Bangalore District Court
Dhandapani D vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 April, 2025
1
L.A.C. No. 289/2019
KABC010274782019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri. Padma Prasad, B.A.Law.LL.B.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.289/2019 :
CLAIMANTS:
1) Sri. D. Dhandapani
S/o late. Doreswamy Gownder
R/at Honnenahalli village
Yelahanka-1 Hobli & Taluka
Bengaluru District.
2) Sri. Muniraju
S/o late. Nagappa
No.38, Honnenahalli
Rajanukunte post
Yelahanka Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(Sri.N. Venkatesh, Advocate for C-1)
(Sri.B. Ravindranath, Advocate for C-2)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT:
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Limited, 3rd Floor
2
L.A.C. No. 289/2019
'Samparka Soudha'
Opposite to Orion Mall
Dr. Rajkumar Road
Rajajinagara
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(Sri. BA, Advocate)
: JUDGMENT :
The respondent/SLAO, Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru, has made this reference under Section 77(2) R/W Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'RFCTLA Act' for short) for apportionment of compensation amount.
.2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No.14/2 measuring 0.01.12 guntas of Honnenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District has been acquired for the purpose of widening and improvement of SH-09 Road at 74.35 Km. Preliminary notification was issued on 24.12.2014. Final notification was published in the Gazette on 3 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 15.06.2018. The award was passed on 30.06.2018. The L.A.O. has fixed the compensation of Rs.44,62,241/-. As the Appeal No. 1344/2007 is pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in respect of the said property is pending for adjudication, the L.A.O. has sent the reference to this Court and has deposited a sum of Rs.44,62,241/-. The said amount has been kept in F.D. in the Karnataka Bank Limited, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru.
.3. After receipt of reference, this court issued notices to the claimants 1 and 2 and claimants have entered appearance through their counsels and filed separate claim statement.
.4. Claimant No.1 - D. Dhandapani has filed claim statement stating that he is an absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No.14, new Sy. No.14/2 measuring 20 guntas out of 4 acres 7 guntas as the same is purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2008. Accordingly, on the basis of the said sale deed, the property has been changed to his name and 4 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 hence he is an absolute owner of the said property. The claimant No.1 further stated about issuance of Preliminary Notification as well as Final Notification, passing of award, submission of records to the respondent and also the reference made by the LAO to the Court. The claimant No.1 further claims that the rival claimant inspite of knowing the title of claimant No.1 over the acquired property filed objections before the SLAO and stated about the case in O.S. No.833/1996 and RFA No.757/2006 as well as disposal of the said cases. It is also stated that in view of pendency of the appeal No. 1334/2007 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, the disbursement of compensation with hold by the LAO and the said appeal has been disposed off on 07.02.2020 and accordingly claimed that the rival claimant Muniraju S/o Nagappa has no right, title and interest over the acquired property. Accordingly prayed to release the entire compensation amount to the claimant No.1.
5
L.A.C. No. 289/2019 .5. The rival claimant ( claimant No.2) Muniraju filed claim statement claiming that the property in Sy. No. 14 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas belongs to him. Further the rival claimant claims that on the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the father of the rival claimant namely Nagappa filed the Form No. 7A application before the Land Tribunal for grant of the said property and also filed a suit in O.S. No.833/1996. Further it is stated that the judgment passed in O.S. No.833/1996 has been challenged in RFA No.757/2006 and further claims that the finding in O.S. No. 833/1996 is not attained finality. Further it is stated that in view of Sections 133 and 134 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the tenanted lands vested with the Government. Further it is stated that the father of rival claimant Nagappa was a tenant of the property in Sy. No. 14 and he is entitled to be declared as occupant of the said property and also claimed that the occupancy right over the said property is still pending and also claimed that vendor of the claimant No.1 has no right, 6 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 title and interest over the acquired property to execute the sale deed and accordingly claimed that the rival claimant is entitled for entire compensation.
.6. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.1 is examined as PW.1. The rival claimant Muniraju is examined as PW.2. The documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45.
.7. On the basis of the above, the points for consideration are that:
1) Whether the claimant No.1 proves that he is an absolute owner of the acquired property and entitled for the compensation?
2) Whether the rival claimant (claimant No.2) Muniraju proves that he is an absolute owner of the acquired property and entitled for the compensation?
3) What Order or Award?
.8. Heard the arguments, the claimant No.1 as well as rival claimant filed written arguments, perused the materials on record, on that basis my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative 7 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 Point No.2: In the negative Point No.3: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .9. Points 1 and 2: This is a reference made by the respondent to the Court under Section 77(2) R/W Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for apportionment of compensation.
.10. The specific case made out by the claimant No.1 is that he is an absolute owner of the acquired property as he has purchased the same from D. Vamanamurthy through sale deed dated 15.12.2008. Accordingly, he claimed that he has acquired valid right, title and interest over the said property. Per contra, the claim of the rival claimant Muniraju is that the property in Sy. No. 14 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at Honnenahalli village is under the cultivation of his father and grand father. The rival claimant further 8 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 claimed that on the advent of amendment to the Land Reforms Act in the year 1997, his father Nagappa has filed Form No. 7(A) application for grant of occupancy rights. However, the Tribunal rejected the said application and also claimed that his father filed the suit in O.S. No. 833/1996 for partition of the their family properties including the property involved in this case that has been dismissed and the said dismissal of the suit has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 757/2006 and claimed that the dispute is not reached its finality. On the basis of tenancy claim over the property in Sy.No.14, the rival claimant claimed that his father had right over the acquired property and hence he is entitled for compensation in this case. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid contention of the parties, it is clear that claimant No.1 claiming right, title and interest over the property on the basis of the registered sale deed. Per contra, the claim of rival claimant Muniraju is that he is a tenant of the acquired property, as such, he has right 9 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 over the said property. With this background, the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court has to be appreciated in order to decide the title over the acquired property as well as apportionment of compensation.
.11. On perusal of the records, it is found that the property in Sy. No.14 originally belongs to one Krishnamurthy and the said Krishnamurthy acquired the said property as per the grant made in his favour under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act in a case bearing No. 52/1958-59 dated 29.11.1964. The grant of property bearing Sy. No. 14 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas in favour of Krishnamurthy under the provision of Inam Abolition Act is not in dispute and the said fact is admitted by both parties. Further the documents produced by the claimant No.1 also shows that the said property has been granted to late. Krishnamurthy. Therefore, it is clear that the property involved in this case is originally belongs to Krishnamurthy. 10
L.A.C. No. 289/2019 .12. As per the available records; after the death of Krishnamurthy, the said property has been succeeded by his brother D. Vamanamurthy and accordingly the property has been changed to the name of D. Vamanamurthy under inheritance in IHC 5/1989-90. Of course, the rival claimant disputed the change of khatha in the name of D. Vamanamurthy but that contention cannot be accepted as the rival claimant claiming right over the property on the basis of the tenancy not on the basis of inheritance. When the rival claimant is not claiming right over the property on the basis of the inheritance, certainly he cannot dispute the inheritance of D. Vamanamurthy to the estate of Krishnamurthy. The succession to the property of Krishnamurthy by D.Vamanamuthy and others can be disputed only by the legal heirs of Krishnamurthy or the persons who are having the right of inheritance to the property of Late D.Krishnamurthy. In the case on hand, nobody is disputing the inheritance of D. Vamanamurthy to the estate of Krishnamurthy. At this 11 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 juncture it is relevant to note that the father of rival claimant namely Nagappa in the application filed in Form No.7A admitted that Vamana Murthy is the owner of property in Sy.No.14. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that after the death of Krishnamurthy, his brother D. Vamanamurthy has inherited to the properties of Krishnamurthy.
.13. The claimant No.1 made out a case that he has purchased the property from D. Vamanamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2008. In support of the said contention, the claimant No.1 has produced the registered sale deed at Ex.P.1. The said document sufficiently shows that claimant No.1 purchased the property for valid sale consideration from D. Vamanamurthy. Accordingly, on the basis of the said sale deed, the property purchased by claimant No.1 in Sy. No.14 has been changed to his name. Therefore, this document prima facie shows that the claimant No.1 purchased the said property under a registered sale deed and as per the recital in the said sale deed, he has 12 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 been put into the possession of the property purchased by him from his vendor.
.14. The specific claim of the rival claimant Muniraju is that the property in Sy. No. 14 originally tenanted land. As such, this property vested with the Government. The rival claimant's father being a tenant is entitled for the grant of occupancy right over the said property in Sy. No.14.
.15. The rival claimant specifically claimed that his father filed an application for grant of occupancy right in Form No.7(A). It is relevant to note that the Form No.7(A) came into existence in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the year 1997 vide Karnataka Land Reforms and Amendment Act 1997 and Form No.7(A) inserted by notification No. RD116 LRF 98 dated 31.10.1998 w.e.f. 02.11.1998. Earlier to this amendment and introducing of Form 7A, the tenant who is claiming a tenancy right over the agricultural land has to file an application in Form No.7. Undisputedly the father of the rival 13 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 claimant namely Nagappa has not filed any application claiming occupancy rights on the basis of the tenancy in Form No.7 immediately after the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act that came into force w.e.f 01.03.1974. The rival claimant's father claimed occupancy right independently only after the year 1998.
Infact, there is no explanation why the father of the rival claimant namely Nagappa has not filed any application for grant of occupancy right in respect of the property in Sy. No.14 when the Land Reforms Act came into force.
.16. In this case, the rival claimant produced copy of the Form No. 7(A) application filed by his father as per Ex.P.43. As per the said document, the Form No. 7(A) application filed by the father of the rival claimant as on 30.01.1999, wherein, he has shown one Krishnamurthy and D. Vamanamurthy as land owners of the property and also claimed that the said Nagappa was a tenant of the said property for more than 50 years. Admittedly the said application is filed as on 30.01.1999. If the said contention is accepted, the 14 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 claim of tenancy by Nagappa is from 1959. Admittedly this property has been re-granted to D. Krishnamurthy in the year 1962. As such, if really this Nagappa was a tenant of the property in Sy. No. 14, certainly he should have some documents to show his tenancy over the said property. Except the Form No. 7(A) application as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the father of the rival claimant namely Nagappa was a tenant of the acquired property.
.17. In this case, the rival claimant also produced the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Ex.P.42. As per the said document, the application submitted by Nagappa has been registered in a case LRF (7A) 176/1999-2000. The Land Tribunal dismissed the claim of Nagappa who is the father of rival claimant vide judgment dated 17.11.2006.
.18. It is just and necessary to note some observation made in the said judgment. The Land Tribunal specifically observed that there is no material 15 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 on record to show that the property in Sy. No. 14 has been vested with the Government and on that basis held that the land in Sy. No. 14 was not at all a tenanted land. The aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal has been challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1334/2007 wherein the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the order of Land Tribunal by giving additional reasons. It is also relevant to note that certified copy of the order passed in Appeal No. 1334/2007 by the Karnantaka Appellate Tribunal has been produced at Ex.P.38. In the said judgment at page No. 13 last paragraph and page No. 14 it is observed that Col. 12(2) of RTC extract of property in Sy. No. 14 discloses that one Koppada Baiyanna is a tenant of the said property from 1965 to 1970. Further it is observed that the said Baiyanna filed a Form No. 7 application or application for grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy. No. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 in LRF 1972/75-76. The said application also dismissed by the Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal has confirmed in the 16 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 appeal No. 1334/2007. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the said Koppada Baiyanna has not claimed the tenancy right in respect of the property in Sy.No14 though his name is found in column No12 (2) of the RTC extract. In fact the name of Nagappa is nowhere found in any of the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.14.
.19. The copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 833/1996 has been produced by the claimant No.1. The filing of O.S. No. 833/1996 is also an admitted fact. The relationship of rival claimant along with Nagappa and others has been described in para No.2 of the said judgment at page No.3. As per the said observation one Chinnaku @ Chinnanna had got 3 sons namely K. Baiyanna, Papaiah and Chinnappa. The said Baiyanna had two wives namely Channamma and Papamma. The said Channamma had no issues and through Papamma the said K. Baiyanna got 2 sons and a daughter by names Chikkamuniyappa, Muniraju and Chinnamma. The said Nagappa is the son of Papaiah. If that contention is accepted, K. Baiyanna is the elder paternal 17 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 uncle of Nagappa and the said Biayanna had one more brother by name Chinnappa. If the contention of the claimant No.1 is accepted, then all these three sons namely Baiyanna, Papaiah and Chinnappa had right over the property in Sy. No. 14 but there is no material whatsoever on record to show that the said K. Baiyanna or his successors have claimed tenancy right over the property in Sy. No. 14 till this date. Admittedly when the Land Reforms Act came into force, the said Baiyanna was alive and he has filed an application for grant of occupancy right excluding the property in Sy. No. 14 of Honnenahalli village. This fact also shows that this property in Sy. No. 14 was not vested with the Government when the Land Reforms Act came into force.
.20. Apart from that the observation found in the said judgment in O.S. No. 833/1996 at page No. 28 shows that initially the father of rival claimant namely Nagappa was residing at Adevishwanathapura and thereafter the said Nagappa came to Honnenahalli for 18 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 residence purpose. Infact the said specific observation in the judgment sufficiently discloses that the rival claimant or his father was not at all in possession of the property in Sy. No. 14 of Honenahalli village at any point of time. Further it is also observed that all the family properties at Honnenahalli village have gone to the share of Baiyanna and all the properties at Adevishwanathapura has gone to the share of Nagappa. When such is the case, the claim of rival claimant that his father was possession and cultivating the property in Sy.No.14 of Honenahalli Village certainly cannot be accepted. Apart from that, as stated earlier, the rival claimant Muniraju has not produced any prima facie evidence such as rent receipts or lease deed for having been obtained the property in Sy. No. 14 of Honenahalli Village on lease and cultivating the said property on the basis of tenancy. If at all any of the family members of Nagappa or Baiyanna were in possession and cultivation of the property as tenant, they should pay the rent and there must be some documents to that effect. If at all 19 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 there was a tenant and the landlord relationship between Nagappa and Krishnamurthy or D. Vamanamurthy or between Baiyanna and Krishnamurthy there should be various documents available to substantiate the claim of the tenancy such as rent payment receipt and levy receipt etc. The rival claimant has not produced any material on record to substantiate tenancy claim of his father with Krishnamurthy or with Vamanamurthy. As such, the Competent Land Tribunal after holding the enquiry come to the definite conclusion that the rival claimant or his father failed to establish the tenancy right over the acquired property as well as they failed to prove their actual possession and cultivation of the property in Sy.No.14 of the Honnenahalli Village and the said order of Land Tribunal has been confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the material on record sufficiently shows that the said Nagappa is not at all a tenant of the acquired property.
20
L.A.C. No. 289/2019 .21. As observed by the Land Tribunal as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the rival claimant has not placed any material either before the Land Tribunal or before this Court to show that the acquired property was vested with the Government as on 01.03.1974 and also failed to prove the possession over the property in Sy.No.14 of Honenahalli Village prior to 01.03.1974 and the said possession has been continued till amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the year 1997.
.22. One of the criteria to be considered to the application filed in Form No. 7(A) of the Land Reforms Act in view of the amendment to the Section 77(A) of the Land Reforms Act is that the land must be vested with the Government as on 01.03.1974 and as per Section 77(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Deputy Commissioner or authorized officer to grant land to individuals who were in actual possession and cultivation of land before 01.03.1974, but failed to register occupancy rights within the specified period, and continued in possession until the 1997 amendment 21 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Absolutely there is no material on record to show that the rival claimant or his father Nagappa were in actual possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy. No. 14. It is the specific observation by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1334/2007 at para No.9 that there is no material on record to show that the property in Sy. No. 14 has been vested with the Government as on 01.03.1974 as well as the rival claimant or his father is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property.
.23. It is also observed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid order that the name of Koppada Baiyanna was found in column No.12 (2) of the RTC extracts as cultivator till 1970. Admittedly the said Koppada Baiyanna was alive when the land Reforms Act came into force as on 01.03.1974. The said Koppada Baiyanna though claimed the occupancy right in respect of several properties but not claimed any tenancy right over the property in Sy. No.14 of Honnenahalli village. Therefore, viewed from any angle, 22 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 absolutely there is no material on record to accept the claim of rival claimant that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property when the to the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act 1997 came into force. It is also relevant to note the entries found in Col. No.10 of the RTC extract. In the year 1989-90 the name of D. Vamanamurthy has been entered on the basis of inheritance vide IHC 5/89-90. The said fact also shows that the vendor of the claimant No.1 was in actual possession and enjoyment of the acquired property.
.24. In view of these facts, it is clear that the rival claimant has failed to prove that the father of the rival claimant namely Nagappa was a tenant of the acquired property when the Land Reforms Act came into force or thereafter till the amendment to Land Reforms Act in the year 1997. Per contra, the materials placed before the Court sufficiently shows that the acquired property belongs to Krishnamurthy and after his death, his brother D. Vamanamurthy and others succeeded to the property in Sy. No.14. Thereafter, the successor of 23 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 Krishnamurthy and D. Vamanamurthy sold the property to claimant No.1 for valid consideration. On the basis of the said sale deed, the property has been mutated in the names of purchasers and they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the property which is evident from the electricity bills and other documents. Under such circumstances, certainly the claimant No.1 is entitled for compensation in respect of acquired property involved in this case. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative.
.25. 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 by the respondent/SLAO under Section 77(2) R/W Section 64 of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 is hereby partly allowed.
Claimant No.1 D. Dhandapani is entitled for compensation in-respect of Sy.No. 14/2 measuring 0.01.12 guntas of Honnenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, 24 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District along with admissible statutory benefits.
Claimant No.1 shall has to execute
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 he is going to receive in this case.
The reference made by the respondent/SLAO in respect of rival claimant (claimant No.2) Muniraju 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 5th day of April, 2025.) (Padma Prasad) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 D. Dhandapani P.W.2 Muniraju
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex. P. 1 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 15.12.2008 Ex. P. 2 MR 25 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 Ex. P. 3 RTC Ex. P. 4 Award Ex. P. 5 Representation Ex. P. 6 Award notice Ex. P. 7 Representation Ex. P. 8 Notice Ex. P. 9 Judgment in RFA No. 757/2006 Ex. P. 10 Endorsement Ex. P. 11 Letter dated 20.08.2019 Ex. P. 12 Order in appeal No. 1334/2007 Ex. P. 13 Order passed by Additional Spl. Deputy Commissioner of Inams in Case No.52/1958-59.
Ex. P. 14 Endorsement.
Ex. P. 15 Index of Land.
Ex. P. 16 Record of Rights.
Ex. P. 17 RTCs Ex. P. 18 Order copy in LRF No.7(A) 176/99-2000 Ex. P. 19 Certified Copy of Form No.7 in LRF No.(7A) 176/1999-2000 Ex. P. 20 Certified Copy of order in LRF No.(7A) 176/1999-2000 Ex. P. 21 Property Tax paid receipt Ex. P. 22 Electricity bills Ex. P. 23 RTCs Ex. P. 24 Encumbrance certificate Ex. P. 25 Positive photographs to 34 Ex. P. 35 CD in respect of Ex.P.25 to 34 Ex. P. 36 Certified copy of the Appeal Memorandum 26 L.A.C. No. 289/2019 in Appeal No.1334/2007 before KAT.
Ex. P. 37 Certified copy of the Order sheet in Appeal No. 1334/2007.
Ex. P. 38 Certified copy of the order passed in Appeal No. 1334/2007.
Ex. P. 39 Certified copy of the RTC Extract. (13 Sheets) Ex. P. 40 & Certified copy of the endorsement dated 03- 41 12-2007.
Ex. P. 42 Certified copy of the order in LRF (7A) 176/1999-00.
Ex. P. 43 Certified copy of the Form No. 7A application.
Ex. P. 44 Certified copy of the Writ petition in W.P. 4796/2022.
Ex. P. 45 Certified copy of the order sheet in W.P. 4796/2022.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil (Padma Prasad), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore.
27 L.A.C. No. 289/2019