Bangalore District Court
The Special Land Acquisition ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2026
1
L.A.C. No.110/2022
KABC010248622022
THE Court OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026.
:PRESENT:
Sri. Padma Prasad, B.A.Law.LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.110/2022
PETITIONER:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, METRO,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
1st Floor, Maharshi Aravind Bhavan
Nrupatunga Road
Bengaluru -560 010.
(Sri.B.B. Patil, Advocate)
VERSUS-
CLAIMANT:
N. Rekha
D/o Nagaraju
Aged about 37 years
R/at No. 551,
Kothanur Dinne
J.P. Nagar, 8th stage
Uttarahalli Hobli
Bangaluru South Taluka
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(Sri.B.S. Radhanandan, Advocate)
2
L.A.C. No.110/2022
OBJECTOR:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by Tahsildar
Bangaluru South Taluka
Kandaya Bhavan
K.G. Road
(District Government Pleader)
RESPONDENT:
Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd/KIADB
3rd floor BMTC Complex K.H. Road
Shanthinagar
Bengaluru -560 0276.
Bengaluru.
(Smt. M.B. Sindhu Shastry, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This reference filed by the petitioner - Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereafter referred as SLAO) under Sections 30 and 31 of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (hereafter refereed as KIADB Act) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to deposit the compensation amount for the acquired land and for adjudication on the rightful recipient of the award amount deposited by the petitioner.
3
L.A.C. No.110/2022 .2. The case made out by the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner for the purpose of development by the KIADB issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) bearing No. CI/108/SPQ/2015 dated 22.02.2018 in respect of acquired property and other properties and Final Notification has been issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act bearing No. CI/108/SPQ/2019 dated 07.03.2019. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the respondent filed W.P.No. 24533- 24534/2017, 25334/2017 C/W. W.P.No.24535- 24536/2017, 25877-25880/2017 and the said Writ Petitions came to be disposed off in terms of the order dated 21.11.2017. Wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to direct the SLAO, KIADB to refer the dispute under Sections 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred as L.A. Act) to make the reference to the Court, the applicant passed an order bearing No. KIADB / METRO / AWARD / 389 / 2018-19 dated 11.09.2018 to deposit the compensation amount 4 L.A.C. No.110/2022 before this Court referring the matter to decide the issue in question. Accordingly, the petitioner filed this reference before this Court for respective prayers stated therein.
.3. The claimant Smt. N. Rekha filed claim statement, wherein, she admitted about issuance of Preliminary Notification and Final Notification for acquisition of acquired land and claimed that originally the property bearing Survey No. 87/2 of Kothanur village belongs to one R. Ramaiah S/o Ranganna. Thereafter the said R. Ramaiah died as on 04.07.1938 leaving behind him his wife namely Smt. Gowramma and children namely R. Rangaswamy, R. Somashekar, R. Ramakrishna and R. Savithri. It is further submitted that Smt. Gowramma wife of Ramaiah died as on 10.06.1978 leaving behind her children. The children of Smt. Gowramma have jointly sold the said property to the 5 L.A.C. No.110/2022 claimant and others and hence, they claim that they are the co-owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 87/2 of Kothanur village measuring 2 acres 10 guntas and she purchased the same through sale deed dated 12.11.2009. Subsequently, the claimant along with other owners have entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 31.01.2011 with M/s. Amalgamated Property Developers and developed the above mentioned property into a residential layout and formed various residential plots in the said property. The residential layout has been formed in the name and style of 'Classic Orchards' by obtaining the approval from the B.D.A., and by complying the requisites for formation of the residential layout.
.4. Further, the claimant submits that after completion of formation of residential 6 L.A.C. No.110/2022 layout, the claimant and the co-owners entered into a registered partition deed Dated 22.08.2014, partitioning the residential sites formed in the 'Classic Orchards' and as per the said partition deed dated 22.08.2014, 10 sites mentioned under schedule 'B' have been allotted to this claimant. By virtue of the said partition deed, the claimant has become the absolute owner of the schedule 'B' property.
.5. Further, the claimant submits that the land in Sy. No.87 of Kothanur village have been notified under the provisions of the KIAD Act for the purpose of BMRCL and the award has been passed on 11.09.2018 for a sum of Rs. 48,93,678/-. Subsequently the claimant has filed W.P.No. 25877/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said writ petition has been partly allowed. 7
L.A.C. No.110/2022 .6. Further the claimant submits that the said property is located in prime location and present value is at Rs.15,000/- per Square feet and the petitioner has not calculated the present market value and she has lost the valuable part of the property.
.7. Further the claimant submits that the SLAO has passed the General Award at extremely low compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the claim of claimant.
.8. The respondent No. 2 BMRCL has filed objections stating that the beneficiary of acquisition BMRCL sent a compensation package to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, fixing the market value at Rs. 39,740/- per square meter through letter dated 31.07.2018. It is stated that after receipt of compensation package from BMRCL, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB issued notice under Section 29(2) to the Khatedars. During inquiry the SLAO noticed that 8 L.A.C. No.110/2022 there existed W.P. No. 24533-24534/2017. It is stated that W.P. No. 25334-25335/2017 and W.P. No. 25877-25880/2017 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in-respect of the property in question. In view of the same, the SLAO could not take decision regarding ownership and apportionment of compensation. Hence, he proceeded to pass General Award and also deposited the compensation package into the Civil Court and referred the matter to the Court under Section 30 and 31 of L.A. Act, for disbursement of compensation after determining the rights of the parties. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 BMRCL who is beneficiary of acquisition will not be liable to pay interest on the awarded compensation amount as also held in the decision 1995(5) SCC 577 (SLAO Vs. Puttaiah and others).
.9. In order to prove claimant's case, the GPA holder of the claimant-N. Rekha namely 9 L.A.C. No.110/2022 Dharmaraju Nalluru has been examined as PW.1. The documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16.
.10. On the basis of the above, the point for consideration is that:
"Whether the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation amount in this case?"
.11. Heard the arguments. Claimant filed written arguments. Perused the materials on record, on that basis my finding on the above point is in the affirmative, for the following:
REASONS .12. Point: This reference made to this Court under Sections 29 and 30 of the KIADB Act, to decide the rightful recipient of the award amount deposited by the petitioner. In the case on hand, it is undisputed fact that the schedule property had been acquired under Preliminary 10 L.A.C. No.110/2022 Notification dated 22.02.2018 and Final Notification dated 07.03.2019 and General Award passed on 11.09.2018. It is also admitted fact in this case that the respondent/claimant has filed W.P.No. 24533-534/2017, W.P.No.25334- 25335/17 and W.P.No. 25877-880/2017, that have been disposed off on 21.11.2017. Thereafter, Final Notification had been issued and the award has been passed. Subsequently, as on 27.10.2022 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.39,14,942/- after deducting 20% Income Tax.
.13. As discussed earlier, the reference is made to the Court and the amount had been deposited to the Court by the petitioner in order to decide the rightful recipient of the award amount. Hence, the Court has to give a specific finding that who is the owner of the acquired land as described in the schedule property. In the case on hand, the claimant claimed that she is an owner of the schedule property. The claim of the claimant is that the property bearing Sy. No. 87/2 measuring 11 L.A.C. No.110/2022 2 acres 10 guntas of Kothanur village had been acquired through sale deed dated 12.11.2009.
Thereafter the claimant and others have entered into a JDA in respect of the said property with M/s. Amalgamated Property Developers and developed the said property into a residential layout and formed various residential plots in the said property in the name and style of 'Classic Orchards' by obtaining approval from the B.D.A. Thereafter, the claimant who is an owner was entered into a partition deed on 22.08.2014 and the sites mentioned in schedule 'B' i.e., site No.13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41 and 42, totally measuring 1114.10 Square Meters have been fallen to the share of this claimant. Thereafter, the petitioner had acquired the said land for the purpose of BMRCL, which is the prime commercial hub of Bengaluru city.
.14. The property involved in this case is described in acquired land at Sl. No.34 of the notification No.CI/108/SPQ/2015, Bengaluru 12 L.A.C. No.110/2022 dated 22.02.2018, described as DP-1/A Plot No.32 in Sy. No.87 measuring 111.41 Square Meters and that has been also described in the general award dated 11.09.2018.
.15. In the case on hand, the claimant in the claim statement prayed for enhancement of compensation, but this reference is not for determining the market value of the properties but only to decide the title of claimant over the acquired property. Hence, the claim of claimant for enhancement of market value or determination of market value of the acquired property is not considered.
.16. The claimant in order to prove her title over the acquired property produced partition deed at Ex.P.16. The claim of the claimant is that there was a partition of their joint right properties under a registered partition deed dated 22.08.2014 and in the said registered partition, 'B' schedule properties have been allotted to her share, accordingly claimed that the site No. 13 to 13 L.A.C. No.110/2022 16, 29 to 32, 41 and 42 allotted to her share. The documents produced by the claimant at Ex.P.1 to 8, 10 to 15 sufficiently shows that the properties have been validly acquired by the claimant and her sister and the said properties have been partitioned between them. The aforesaid partition deed clearly reveals that the claimant acquired valid right, title and interest over the site involved in this case. There is no material on record to disbelieve the documents produced by the claimant in support of her claim as well as evidence placed before the court by the claimant.
.17. In the case on hand, the ownership of claimant over the aforesaid property involved in this case is not in dispute and the Competent Revenue Authorities in full pledged inquiry held that they have acquired valid right, title and interest over the property. The said claimant and others purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.2009 as per Ex.P.11. As per the said document, surviving LRs of R. 14 L.A.C. No.110/2022 Rangaswamy and LRs of R. Ramaiah jointly sold the property to claimant and others. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court sufficiently shows that the claimant is an owner of the acquired property and claimant is entitled for the compensation. Accordingly, the above point is answered in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby allowed.
Claimant Smt. N. Rekha is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the land bearing Identification No.R6-DP1/A Plot No.32 in Sy. No.87 measuring 111.41 Sq. Meters of Kothanur village, Bangaluru South Taluka along with statutory benefits.
The claimant shall has to execute an indemnity bond with one surety, 15 L.A.C. No.110/2022 undertaking to re-deposit the compensation amount either in this Court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount she is going to receive in this case.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 5 th day of January, 2026.) (Padma Prasad), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
P.W.1 : Dharmaraju Nalluru
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex. P. 1 A certified copy of grant order dated 05-07- 1929.
Ex. P. 2 A certified copy of Raseedi Patta Book and & 2(a) typed copy. Ex. P. 3 A certified copy of report of the Deputy
Tahsildar, Uttarahalli Taluk dated 03-05-2005. Ex. P. 4 A certified copy of registered partition deed & 4(a) dated 29-06-1974 and typed copy. (subject to production of typed copy of the same).
Ex. P. 5 Certified copy of RTC. (6 Sheets) and typed
& 5(a) copy.
Ex. P. 6 Certified copy of RTC. (7 Sheets)
16
L.A.C. No.110/2022
Ex. P. 7 Certified copy of the Sketch.
Ex. P. 8 MR Extract. (3 Sheets)
Ex. P. 9 General Power of Attorney.
Ex. P. 10 Certified copy of the Conversion Order.
Ex. P. 11 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 12-11-
2009.
Ex. P. 12 Certified copy of the Joint Development
Agreement.
Ex. P. 13 Online Certified copy of the Relinquishment
deed dated 16-12-2013.
Ex. P. 14 Online Certified copy of the Rectification deed
Ex. P. 15 Certified copy of the order in W.P. 25877/2017
and other cases.
Ex.P.16 Online certified copy of the partition deed
dated 22.08.2014
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & OBJECTOR:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT /PETITIONER & OBJECTOR:
Nil (Padma Prasad) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.