Karnataka High Court
The President Sri Kottureshwar ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB
RFA No. 100523 of 2023
HC-KAR
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. 100523 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE PRESIDENT,
SRI. KOTTURESHWAR SWAMIGALU
VIVIDHODESH SANSTHE, KALMATH,
GANGAVATHI, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
NAGARAJ S/O. MADIWALAPPA KODAGALI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. HOSALLI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583227.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by SAMREEN
AYUB DESHNUR BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH PUBLIC WORK, PORTS AND INLAND WATER
COURT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENCH BENGALURU-580 001.
Date: 2025.09.02
12:08:03 +0530
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)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB
RFA No. 100523 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 CRORE 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 IN O.S. NO.77/2017 DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED BY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
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.77/2017 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.
2. The brief facts as borne out from the material on record are as under:
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
(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.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas situated within City Municipality limits, Gangavathi City, Koppal District. It was contended that out of the aforesaid suit schedule property, an extent of 27 guntas has been 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/- along with interest at 15% P.A. from the defendants which has caused by the encroachment for road widening.
ii) Pass a decree awarding any other benefits which deem fit to this Hon'ble Court.
iii) Cost of the suit may be awarded.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
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 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-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
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. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, his GPA holder 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 P60 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. Go through the pleadings and available materials on record, the learned predecessor was 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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?
10. In order to prove the case, the GPA holder of the plaintiff by name Nagaraj Kodagali was examined as PW-1 and one witness namely K. H. Ramesh who is the surveyor was examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex P 1 to 60 documents.
On the other hand, the defendant officials neither orally examined nor produced any documents.
11. Learned counsel for plaintiff was argued and filed written arguments and relied on following judgment:
-7-NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
(i) 2019 (2) AKR 416 in between P.G. Belliappa V/s Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore.
12. Learned A.G.P., was argued.
13. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.5:Suit of the plaintiff 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 AS O N S
14. 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 suit for damage. Herein the plaintiff has shown the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas situated at Gangavathi City. The defendants would not disputed the measurement of land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas belongs to the plaintiff. They disputed the title of the plaintiff in respect of 20 guntas of land as shown in the plaint schedule that the said suit land is not belongs to the plaintiff and it is a old road and now the CMC, Gangavathi is the owner of the said property. Herein to prove the case and averments made in the plaint, the GPA Holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW-
1. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff was -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR examined PW-2 surveyor, in his examination in chief, he deposed that he prepared Ex.P.14 sketch and as per his sketch totally 27 guntas has been acquired in the suit land. He further deposed that as per the norms of the survey department, the measurement of the width of the path way is 4.2 meters and cart way is 6 meters. The evidence of PW-2 shows that the total 27 guntas has been acquired in the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3.
15. Now we discuss about the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 to 6 are the certified copies of the demand notice and postal acknowledgements which are in respect of another connected suit bearing No.76/2017. These documents are not relevant to this case. Ex.P.7 copy of the computer RTC shows that the suit land bearing sy.No.295/3 totally measuring 3 acres 7 guntas stands in the name of plaintiff who is the President of Sri. Kottureshwar Swamigalu Vividhodesh Samsthe, Kalmath, Gangavathi. The said name was mutated in the name of the plaintiff by way of MR No.11/2004-05 as per Will dated 18-8-2014. Ex.P.10 is the notification of the State Government issued by the defendant No.1 shows that on 22-3-2005, the defendant No.1 authority was intended to upgrade the Gangavathi to Siddikeri and copy of the order made by the District Commissioner under the case file No.15976/DCK/32/court case/2013- 14 dated 13-07-2016 shows that the present plaintiff was made representation regarding grant of compensation. Go through the said order, it shows that the said authority was rejected the claim of the plaintiff with exercising power under Sec.82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and held that the suit land is the earlier public road and it not belongs to the plaintiff, as such, there is no necessity to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. Ex.P.18 and 19 are Encumbrance Certificates. Ex.P.20 Computer RTC. Ex.P.21 copy of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR No.107891/2016 (LB-RES) shows that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the present plaintiff was filed the suit. Ex.P.22 Special Power of Attorney executed by the President of Sri. Kottureshwar Swamigalu in favour of GPA holder namely Nagaraj to conduct this case. Ex.P.23 to 26 Certified copies of the registered sale deeds shows that the plaintiff was furnished these documents to take into consideration of the market value of the said properties while determining the compensation of this encroached land. Ex.P.29 to 36 copy of the demand notices, postal acknowledgements shows that the plaintiff counsel issued the statutory notice to the defendant No.1 to 4 requesting to give compensation to the plaintiff. The said notices were duly served on the defendants authorities. Ex.P.37 is the copy of intimation. Ex.P.38 is the copy of the statement. Ex.P.39 is the sketch which shows that 21 guntas in the suit land, there is road existed.
16. Herein, it is necessary to appreciate the documents in respect of the suit survey. Ex.P.9 copy of computer RTC shows that the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiff who is the president of Sri. Kottureshwar Swamigalu Vividhodesh Samsthe, Kalmath, Gangavathi. As far as plaint averments and examination in chief of PW-1 shows that the suit land originally belongs to Channabasava Mahaswami Guru Kotturswami. The said samstha was executed a registered Will on 23-6-1977 and appointed this plaintiff as a successor to manage the suit land and other properties and later on 6-12-1994 Channabasava Mahaswami Guru Kotturswami was died. Thereafter, this plaintiff become the successor and owner and possessor of the suit land and other landed properties of the Math. Ex.P-40 copy of the original Will shows that the said great grandfather Channabasava Mahaswami Gurur Kotturswami had executed the Will in favour of Sri. Kottureshwara Swamigalu regarding after his demise, then Sri. Kottureshwara Swamigalu become the successor
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR of this Math. Ex.P.41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 shows that the land bearing Sy.No.295 originally measuring 10 acres 07 guntas and it was in the name of Channabasava Swamy Kotturswamy. Thereafter, as per MR No.20/0-7-98 the present suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas is in the name of the plaintiff. The same was continued as per Ex.P.49, 50, 51, 52 and Ex.P.20. Further, Ex.P.40 to 53 documents shows that this total 10 acres 7 guntas of land along with other landed properties were transferred from Sri. Channabasava Mahaswami Gurur Kotturswami to this plaintiff Sri. Kottureshwara Swamigalu, Kalmath. The above discussed Will and other revenue documents shows that originally the suit survey number totally have 10 acres 7 guntas belongs to Sri. Channabasava Mahaswami Gurur Kotturswami. After his demise, this plaintiff become the successor and his name was mutated to the katha of the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas and same has been continued in the name of the plaintiff. Herein, these above discussed documents shows that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff.
17. Herein, the defendant No.2 in the written statement specifically denied the very title of the plaintiff over the property measuring 21 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 21 guntas of suit land. As far as the contention of the plaintiff is that the said 21 guntas belongs ot the plaintiff. As far as contention of the defendants that the said 21 guntas of the land belongs to the CMC, Gangavathi. Go through
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas.
18. Herein, factual dispute is that whether the defendant No.1 and 2 have encroached this 21 guntas out of 3 acres 7 guntas or not and the said 21 guntas come within the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas. Accordingly, as per the oral evidence of PW-1, 27 guntas has been encroached in the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas for widening of the road leading from Gangavathi, Siddikeri and Basavapattana main road. Herein, the document Ex.P.10 is not disputed document and it clears that totally 5-50 k.m., which is Gangavathi, Siddikeri and Basavapattana road has been upgraded by the defendant No.1 and 2 authorities under the notification dated 22-3- 2005. Further, Ex.P.13 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.82056/2013 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 27 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 directed the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR defendant No.3 to conduct the survey and as per the report of the said defendant No.3, 20 guntas of land has been encroached for widening the road and 7 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 21 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.15976/DCK/32 Court case/2013- 14. Go through the Ex.P.17 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 suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas as NA purposes and shown the northern side as road in the NA application and assigning other reasons, the said DC, Koppal was rejected the claim of the plaintiff and 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.107891/2016. 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.
19. As discussed supra, it clears that the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas belongs to the plaintiff. It is necessary to determine that whether 21
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR guntas of disputed land has been encroached in the suit land or not. On that count, as per the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P.14 sketch prepared by PW-2 shows that totally 27 guntas of land has been encroached in the suit land, but Ex.P.14 could not clears that the said 27 guntas of the land was acquired for what purposes. Further, Ex.P.15 which is the report made by the defendant No.3 to the defendant No.2 on 19-5- 2015 along with statement and sketch prepared by ADLR, Koppal shows that the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 is measuring 3 acres 7 guntas, out of that 20 guntas is having road and 07 guntas having constructed house and remaining 2 acres 20 guntas of land is with the owner who is the plaintiff. The copy of Grama Map Ex.P.16 shows that the suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 towards northern side did not have any old road. Toward North-East corner of said land, the said earlier road ends and it could not be passed in Sy.No. 295, 296 and 200. The said village map which is the public document clearly shows towards northern side there is no old public road is situated. Further, Ex.P.37 intimation letter, Ex.P.38 statement to the Government and Ex.P.39 copy of sketch prepared by DDLR, Koppal shows that as per the order of the defendant No.2 official, this defendant No.3 was conducted the survey on 16- 5-2015 and Ex.P.39 sketch shows that the land bearing Sy.No.295/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and Sy.No.295/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas are in vacant possession and there is no such encroachment. Further more, in the suit land bearing Sy.No.293/3 totally 21 guntas road is situated and in 7 guntas houses are constructed and 2 acres 19 guntas remains with the plaintiff. So far as sketch prepared by the defendant No.3 ADLR, Koppal shows that in the suit land 21 guntas road is situated. The above discussed sketch prepared by the defendant No.3 and another Ex.P.15 sketch and report made by said defendant No.3 shows that there is 20 guntas road in the suit land. Go through these sketches and report made by the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR defendant No.3, it clears that totally 21 guntas of land was acquired for road in the suit land.
20. Herein, it is no doubt that the above discussed revenue documents shows that 3 acres 7 guntas stands in the name of plaintiff, but actually in the spot, it clears 21 guntas land is road which is in the suit land. Herein, the defendant No.2 vehemently contended that towaards 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 3 acres 7 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 'ಅ' karab as per Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. But, there is no such mutation order made by the defendant No.2 or revenue authorities and deducted the said extent in any mutation proceedings. Now the RTC shows that the plaintiff is having land measuring 3 acres 7 guntas. 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. The very Ex.P.16 Village Map issued by the survey authority shows that towards northern side of the suit land, there is no old road is situated and it was ends towards western side of the road i.e., land bearing Sy.No. 295, 296 and 200. 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. Thereafter, the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR defendant No.2 did not step into the witness box to show that the said suit land belongs to them.
21. 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.
22. Moreover, the defendant No.3 official issued Ex.P.37 report, it clearly corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 and plaint averments and it clears that there is 21 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 suit land bearing Sy.No.295/3 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR as NA land, the plaintiff 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 2 acres 10 guntas 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 suit land. It is no doubt that earlier it was a cart road and by virtue of the notification as per Ex.P.10, 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 21 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.
23. 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 illegally encroached the suit land measuring 21 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.107111/2015, 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:
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR " 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 roadwidening.
(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 competent civil court.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 propertyloser 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."
24. 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 21 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 (GM-RES), it is necessary to direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition of 21 guntas 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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR in respect of other landed and cites properties as per Ex.P.23 to 26, 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 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 21 guntas of land under the above said Act.
25. 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 suit land as a road. As per the version of the plaintiff before 2005, it is a village road and on 10-3-2005, the defendant No.1 and 2 have encroached the suit land for upgrading and widening the road as village road to district road. So far as his version is concerned, from 10- 3- 2005, these defendants have acquired the 21 guntas 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 10-3-2005 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- 2-2002 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 10-3-2005 from the knowledge of the plaintiff and for earlier days encroached the 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.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from 10-3-2005 till filing of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR the 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 in respect of 21 guntas of the land as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and its mandatory benefits shall be given to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answered issue No.1, 2, 3 are in the 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.4,00,000/ as damages/ compensation to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till its realization.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR It is further directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to initiate the acquisition proceedings on 21 guntas of the suit land as shown in the sketch (Phodi Map) prepared by the ADLR, Koppal in Ex.P.39 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 21 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, taken over and utilized/used the aforesaid extent of 21
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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.4,00,000/- 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 directing the respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as well as to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 No.EX/67/2023 undertaking to deposit the entire
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court along with interest in a sum of Rs.7,94,204/-. 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.4,00,000/- 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.4,00,000/-
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.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
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.4,00,000/-
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.4,00,000/- 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.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
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/67/2023, along with a communication dated 22.04.2025, undertaking to deposit the decreetal amount of Rs.7,94,204/- 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
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR Rs.4,00,000/- 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 ₹4,00,000/- 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 21 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
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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.4,00,000/- 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.4,00,000/- 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
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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.4,00,000/-
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.4,00,000/-, 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.4,00,000/- and 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR 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.4,00,000/-
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.77/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, is modified to the limited/restricted extent that it awards
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR compensation only in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- 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.4,00,000/- 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
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR acquisition proceedings under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum stands confirmed.
v) The Executing Court in Execution Case No.EX/67/2023 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.4,00,000/- 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.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10415-DB RFA No. 100523 of 2023 HC-KAR
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 off accordingly.
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