have encroached the suit property for widening and upgrading road from Gangavathi to Siddikeri, Basavapattana and thereby the defendant authorities have caused loss to him and as such, he is entitled to get damages from the defendants. In order to prove the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff himself - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 was examined as PW1. In his examinationin- chief, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In support of his case, he examined one witness namely H. Ramesh who is the surveyor as PW2. 18. PW2 in his examination in chief deposed that at the time of widening of road, 1 acre 6 guntas land belongs to the plaintiff has been encroached and he has also prepared sketch as per Ex.P.13. He identified his signature on Ex.P.13 sketch as per Ex.P.13(a). He deposed that generally the width of path way is measuring 8 feet and width of cart road is measuring 6 meter. He supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, after giving sufficient opportunity, the defendants did not enter into the witness box and led evidence and they could not produce any documentary evidence. Herein the plaintiff was appointed one surveyor as court commissioner. During the course of proceedings, the said surveyor has prepared the survey and submitted his report. The said report and sketch prepared by the Surveyor is the part of the evidence as per order 26 rule 10(2) of C.P.C. 19. Go through the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff shows that Ex.P.1 to 4 notices issued under Sec.80 of C.P.C., are belonging to another connected matter of O.S.No.77/2017 pertaining to Sri. Kottureshwara Swamigalu, Gangavathi. Ex.P.5 to 8 certified copies of the postal acknowledgements are belonging to another connected matter and they are no way connected to this case. Ex.P.8 computer RTC extract shows that the land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 totally measuring 1 acre 14 guntas out of that in column No.9 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas stands in the name of the plaintiff. In column No.3 shows that 9 guntas shown as phot karab ‘A’ land. This RTC extract has presumptive value as per Sec.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and prima facie shows that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 Ex.P.10 certified copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.107892/2016 shows that the Hon’ble High Court directed this plaintiff to approach the Civil Court and to seek proper remedy. So far as averments of the plaint and examination in chief of PW1 shows that on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the plaintiff was filed this suit. Ex.P.11 State Government Resolution dated 22 32005 shows that the Karnataka State Government has intended to convert the village road to district road and further the Government has intended to upgrade the said road. On that count, in page No.3 of the said notification shows that in Gangavathi taluka two roads have been upgraded up to Gangavathi, Siddekeri, Basavapattana road. So far as this notification is concerned, the State Government has intended to upgrade already existed road which is Gangavathi to Siddekeri and Basavapattana road. Further, Ex.P.12 copy of the notification dated 28102013 shows that totally 20+3 = 25 roads formed in Gangavathi City have been transferred by the Public Works Department to the Commissioner, City Municipality, Gangavathi under this notification. So far as this notification is concerned, the present disputed land and road is concerned which is Sl.No.22 Gangavathi to Siddikeri, Basavapattana road has been transferred from PWD Department to Municipality Department, Gangavathi. Ex.P.13 certified copy of the sketch shows that totally 1 acre 6 guntas of land has been encroached in the suit survey number and 9 guntas remains as karab area and 37 guntas remains to the owner. Ex.P.14 is the proceeding order dated 1307- 2016 shows that the Commissioner was conducted the enquiry as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and on 13- 072016 passed the order that the existing road is a public road and Municipality Authorities could not encroach the land belongs to the plaintiff and the said official clearly ordered that there is no need to grant the compensation in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.15 Sketch prepared by the ADLR, SubDivision, Koppal in respect of the suit land shows that the suit land totally measuring 1 acre 14 guntas out of that first portion shown as black shade is the residential portion and it has a road. In light read colour shows that 4 guntas of land has been encroached vacant portion of land and it has present existing road. The gray colour shown in the said sketch shows that the present road is existed in the said 20 guntas and it has 9 guntas of ‘B’ Karab land. Blue shade colour shown in the said sketch shows that 07 guntas has been encroached by some houses and buildings. The green colour shade shows that there is Haddigida road and it measures 23 guntas and it has houses and buildings. So far as this document is concerned and as discussed supra, it shows that already 1 acre 14 guntas of land has been taken by some persons in the locality. Herein in green colour shade shows that 23 guntas of land was in possession by some persons. Further, in blue colour shade shows that 07 guntas has houses and 4 guntas has been encroached by the site holders. Go through the said document, it clears that already 34 guntas of land has already encroached by some 3rd parties and plaintiff is not in possession over the said land. Further more, there is existing road measuring 20 guntas and it has 9 guntas ‘B’ Kharab. So far as this averment is concerned, it is a disputed land herein. 20. Ex.P.16 is the village map. Ex.P.17 sketch prepared by the Survey Department, Gangavathi shows that towards northern side of the suit land, there is a road and measurement of the said road shows that towards eastern side there is 35 feet width road and towards northern side there is 37.01 feet width road is existed. Ex.P.18 is the computer RTC. Ex.P.19 is the mutation extract which shows that the suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.10 shows that AEE issued information regarding upgrading the road through out the state and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 which is already discussed while discussing Ex.P.11. Ex.P.22 is also discussed as Ex.P.12. Ex.P.25 is the village map which shows that towards northern side of the suit land, there is a road. Ex.P.26 and 27 are the Encumbrance Certificates. Ex.P.28 is the valuation certificate in respect of the Siddikeri road to Valmiki Circle, Gangavathi city and square meter of this NA land of this area is reduced Rs.500/. Ex.P.19 sale deed. Ex.P.20 to 31 sale deeds which are produced to show regarding valuation of surrounding of the suit property. Ex.P.33, 35, 37, 39 and Ex.P.34, 36, 38 and 40 are the postal acknowledgment shows that the learned counsel for the plaintiff was issued the notices to the defendant No.1 to 3 under Sec.80 of CPC. Go through the said notice dated 10- 62017, the defendants authorities have encroached the suit land for widening and upgrading the road and 6 guntas of land has been encroached by some 3rd parties and constructed the houses. For entitlement the compensation in respect of the acquired land, the plaintiff issued the said notice. Ex.P.40 and 41 are the letters in respect of the suit land. 21. Herein, the defendant No.2 in the written statement specifically denied the very title of the plaintiff over the property measuring 20 guntas and contended that the said property not belongs to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was not encroached the said property and the said property is already old road and it belongs to the CMC, Gangavathi. Herein, above discussed documentary evidence clearly shows that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff. But to disbelieve the said documentary evidence, the Government Authority could not furnished any oral and documentary evidence. Further more, the present suit is for claiming of damages in respect of 20 guntas of suit land. As far as the contention of the plaintiff is that the said 20 guntas belongs to the plaintiff. As far as contention of the defendants that the said 20 guntas of the land belongs to the CMC, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 Gangavathi. Go through the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas. 22. Herein, factual dispute is that whether the defendant No.1 and 2 have encroached this 20 guntas out of 1 acres 14 guntas or not and the said 20 guntas come within the suit land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas. Accordingly, as per the oral evidence of PW1, 20 guntas has been encroached in the suit land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas for widening of the road leading from Gangavathi to Siddikeri and Basavapattana main road. Herein, the document Ex.P.20 is not disputed document and it clears that totally 550 k.m., which is Gangavathi to Siddikeri and Basavapattana road has been upgraded by the defendant No.1 and 2 authorities under the notification dated 2232005. Further, Ex.P.22 notification shows that this disputed land along with other road in Gangavathi city have been transferred by the PWD to CMC, Gangavathi. On the basis of the said notification, now the defendant No.2 has contended that the suit property belongs to the CMC, Gangavathi. Herein no doubt some of the proceedings have been entered in between the parties and those proceedings have not disputed by the other parties. Accordingly, so far as plaint averments shows that when the plaintiff has made a request to determine the boundaries and survey of the suit land, but the concerned authorities did not visit the suit land for determining the boundaries. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed Writ Petition No.82055/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. Thereafter, by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Tahasildar has conducted the survey and found that 1 acre 6 guntas has been encroached for widening of the road. The said report was disputed by the defendant No.2. Later on, the defendant No.2 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 directed the defendant No.3 to conduct the survey and as per the report of the said defendant No.3, 23 guntas of land has been encroached for widening the road and 6 guntas has been encroached by some persons and constructed the houses. The contention of the defendant No.2 is that the said 20 guntas is already a road and they never encroached the suit land. Herein as per the report made by the defendant No.3 regarding 23 guntas encroached by the defendant authorities, he approached the defendant No.2 to give compensation. When the defendant No.2 did not heed his request, he filed the Writ Petition No.107111/2005. Considering his request, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and directed this defendant No.2 to held enquiry within 10 weeks from the date of order. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, this defendant No.2 was initiated the proceedings in case No.19232/DCK/10 Court case/2014-15. Go through the Ex.P.14 order made by the defendant No.2 Learned DC, Koppal, it shows that the said learned DC, Koppal held that there was already road was existed and already the plaintiff was converted the land bearing Sy.No.297/P1/7 measuring 2 acre and Sy.No. 297/P1/4 measuring 1 acres 38 guntas as NA purposes and shown the northern side as road in the NA application and it is the present disputed property. Assigning the above and other reasons, the said learned DC, Koppal was rejected the claim of the plaintiff with exercising Sec.82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 and held that the disputed suit land is a public road and there is no need to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. Again plaintiff was challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.107892/2016. The Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the said writ petition observed and directed him to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff was filed this suit. 23. As discussed supra, it clears that the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 suit land bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas belongs to the plaintiff. Herein, It is necessary to determine that whether 20 guntas of disputed land has been encroached in the suit land or not. On that count, as per the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P.13 sketch prepared by PW2 shows that totally 1 acre 6 guntas of land has been encroached in the suit land, but Ex.P.13 could not clears that the said land was acquired for what purpose. Further, Ex.P.15 which is the report made by the defendant No.3 to the defendant No.2 on 2512016 along with statement and sketch prepared by ADLR, Koppal shows that the suit land bearing Sy.No.297/1 is having road measuring 20 guntas. 24. Herein, it is no doubt that the above discussed revenue documents shows that 1 acres 14 guntas stands in the name of plaintiff, but actually in the spot, it clears 20 guntas land is road which is in the suit land and out of that 9 gunta shown as Pot Karab 'B' land. Herein, the defendant No.2 vehemently contended that towards northern side of the suit land, there was an old road situated and same was earlier maintaining by the PWD and thereafter, it was transferred to CMC, Gangavathi and now the CMC, Gangavathi is the owner of the said road. So far as the contention of the defendant No.2 is concerned, if it is an old road and it is situated towards northern side of the suit land measuring 1 acres 14 guntas, how it comes in the suit land and it is not properly explained by the defendant No.2. Further,If it is the old road, definitely it was not come in the northern portion of the suit land. Further more, if the earlier road is situated and it has been taken for formation of road, definitely it has been deducted in the extent of the suit land and it is reserved and make an entry as phot ‘B’ karab as per Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Herein, the defendant authorities only make an entry in respect of 9 guntas and there is no entry in respect of remaining 11 guntas. Now - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 the RTC shows that the plaintiff is having land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and 9 gunta Pot B 'karab' land. Further more, there is no documentary evidence to show that the said road is an old road and situated towards northern side of the suit survey number. Further more, if it is a old road, definitely the defendants have furnished certain documents to establish that the said road is a public road. Herein, the defendant No.2 did not step into the witness box to show that the said suit land belongs to them. 25. As the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 in between Vidyadhar V/s Manikrao in para No.17 observed as follows: “Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.” As per the above proposition of law, when the defendants could not stepped into the witness box and could not tender themselves for cross- examination, at that time, their defense and case set up by them in the written statement are not believable and they are not correct. The above proposition of law is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Herein, as per the version of the defendant No.2, the suit land is old road and it was earlier maintained by the PWD and same was transferred to the CMC, Gangavathi and now CMC, Gangavathi is the owner and now the said authority is maintaining the said road and has laid water pipe line for drinking water and formed valve chamber and drainage. But, to accept the said contentions, the defendant officials are not examined and tender for cross examination. Accordingly, their case and defense could not be accepted and believable one as the above proposition of law. As discussed supra, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 factual circumstances of the case shows that out of 20 guntas suit land 11 gunta is encroached without the consent of the plaintiff. 26. Moreover, the defendant No.3 official issued Ex.P.15 report with sketch, it clearly corroborates with the evidence of PW1 and plaint averments and it clears that there is 11 guntas extent road in the suit land and it is situated towards northern side of the suit land. Herein, it is the defense of the defendant No.2 that while converting the land bearing Sy.No.297/p1/7 and 297/p1/4 by the plaintiff, he has shown the northern side portion as a road. It is no doubt that if the plaintiff shown the northern side of the disputed road as his road to the NA land, it only utilized for the owner and his men. The available oral and documentary evidence clears that as per the version of the defendant No.2, it is a old road. Accordingly, if it is an old road and it is utilized by the public purposes, but it is in the land of the plaintiff. Herein, there is no order of acquisition by the defendant No.1 and 2 regarding to utilization of the said road for public purposes in the land of the plaintiff. Definitely, the available material on record and available oral and documentary evidence clears that the defendant No.1 and 2 without any order directly encroached the part of suit land. It is no doubt that earlier it was a cart road and by virtue of the notification as per Ex.P.20, the defendant No.1 intended to upgrade the disputed road, but the present available materials on record and sketch prepared by the defendant No.3 clears that the road measuring 11 guntas is in the suit land. Without any right or title, these defendant No.1 and 2 who are representing as a Government Authorities are utilizing it for public purposes and now as per the version of the defendant No.2, the CMC, Gangavathi is maintaining the same. 27. Herein, these facts circumstances and available oral and documentary evidence clears that these defendant No.1 and 2 and CMC, Gangavathi without following any law of the land - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 illegally encroached the par of suit land measuring 11 guntas and formed a public road. Herein, the plaintiff is seeking direction to the defendants to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/ damages/compensation to him. But, as per the observations made in W.P.No. 10711/2015, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka directed the defendant No.2 to conduct the enquiry as per Sec.82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and it observed certain factual aspects and same has been extracted as follows: “ If the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that any portion of the private land is being used for the road widening purpose, its erstwhile owners have to be compensated without any loss of time. The respondents shall have two options in the matter. They shall elect one of the two options indicated herein below: (i) The Government of Karnataka shall immediately resort to the acquisition of lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. All the acquisition proceedings, including the passing of award and disbursement of the compensation, shall be completed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner holding that a particular private property is used up for and in the course of the road widening. (ii) If the above course is not resorted to by the Government of Karnataka for whatever reason, then the Deputy Commissioner shall, within one month from the date of the time granted for complying with the above directions, pass an order determining the damages/compensation. If the quantification of the compensation amount is not acceptable to the petitioner, he shall the liberty of challenging the same before the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 competent civil court. It is further made it clear that whether the authorities resort to the route of compulsory acquisition of land or pass the order quantifying the damages/compensation, it shall also be open to the authorities to negotiate with the property loser by offering alternative property to him in lieu of cash compensation. It shall also be open to the displaced person to seek the benefits due under National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2017 and also under the schemes such as Ashraya Scheme etc., in cases where they are applicable.” 28. Under the above observation, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has disposed off the matter and directed the defendant No.2 to conduct the enquiry within 12 weeks. Thereafter, this Deputy Commissioner, Koppal was conducted the enquiry with exercising power under Sec.82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and held that the disputed road is an old road and it was not belongs to the plaintiff and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The above discussed oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the defendant No.1 and 2 without having any due process of law have acquired 11 guntas of the suit land and it utilized by the public and it amounts to illegal one. In view of the above observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka WP No.107111/2015 (GMRES), it is necessary to direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition of q1 guntas of part of the suit land under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Further more, herein the plaintiff with furnishing the sale deeds in respect of other landed and cites properties as per Ex.P.29to 32, he submits that taking into consideration of the market value of the said properties, kindly award Rs.1,00,00,000/ as compensation to the suit land. But, as per - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, it is necessary to direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition proceedings of 11 guntas of part of suit land under the above said Act. 29. Further, as the judgment relied by the counsel for the plaintiff reported in 2019(2) AKR 416 and its observation and order passed by the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka court is concerned, herein this case also the defendant No.1 and 2 authorities without following the law utilized the part of suit land as a road. As per the version of the plaintiff before 2005, it is a village road and on 10 32005, the defendant No.1 and 2 have encroached the part of suit land for upgrading and widening the road as village road to district road. So far as his version is concerned, from 1032005, these defendants have acquired the 11 guntas of part of the suit land for widening the road without following due process of law and same is utilizing by the public. Hence, it is necessary to direct the defendants to pay the damages to the plaintiff from 1032005 till filing of the suit. Herein as per the order made by the Hon’ble High Court in the above decision, it is clear that respondent Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority has utilized the petitioner’s land measuring 63,162 sq.ft from 7- 22002 till the order of the Hon’ble High Court and on that count, the High Court directed the respondent commissioner to pay damages for unauthorized utilization made by the respondent. Herein this case also, these defendant No.1 and 2 since 1032005 from the knowledge of the plaintiff and for earlier days encroached the part of suit land. Accordingly, the factual circumstances of the suit is concerned, it is necessary to direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,10,000/ with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of suit. Accordingly, directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to pay the above said compensation and also directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition proceedings - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 in respect of 11 guntas of the land as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Act, 2013 and its mandatory benefits shall be given to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answered issue No.1, 2, 3 are in partly Affirmative and issue No.4 does not survive for consideration and issue No.5 suit of the plaintiff is maintainable and issue No.7 is partly in the Affirmative. 30. Issue No.6: The very contention of the learned AGP is that, in the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the value of the suit property is 4 crore rupees, but he has paid the court fee on 1 crore rupees. Accordingly, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and prays to dismiss the suit. Herein the plaint averments shows that the plaintiff has contended as on the date of suit, the value of the suit property is worth of 4 crore rupees. But, herein, the plaintiff has restricted his claim only to the amount of 1 crore rupees and he has paid the court fee on the said amount. Accordingly, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient to determine the suit. Accordingly, I answered paid court fee is sufficient. 31. Issue No.8: For the foregoing reasons on issue No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The suit of the plaintiff seeking the relief of damages/compensation is partly decreed with cost. Directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,10,000/ as damages/ compensation to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till its realization. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 It is further directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition proceedings on 11 guntas of part of suit land as shown in the sketch prepared by the ADLR, Koppal in Ex.P.15 and to give the statutory benefits and compensation to the plaintiff under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.” 7. As can be seen from the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court upheld the claim of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 were liable to initiate acquisition proceedings to an extent of 20 guntas in the plaint schedule property and pay statutory benefits, compensation etc., to the appellant/plaintiff under the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’). The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had illegally encroached upon, - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 taken over and utilized/used the aforesaid extent of 20 guntas in the suit schedule property without initiating acquisition proceedings from 10.03.2005 onwards and the appellant/plaintiff suffered a loss to an extent of Rs.2,10,000/- which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were liable to pay with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. 8. It is a matter of record and is also not disputed that insofar as the impugned judgment and decree directed the respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as well as to pay compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, has not been challenged by the respondents and the impugned judgment and decree to the said extent has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents. 9. The respondents have also filed a memo dated 22.04.2025 before the Trial Court in Execution Case - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 No.EX/68/2023 undertaking to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court along with interest. It is therefore clear that the impugned judgment and decree passed against the respondents/defendants has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents. 10. The appellant/plaintiff is before this Court assailing the impugned judgment and decree to the limited/restricted extent of the same directing payment of only Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation together with 6% interest per annum. It is specifically contented by the appellant/plaintiff that the Trial Court did not consider or appreciate the material on record which would clearly indicate that the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to much higher compensation in addition to Rs.2,10,000/- already awarded by the Trial Court. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff invited attention to paragraph No.24 of the impugned judgment and decree in order to point out that the Trial Court has arbitrarily fixed the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant/plaintiff at only Rs.2,10,000/- without assigning any reasons as to why the compensation of Rs.1 Crore together with 15% per annum claimed by the appellant/plaintiff was being restricted only to Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum. 13. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in various judgments in order to point out that the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to much higher compensation than the compensation awarded by the Trial Court and as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be decreed in its entirety. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 14. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the following judgments: 1. (2007) 9 SCC 650 (Madishetti Vs. Land Acquisition Officer) 2. (2004) 4 SCC 79 (R. L. Jain Vs. DDA and Others) 3. (2013) 1 SCC 353 (Tukaram Vs. Maharastra Industrial) 4. (2016) 13 SCC 412 (Balavan Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector) 15. Per contra, the learned AGA would fairly submit that the respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and decree, and that the same has attained finality. It is further submitted that the respondents filed a memo before the Executing Court in Execution Case No.EX/68/2023, along with a communication dated 22.04.2025, undertaking to deposit the decreetal amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation as decreed by the Trial Court. The learned AGA would further submit that the impugned judgment and decree restricting the compensation awarded to the appellant/plaintiff of - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum, is just and proper and the same does not need interference by this Court in the present appeal. 16. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in awarding compensation in a sum of ₹2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization as against ₹1 crore together with interest at 15% per annum claimed by the appellant/plaintiff?” 17. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that issue Nos.1 to 3, as framed by the Trial Court, pertaining to the title and possession of the appellant/plaintiff, regarding the alleged encroachment of 20 guntas of land by the respondents, their taking over possession of the same from the appellant, and utilization of the said land for the purpose of road widening from 10.03.2005, have all been answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The Trial Court has also found that the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 appellant/plaintiff suffered monetary loss and damages on account of the said encroachment of the suit schedule property by the respondents/defendants. However, while dealing with issue No.7, the Trial Court, comes to the conclusion that, the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to only Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till date of realization. 18. In this context, it is pertinent to note that, except for summarily stating that the appellant would be entitled to Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation, the Trial Court has neither assigned any legal nor valid reasons for arriving at such a conclusion; In other words, the impugned judgment and decree, insofar as it relates to restricting the compensation awarded to the appellant/plaintiff only to Rs.4,00,000/- as against Rs.1 crore, is completely bereft of any valid, cogent or legally sustainable reasoning. The Trial Court has failed to consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments. The Trial Court has also not considered the unchallenged and un- controverted oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant for the purpose of quantifying the compensation only to the limited extent of Rs.2,10,000/- as against Rs.1 crore claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. 19. Under these circumstances, in order to enable the Trial Court to reconsider the claim of the appellant/plaintiff to the limited extent of adjudicating, as to whether the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to any additional compensation in addition to Rs.2,10,000/-, already granted by the Trial Court, we deem it just and appropriate to exercise the powers under Section 107, Order 41 Rule 23(A) and Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 and set aside the impugned judgment and decree to the limited extent of reconsideration of the claim of the appellant/plaintiff for additional compensation in excess of Rs.2,10,000/- and 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 remit the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in this regard in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 20. It is needless to state that the remaining portion of the impugned judgment and decree regarding initiation of proceedings under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and regarding payment of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum, would remain intact and the same are not interfered with in the present appeal. 21. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is hereby allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.76/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, is modified to the limited/restricted extent that it awards - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 compensation only in a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- per annum together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization, as against Rs.1 crore claimed by the appellant is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for re-consideration to the limited/restricted extent of adjudication of the appellant/plaintiff claim of additional/extra compensation in excess of Rs.2,10,000/- in accordance with law, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties. iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 22.09.2025 without awaiting further notice. iv) It is made clear that the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to direction to the respondents to initiate - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 acquisition proceedings under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum stands confirmed. v) The Executing Court in Execution Case No.EX/68/2023 is directed to proceed further in the matter as expeditiously as possible and disburse the amount to be deposited by the respondents immediately without any delay. vi) The Trial Court shall reconsider the suit to the limited extent of additional/extra compensation payable to the appellant/plaintiff in excess of Rs.2,10,000/- in accordance with law within a period of three months from 22.09.2025, bearing in mind, the material on record and the judgments referred to in the body of this order. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100525 of 2023 vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. viii) Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire (100%) Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal immediately without any delay. ix) The interim applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. x) *“Respondent/State is directed to deposit sum of Rs.5,45,904/- before the Trial Court on or before 10.11.2025. Immediately upon such deposit, the Trial Court shall disburse the said amount in favour of the appellant/plaintiff immediately without any delay.” Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SMM – upto para 14 PMP – para 15 to till end Ct:VH / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 *Incorporated vide Court order dated 26.09.2025 Sd/- (SRKKJ)