Bangalore District Court
Govindappa M vs Slao, Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 16 September, 2025
1
L.A.C. No.159/2020
KABC010202392020
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. Padma Prasad, B.A.Law.LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.159/2020
CLAIMANTS:
1) M. Govindappa
S/o Munivenkatappa
2) Y.G. Keshava
S/o M. Govindappa
10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex
Ground Floor, Palace Road
Bengaluru - 560 052.
3) Dayananda Pai Manipala Academy
of Higher Education
Century Towers
Kodihalli, Airport Road
Bengaluru.
(C-1 - Absent)
(C-2 - Sri. CSR, Advocate)
(C-3 - Sri. GM, Advocate)
2
L.A.C. No. 159/2020
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1) Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB (Metro)
Nrupathunga road
Bengaluru,
2) The Chief Manager (L & E)
BMRCL, Chinnaswamy Stadium,
Opposite 10th gate
Bengaluru.
(R-1 - Sri. DBG, Advocate)
(R-2 - Sri. NM, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This reference made by the respondent No.1/SLAO, KIADB (Metro Rail Project), Bengaluru under Sections 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as L.A. Act), for apportionment of compensation amount.
.2. As per the records, the respondent No.1 has acquired the property measuring 126.33 Square Meters in Survey No.73/2B of Yalahanka village for the purpose of BMRCL under Preliminary Notification dated 3 L.A.C. No.159/2020 19.08.2019 and Final Notification dated 29.11.2019. The award passed on 09.09.2020, fixing compensation of Rs.31,05,474/- in this case. As there was a rival claim, the L.A.O. had made this reference to this Court and has deposited a sum of Rs.24,84,379/- after deducting 20% Income tax. The said amount has been kept in Fixed Deposit in the Karnataka Grameena Bank, Chikkabasti Branch, Bengaluru.
.3. After receipt of reference, this court issued notice to both parties. In pursuance of the notice, the claimant No.1 remained absent. The claimants 2 and 3 and respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before the Court through their advocates.
.4. The claimant No.2 Y.G. Keshava who is the son of claimant No.1-M. Govindappa filed claim statement claiming that his father had purchased the property measuring 27 guntas in Survey No. 73/3 and the property measuring 11 guntas in Survey No. 73/2B 4 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1989 and the two properties are totally measuring 38 guntas of Yalahanka village, Bengaluru North Taluka. Accordingly, his father got changed the property in his name and he was in possession of the said property. The said claimant No.1 M. Govindappa died on 10.03.2006 and thereafter, the claimant No.2 succeeded to the property left by his father. The claimant No.2 also claims that his father got converted 1 acre 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/1 and 73/3 during his lifetime, as per the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in a proceeding No. BDN/ALN/SR (NA) 192/2002-03 dated 16.01.2003. Subsequently his father M. Govindappa executed a registered sale deed on 08.10.2003 in favour of P. Dayananda Pai in respect of 32 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/1 and 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B as well as 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 5 L.A.C. No.159/2020 73/3 and accordingly claimed that 3 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B has not been sold and the same has been retained by his father M. Govindappa and the said property now mutated to the name of claimant No.2 and accordingly, the claimant No.2 claims absolute right over the said 3 guntas of land and claims that he is entitled for compensation to the extent of 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B of Yalahanka village.
.5. Claimant No.3 P. Dayananda Pai filed claim statement claiming about the acquisition of property and also claimed that the claimant No.3 purchased 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B along with other properties, such as 32 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/1 and 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/3. Further claim of the claimant No.3 is that only 8 guntas of land remained in Survey No. 73/2B after the earlier acquisition of 3 guntas of land for National Highways/road. The remaining land of 8 guntas 6 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 purchased by the claimant No.3 from claimant No.1 as such the claimant No.1 and 2 had left with no properties in Survey No.73/2B. Further the claimant No.3 claimed that the claimant No.1 had sold entire property to claimant No.3 and accordingly claimed that the claimant No.3 is in possession of 1 acre 27 guntas of land. As 3 guntas of land acquired much earlier to the present proceedings claimed that the claimant No.2 has no right over the properties as well as compensation and prayed to pay entire compensation to the claimant No.3.
.6. The respondent No.1 filed objection to the claim statement filed by the claimant No.2, wherein stated that claimant No.2 has not produced any documents to show title over the acquired properties. Hence, the case has been referred to the Court for apportionment of compensation.
7
L.A.C. No.159/2020 .7. The respondent No.2 filed objection, wherein it has admitted about the acquisition of property and also stated that the respondent No.2 sent a package compensation of Rs. 1,53,14,715/- fixing the market value at Rs.59,298/- per Square Meters in respect of acquired land of 126.33 Square Meters to the SLAO, KIADB as per letter No. BMRCL/LAQ/Phase-2/ARP- KGC-1(U)/2019-20/925 dated 08.05.2020. It is also stated that the notice under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act has been received by one Hemaraj and Keshav on behalf of khathedars and they have submitted a claim on 26.05.2020 and thereafter, one M. Govindappa on behalf of Manipal Academy of Higher Education submitted representation stating that M. Govindappa sold the property to them, as such, there is rival claim. Hence, the case has been referred to the Court. It is also stated that the SLAO, KIADB through letter dated 13.10.2020 remitted Rs. 24,84,379/- to the Court as 8 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 per cheque No. 373683 dated 13.10.2020 after deducting 20% income tax and remitted the deducted tax amount of Rs. 6,21,095/- to the Income Tax Department Account with Corporation Bank, Race Course Road, Bengaluru as per cheque No. 373684 dated 13.10.2020. further claimed that in view of depositing of the amount, the respondent No.2 who is the beneficiary of acquisition will not be liable to pay interest on the awarded compensation amount and prayed to pass the orders in accordance with law without making BMRCL liable to pay interest on the awarded amount.
.8. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.2 Y.G. Keshava is examined as PW.1 and GPA holder of claimant No.3 is examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.33. The respondents neither examined nor produced any documents.
9
L.A.C. No.159/2020 .9. On the basis of the above, the points for consideration are that:
1) Whether the claimants 2 and 3 prove that they are the absolute owners of the acquired property and entitled for the compensation?
2) What order or award?
.10. Heard the arguments, perused the materials on record, on that basis my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .11. Point No.1 & 2: Undisputed fact in this case is that 126.33 Square Meters in Survey No. 73/2B of Yalahanka village have been acquired by the respondent No.1 vide Final Notification dated 29.11.2019 bearing No. CI 65/SPQ(E) 2019 and subsequently the claimants 2 and 3 claim right over the acquired property. Hence, 10 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 this case has been referred to this Court to decide the entitlement of rival claim of claimants 2 and 3 and apportionment of compensation.
.12. The claimant No.2 is the son of claimant No.1 M. Govindappa. The property in Survey No. 73/2B along with property in Survey No. 73/3 have been purchased by claimant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1989. Subsequently, the claimant No.1 M. Govindappa sold 32 guntas of land in Survey No.73/1 and 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B in favour of claimant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2003. The purchase of properties by claimant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1989 and sale of properties in Survey No. 73/3 and 73/2B in favour of claimant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2003 is an admitted and undisputed fact in this case.
11
L.A.C. No.159/2020 .13. The disputed fact in this case is that the claimant No.2 claims that the total extent of property in Survey No.73/2B is 11 guntas. Out of which, only 8 guntas of land have been sold by his father / claimant No.1 in favour of claimant No.3. Accordingly claims that the respondent No.1 acquired portion of the property in the remaining 3 guntas of land that has not been sold in favour of claimant No.3. Accordingly claims compensation involved in this case.
.14. Per contra, the specific case made out by the claimant No.3 is that 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B have been acquired for formation of bye-pass road / road by the Government vide Final Notification No.RD 165 AQB 86, dated 04.11.1986. Accordingly claimed that after acquisition of 3 guntas of land in the year 1986, the claimant No.1 was in actual possession and enjoyment of only 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B and the same has been sold in favour of claimant 12 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2003. Accordingly claimed that either claimant No.1 or claimant No.2 have not retained any property or they left with no property in Survey No. 73/2B, so that they cannot claim right over the compensation in this case.
.15. In view of the aforesaid rival contention, the claimants 1 and 2 must prove that the claimant No.1 has retained 3 guntas of land while selling the property in favour of claimant No.3 as on 08.10.2003 and the acquired property comes within the said 3 guntas of land, then only the claim of claimant No.2 can be accepted. Similarly the claimant No.3 has to prove that no property was left with claimant No.1 as on 08.10.2003 except 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B.
.16. The claimant No.1 M. Govindappa died as on 10.03.2006. The claimant No.2 claims right over the property of M. Govindappa as his successor/son. The 13 L.A.C. No.159/2020 claimant No.2 in support of his claim, examined himself as PW.1 by filing evidence affidavit and also got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. Similarly the representative of claimant No.3 examined as PW.2 by filing evidence affidavit and also got marked the documents at Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.33. The claimant No.3 also got marked the documents at Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24 by confronting the the same to claimant No.2/PW.1.
.17. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed dated 07.11.1989. As per the said sale deed, the claimant No.1 purchased the property in Survey No.73/3 measuring 27 guntas and Survey No. 73/2B measuring 11 guntas and in total purchased 38 guntas of land. The common boundary has been given to said two properties in the sale deed. As per the boundaries, two properties purchased by M. Govindappa in Sy. No. 73/3 and 73/2B is bounded with property of M. Govindappa on the East, Sipayi Veerappa on the West, property of 14 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 Thammanna Byrappa on the North and property of Narayana on the South. Ex.P.2 is the sale deed executed by claimant No.1 M. Govindappa in favour of claimant No.3. As per the schedule, the said M. Govindappa sold 27 guntas of land in Survey No.73/3 and 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B and 32 guntas of land in Survey No.73/1B. It is relevant to note that the common boundary had been given to all these properties. According to the sale deed, western boundary of the said 3 properties is Bengaluru Bye pass road. The said property is bounded with Yelahanka Ammanikere Gadi on the East, Survey No.72 on the North and Survey No.74 on the South. If the boundaries given to the sale deed at Ex.P.2 is accepted, the claimant No.1 has sold the property up to the road on West. Therefore, the claimant No.1 has not retained any property while executing the sale deed at Ex.P.2 on the western side.
15
L.A.C. No.159/2020 .18. It is also relevant to note that as per Ex.P.1 sale deed, the western boundary is the property of Sipayi Veerappa but there is no material whatsoever on record to substantiate the said fact. Further if at all the western boundary is the property of Sipayi Veerappa that boundary ought to have stated in the sale deed executed by the Claimant No.1 in favour of claimant No.3. Apart from that if at all the said western boundary is true and correct then the claimant No.1 in the Ex.P.2 sale deed ought to have mentioned the western boundary is his remaining 3 guntas of property in Survey No.73/2B but such case is not made out by the claimant No.2. The western boundary stated in the Ex.P.2 sale deed clearly reveals that the property sold by claimant No.1 in favour claimant No.3 is bounded with the road on the western side and purchased property of claimant No.3 had the road as boundary on the west. 16
L.A.C. No. 159/2020 .19. It is relevant to note that when the claimant No.2 claims that they have retained 3 guntas of land without selling the same to claimant No.3, they have to explain or it has to be explained by claimant No.2 that on which direction they have retained the property. Further if at all any such portion has been retained then that should have reflected in the boundaries given to the properties sold in favour of claimant No.3 in the property schedule of the sale deed as the remaining land of vendor-clamant No.1 who is the father of claimant No.2.
.20. Now It is relevant to note that the boundaries given to the acquired property under notification bearing No. CI 65 SPQ(E) 2019 dated 29.11.2019. The said notification has not got marked by any of the parties. However the LAO while making the reference produced attested copy of the said notification. The acquisition of property as per the said notification is not 17 L.A.C. No.159/2020 in dispute. Hence, the said document certainly can be considered by this Court. The Sl. No.30 of the said notification speaks about acquired property in Survey No. 73/2B measuring 126.33 Square Meters. As per the boundaries given in the notification, the said property is bounded with property in Survey No. 73/1 on the East and National Highways on the West, Private properties on the North and South. Therefore, the acquired property in Survey No.73/2B is bounded with National Highway on the West. It is relevant to note that the property has been acquired for formation of railway project. The said boundaries given in the notification is not in dispute and the same boundaries also stated in the General Award got marked by the parties at Ex.P.10. Therefore, the acquired property is bounded with road on the West. It is relevant to note that the claimant No.1 in the sale deed at Ex.P.1 sold 3 properties bearing Survey No.73/1, 73/2B and 73/3. 18
L.A.C. No. 159/2020 As per Ex.P.1 sale deed, eastern boundary of the property purchased by M. Govindappa is his own property. Therefore, recital as well as boundaries in the two sale deeds sufficiently shows that claimant No.1 has sold entire property in Survey No.73/2B as well as other properties in favour of claimant No.3.
.21. In this case, the claimant No.3 claims that 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B have been acquired for formation of road much prior to the purchase of property by claimant No.1. However, the said fact had been denied by the claimant No.2 during cross- examination. In support of the said contention, the claimant No.2 / PW.1 produced endorsement issued by the National Highway Authority dated 05.04.2021 wherein it is stated that no property has been acquired in Survey No. 73/2B as per notification bearing No. S.O.1874(E) dated 30.07.2010. The said document cannot be considered in support of the claim of claimant 19 L.A.C. No.159/2020 No.2 in view of the Gazette notification produced by the claimant No.3 at Ex.P.27 bearing No. RD 167 AQB 86 dated 04.11.1986. As per the said document, 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B has been notified for acquisition. The said document sufficiently shows that 3 guntas of land has been notified for acquisition in the year 1986 itself.
.22. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note the document got marked by the claimant No.2 at Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24. Ex.P.20 is the conversion order of the property in Survey No.73/2B along with other properties. The said conversion order was passed on the application submitted by M. Govindappa for conversion. The land in Survey No.73/2B along with other properties have been converted as non-agriculture vide order dated 16.01.2003. According to the said order, the claimant No.1 got converted 32 guntas of land in Survey No.73/1, only 8 guntas of land in Survey 20 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 No. 73/2B and 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/3, even in the conversion order, these 3 properties are having common boundaries which disclose that the western boundary is Bengaluru Bye Pass road. It is also not the case of claimant No.2 that though his father had applied for the conversion of entire 11 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B, the concerned authority passed conversion order only in respect of 8 guntas of land. The claimant No.2 ought to to have produced the application filed by his father for conversion of land that would have clarified the extent of land possessed by claimant No.1. Infact, the boundaries stated in the conversion order at Ex.P.20 corroborates with the boundaries stated in Ex.P.2 sale deed executed by claimant No.1 in favour of claimant No.3. If the said document is accepted, entire conversion lands at Ex.P.20 had been sold by claimant No.1 in favour of claimant No.3 without retaining any property 21 L.A.C. No.159/2020 particularly on the western side and the properties sold had the road on west. The said boundaries clearly reveals that the claimant no.1 had not retained any property on the west while selling the property to claimant No.3 and sold the property up to the road on west. The acquired property is also having the road as western boundary. Infact there is no material whatsoever on record to show that the claimant No.1 had retained or he had any property with him having the western boundary as road.
.23. It is relevant to note that report of the Tahsildar submitted for the conversion of land as non agricultural land is marked at Ex.P.23. In the said Ex.P.23 report, it is specifically observed by the Tahsildar that property in Survey No. 73/2B consisting of 11 guntas, out of which, 3 guntas of land has been gone for the formation of Bye-Pass Road. In view of the said fact the Tahsildar recommended for conversion of 8 22 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B. The said conversion order and recommendation have been made prior to purchase of property by claimant No.3.
.24. It is relevant to note that 3 guntas of land have been mutated in the name of claimant No.2 in view of the order dated 03.07.2007. It is relevant to note that claimant No.2 has not produced any Record of Rights prior to 2007. There is no material on record to show that after acquisition notification of the year 1986 whether 11 guntas of land was continued in the name of M. Govindappa till he has sold the property in favour of claimant No.3 or till he applied the land for conversion is not made known to the court.
.25. It is relevant to note that M. Govindappa applied for conversion of land totally measuring 1 acre 27 guntas including 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B. If at all 3 guntas of land was in his possession in Survey No.73/2B, why the said 3 guntas 23 L.A.C. No.159/2020 of land has not got converted by him as non-agricultural land is without any explanation. When substantial portion of the properties have been converted by leaving meager 3 guntas of land without conversion creates serious doubt about retaining of 3 guntas of land by claimant No.1 M. Govindappa. Infact, it probablise the case of claimant No.3 that 3 guntas of land have been already acquired for formation of road on the western side. As stated earlier, the sale deed at Ex.P.2 nowhere discloses that in which direction the claimant No.1 has retained 3 guntas of land while executing the sale deed at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.24 sketch prepared by the Taluka Surveyor in order to get conversion order also discloses that no property had been retained by claimant No.1 on the western side of Survey No. 73/2B. Undisputedly 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B sold in favour of claimant No.3. It is relevant to note that it is not the case of the claimant No.2 that he is claiming property 24 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 either on the southern side or northern side in Survey No. 73/2B. Therefore, viewed from any angle, claim of the claimant No.2 is that his father has retained 3 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B while executing the sale deed can not be accepted and absolutely there is no material on record to show that the claimant No,1 was the owner in possession of 11 guntas of land in Survey No. 73/2B when the sale deed was executed at Ex.P.2. The material on record leads to draw only one inference that the claimant had only 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B and the vendor of the claimant No.1 had no title to sell 11 guntas of land as on 07.11.1989 as the 3 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B was notified for acquisition dated 04.11.1986 as per Ex.P.27. Apart from that as per corrigendum notification at Ex.P.33 discloses that the acquired property in Survey No.73/2B belongs to claimant No.3.
25
L.A.C. No.159/2020 .26. The material placed before the Court including boundaries to the respective sale deeds along with conversion order, notification and award shows that the property acquired in Survey No. 73/2B belongs to claimant No.3. The purchase of property by claimant No.3 is also not in dispute. Under such circumstances, it has to be accepted that claimant No.3 proved that father of claimant No.2 i.e., claimant No.1 had not retained 3 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B and he had only 8 guntas of land that has been sold to claimant No.3.
.27. The material on record sufficiently reveals that 3 guntas of land in Sy. No.73/2B was acquired for formation of road much prior to the purchase of land by claimant No.1 under Ex.P.1 sale deed. Therefore it has to be inferred that though the Ex.P.1 sale deed discloses the extent of property as 11 guntas in Survey No.73/2B, the actual extent was only 8 guntas. Accordingly the 26 L.A.C. No. 159/2020 claimant No.1 had applied for the conversion of 8 guntas of land in Survey No.73/2B and the said 8 guntas of land had been sold by claimant No1 in favour of claimant No.3. Therefore the claimant No.2 has failed to prove that his father/claimant No.1 had retained 3 guntas of land while selling the property to claimant No.3 and thereby failed to prove his title over the acquired property. Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in the negative and point No.2 is in the affirmative.
.28. Point No.3: In view of my findings on the above points 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby partly allowed.
The Claimant No.3 Dayananda
Pai Manipal Academe of Higher
Education is entitled to receive
compensation in respect of the land
27
L.A.C. No.159/2020
bearing Sy. No.73/2B measuring
126.33 Sq. Meters of Yalahanka
village, Bengaluru North Taluka along with statutory benefits.
The above claimant No.3 shall have to execute an indemnity bond with one surety, undertaking to re-
deposit the compensation amount either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount they are going to receive in this case.
The reference against claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 is hereby dismissed.
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 16 th day of September, 2025.) (Padma Prasad) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.28
L.A.C. No. 159/2020 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : Y.G. Keshava
P.W.2 : Lingaraja K.M.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 07.11.1989
Ex.P.2 Certified Copy of sale deed dated
08.10.2003
Ex.P.3 RTCs ( 15 in numbers)
Ex.P.4 & 5 Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.6 Deputy Commissioner of M. Govindappa Ex.P.7 & 8 Mutation Ex.P.9 Tax receipt Ex. P.10 General award Ex. P. 11 Endorsement Ex. P. 12 Award notice Ex. P. 13 Letter address by KIADB to Court to deposit the amount Ex. P. 14 Endorsement Ex. P. 15 Notice issued by KIADB to claimant Ex. P. 16 Notice issued by claimant No.2 to SLAO with regard to disbursement of compensation amount Ex. P. 17 Order in MR 1/2007-08 29 L.A.C. No.159/2020 Ex.P.18 Endorsement Ex.P.19 Endorsement along with notification and sketch Ex.P.20 Land Conversion order Ex.P.21 Challan Ex.P.22 Notice Ex.P.23 Tahsildar report Ex.P.24 Sketch Ex.P.25 Authorization letter Ex.P.26 GPA Ex.P.27 Gazette notification dated 04.11.1986 Ex.P.28 Sketch issued by NHA Ex.P.29 Gazette notification dated 29.08.2003 Ex.P.30 Gazette notification dated 30.07.2010 Ex.P.31 Sketch issued by BMRCL Ex.P.32 Atlas in respect of Sy. No. 73/2B of Yalahanka village Ex.P.33 Gazette notification
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Nil (Padma Prasad), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore. 30 L.A.C. No. 159/2020