Karnataka High Court
Shambulingaiah vs The Special Land on 23 September, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34762
MSA No. 5 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2015 (LA)
BETWEEN:
1. SHAMBULINGAIAH
S/O SHAMBHULINGAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1(A) PUTTARAJU,
S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
1(B) PAPANNA
S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
Digitally signed by B LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE,
K VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. NAGARAJ R.C., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSORE.
2. UDDANDAIAH,
S/O BASAVAIAH, SINCE DEAD,
RESPONDENT NO.2(A) IS
LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.2.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34762
MSA No. 5 of 2015
2(A) BASAVARAJU,
S/O LINGAIAH,
S/O LATE UDDANDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK.
2(A)(1) CHIKKATHAYAMMA
WIFE OF LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O. LALITHAPURAM
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK.
2(A)(2) B. SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O LALITHAPURAM
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK.
3. H. RAJAPPA,
S/O CHAMAIHANA HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI P.S. RANGANATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(A);
NOTICE TO R-2 A(1) AND R-2 A(2) SERVED;
NOTICE TO R-3 SERVED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MYSORE IN L.A.C. APPEAL NO.114/2013 DATED
04.12.2014 AND THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MYSORE IN L.A.C.NO.88/2006, IN THE INTREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:34762
MSA No. 5 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The judgment and award passed by IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Mysore in LAC Appeal No. 114/2013 and the judgment and award passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore in LAC No.88/2006 are impugned herein.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.16/3 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas situated at Lilithadripura Village Varna Hobli Mysuru Taluk, originally stood in the name of 2nd respondent. After his death his son i.e., respondent No.3 succeeded to the land in question. The 3rd respondent had mortgaged eastern portion to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas in favour of appellant's father. Thereafter, he conveyed the subject land in favour of the father of the appellant through registered sale deed dated 1.8.1974. However the subject land was described as Sy.No.108/2.
3. The SLAO, MUDA acquired the subject property in the year 1977 for formation of sites and determined the compensation amount at Rs.3.00.000/-. There were rival claimants for receiving the compensation amount determined. The SLAO referred the dispute to the jurisdictional civil court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent No.2 entered as an objector and claimed the compensation amount to be released in his favor based on inheritance. The appellant claimed the compensation as absolute owner of the subject land under the registered sale deed.
-4-NC: 2023:KHC:34762 MSA No. 5 of 2015
4. The Trial Court in LAC No.88/2006 after hearing and appreciation of evidence rejected the claim of the respondent No.2 and the Appellant and ordered that grandfather of respondent No.2 is entitled for the compensation amount. On an appeal filed by the appellant under section 54(1) in LAC Appeal No. 114/2013, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the Trial Court's judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment/s, the appellant is before this court.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the land conveyed to the appellant under the registered sale deed dated 27.07.1972 is the land which is the subject matter of acquisition.
7. Admittedly, the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the appellant is not disputed by either of the parties. The appellant claiming that there was an error in describing the survey number of the land in the registered sale deed submitted an application for correction in the revenue records before the Tahsildar. The Revenue Inspector conducted a survey of the subject land and on the basis of boundaries mentioned in the deed and actual boundaries, and upon enquiry made with the people in the village, rectified the mutation entry in revenue records as Sy.No.16/3 measuring 1 acre and 8 guntas which is evident from the documents at Ex.8,9,11 and 22.
-5-NC: 2023:KHC:34762 MSA No. 5 of 2015
8. Ex.R6 is the certified copy of the sale deed. On perusal, it indicates a mortgage deed was executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the appellant towards security for having borrowed an amount of Rs.500/- to meet his financial needs. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed tallies with the sketch reports and the Mahazar report prepared by the revenue authorities after due notice to the Respondent No.2.
9. In the cross examination, respondent No.2, has admitted the fact of mortgage deed executed in the year 1972 in respect of Sy.No.16/3 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, but has denied the execution of the registered sale deed.
10. Ex.R5 is the RTC extract which indicates the extent of Sy.No.16/3 as 2 acres and 8 guntas. Ex.R20 and Ex.R4 are the RTC extracts which indicates the extent of Sy.No.16/3 as 1 acre.
11. Ex.R22 is the recommendation made by the land acquisition officer to the Tahsildar stating that though Sy.No.108/2 is mentioned in the sale deed, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed relates to Sy.No.16/3.
12. Therefore, on considering the exhibits and evidence on record, it clearly establishes that the survey number in the registered sale deed is wrongly described as Sy.No.108/2 instead Sy.No.16/3. The boundaries mentioned in the deed are in consonance with the survey sketch at Ex.R11 and the Mahazar report at Ex.9 and Ex.22. Also the intent of the sale -6- NC: 2023:KHC:34762 MSA No. 5 of 2015 deed was to convey the land with the boundaries mentioned therein, however mere Typographical error in mentioning the survey number does not preclude the beneficiary to deprive his title over the property unless it is proved contrarily. It is also a settled law that boundaries prevail when there is discrepancy in the survey number and extent of land.
13. The respondent No.3 has accepted the execution of mortgage deed in favor of the appellant in the year 1972. The respondent claims the survey number mentioned in the sale deed to be in respect of some other property which implies that the execution of the registered sale deed is not challenged. In the absence of any material that the survey number of the land described in the sale deed exists, it is inferred that the land which is the subject matter of acquisition was conveyed to the appellant under the registered sale deed.
14. In my considered view, the error in wrongly describing the survey number should not be an obstacle for depriving the appellant in claiming compensation. The Point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned Judgment and award are modified and the appellants are held entitled to compensation amount of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:34762 MSA No. 5 of 2015 Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest if any towards acquisition of 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.16/3 acquired by the 1st respondent under the notification dated 24.7.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
iii) To this extent the impugned Judgment and award stands modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR