http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6587-6588 of 2000

PETITIONER: SHARADAMMA

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2007

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

C.K. THAKKER, J.

       The present appeals arise out of a common  judgment and order passed by the High Court of  Karnataka at Bangalore on October 12, 1998 in MFA  Nos. 1387 of 1994 and 1376 of 1994. By the said order,  the High Court confirmed the order passed by the  Reference Court on May 31, 1993 in LAC Nos. 33 of  1980 and 76 of 1980.          To appreciate the grievance of the appellant, it is  necessary to state few facts.         The appellant Smt. Sharadamma, widow of B.M.  Venkataswamappa is the owner of land bearing Survey  Nos. 112 and 113 situate at village Byappanahalli.  Survey No. 112 admesures 2 acres while Survey No. 113  admeasures 1 acre and 1 gunta. The land was sought to  be acquired for expansion of New Government Electric  Factory (’NGEF’ for short), Bangalore. A preliminary  notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was issued on  March 26, 1965. The claimant demanded an amount of  Rs.20.00 per square yard for the land. The Land  Acquisition Officer, by an award dated October 25, 1965  awarded compensation of Rs.8,000 per acre. It is not in  dispute that possession of land was taken over on  November 16, 1965. Since the claimant was not   satisfied with the amount offered by the Land  Acquisition Officer vide his award referred to above, she  sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act and the  Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District vide his order  dated May 31, 1972 enhanced the compensation and  awarded  Rs.20.00 per square yard less Rs.3,000 per  acre in view of the  fact that though the land was having  potentiality to conversion for non agricultural use, no  such order of conversion had been passed and it had  come in evidence that conversion charge was Rs.3,000  per acre. Thus the claimant’s contention was upheld and  the compensation was awarded. The authorities,  however, were aggrieved by the enhancement and  approached the High Court by filing appeals. The High  Court noted that the Reference Court relied upon earlier  award but it was challenged and the case was before this  Court (Supreme Court).  The matter was thus in a ’fluid  situation’. The High Court, therefore, thought it proper to  set aside the order passed by the Reference Court and to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

remand the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance  with law. It accordingly set aside the order passed by the  Reference Court granting liberty to the parties to adduce  further evidence and directed the Reference Court to  decide it afresh in accordance with law. After the  remand, the Reference Court once again considered the  matter on merits. By that time, the matter had already  been decided by this Court in Special Land Acquisition  Officer, Bangalore v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, (1985) 1 SCC  469. The Reference Court, relying on B.M. Krishnamurthy  held that the claimant was entitled to compensation at  the rate of Rs.18,000 per acre and the order was passed  accordingly. The said order was confirmed by the High  Court which has been challenged in the present appeals.         Leave was granted by this Court on November 17,  2000 and the matter has been placed for final hearing.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties.         The learned counsel for the appellant contended  that the Reference Court had committed an error in not  awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square  yard which had been done earlier by an order dated July  31, 1972. It was submitted that no doubt the High Court  set aside the said order passed by the Reference Court  and remitted the matter with a direction to decide it  afresh, keeping in view the fact that a similar order was  challenged by the State Authorities and the matter was  pending in this Court. But it was submitted that the  matter was decided by this Court on January 22, 1985  in B.M. Krishnamurthy and the said decision clearly  helps the claimant. The Reference Court was, therefore,  not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.18,000 per  acre. The High Court also committed similar error and  hence the order passed by Reference Court and  confirmed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by  allowing the appeals.         The learned counsel for the respondents, however,  supported the order of the Reference Court and of the  High Court. According to him, the earlier order passed  by the Reference Court in 1972 could not be taken into  consideration since it was set aside by the High Court.   There is no error in the impugned order which deserves  interference by this Court.         Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our  opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed.         It is no doubt true that the order passed by the  Reference Court on July 31, 1972 awarding  compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.20 per  square yard was set aside by the High Court in the light  of subsequent development and challenge to a similar  award before this Court.  But it cannot be overlooked  that while dealing with the matter and considering the  claim of the claimant, the Reference Court considered  the situation and location of the land.           

       In paragraph 10, the Court observed: "10.      The only controversial question is  about the market value of the lands acquired.  To find out this aspect, the location of the  land has to be borne in mind. The lands  involved in these cases are in S.No. 112, 113  and 26 of Byappanahalli. Of them, it is  admitted that S.No.26 is behind NGEF and  S.No. 112 and 113 are in front of NGEF. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

evidence shows that NGEF had been built  sometime prior to the acquisition of these  lands. S.No. 112 and 113 are abutting  National High Way namely Bangalore-Madras  Road and on one side these two S.Nos. they  have another road leading from Bangalore- Madras road to N.G.E.F. and some other  villages. The evidence shows that just  opposite to S.No.112 and 113 is the Aero  Engine Factory. Its location is made clear  from the village map Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-25.  The evidence placed before this Court also  shows that these lands are near the  Corporation limits.  There is a Isolation  Hospital near the acquired land. It is also in  evidence that on the northern side of  S.No.112 and 113 is the Bangalore-Madras  Railway line. It is also in evidence that there  are railway quarters near the acquired land.  The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he had  formed a lay out in S.No. 10 of Byappanahalli  which is also shown to be very close to the  acquired land. There is also evidence that  Byappanahalli railway station and  Marshalling yard are very near the acquired  land, particularly near S.No.26. The evidence  shows that lot of building activity has taken  place in and around about the acquired land.  This would show that the lands acquired had  good transport facilities. The fact that number  of quarters are also found nearby would also  indicate that the lands acquired were also  suited for building purposes".

Keeping in view the site of the land, the Court  observed that it would clearly prove that having regard to  the location of the lands, they were suited for industrial  purpose. It was also observed that the fact that the lands  were ideally situated for industries was ’practically  conceded’ by Syed Abdul Khader, witness examined by  the respondents as RW1\027the Land Acquisition Officer,  who made the position clear in his General Valuation  Memorandum. The Reference Court also noticed that  Survey Nos. 112 and 113 had a frontage to the main  road. The claimant had placed material to show that  some lands which were very near to the acquired lands  had been requisitioned for the Military and the market  price of such land was Rs.27 per square yard. The Court  also considered the location of land bearing Survey No.  14 of Benniganahalli (which was the subject-matter of  challenge in B.M. Krishnamurthy). It was in interior part  and did not have a frontage unlike the land of Survey No.  112 or 113. The land of Survey No.112 and 113 had a  better situation and must get better compensation. Regarding conversion of land, the Court in the  earlier order observed:

"I have fixed the minimum that could be given  for converted lands at Rs.20/- per sq. yard.  This would mean that this Court has to find  out whether the lands are all converted or  not. I feel that only in respect of S.No.112  there is evidence that it is converted land.  P.W.4 has told the court that he had asked  her relative PW5 to apply for conversion of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

S.No.112. PW4 and PW5 have a joint interest  in S.No.112. PW4 is entitled to 2 acres in it  while the remaining 2-30 guntas belong to  PW5. PW5 has stated that he had applied to  the Deputy Commissioner to convert this land  for non-agricultural purpose. Ex.P-8, issued  by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore  District, shows that the Deputy Commissioner  had intimated him that action is being taken  to consider his application for conversion of  this land. The Deputy Commissioner has  requested PW5 not to put this land to non- agricultural use till the Deputy Commissioner  takes a final decision in the matter. No  evidence has been placed before me to show  that the Deputy Commissioner has neither  accorded sanction nor refused to accord  sanction for the conversion of this land. The  evidence of PW5 that the Deputy  Commissioner did not send any intimation in  this connection stands unrebutted. Therefore,  under law, the sanction of conversion of the  land for non-agricultural purpose is deemed  to have been granted. Hence S.No.112 has to  be held as a converted land on the date of the  preliminary notification".

In the present proceedings, however, the Reference  Court, relying on B.M. Krishnamurthy, awarded  Rs.18,000/- per acre. The High Court, in the impugned  order, inter alia, stated that large number of lands  situated in Benniganahalli and Byappanahalli were  acquired for the NGEF under the Land Acquisition Act  which are abutting the lands in question and since in  respect of other lands compensation was awarded at the  rate of Rs.17,500 or Rs.18,000 per acre, award of  Rs.18,000 per acre to the claimants in the instant cases  could not be said to be inadequate or insufficient. The  High Court also observed that the Supreme Court  awarded an amount of Rs.12.50 paise per sq. yard to the  claimants and hence the claimants were not entitled to  anything more and the award of Rs.18,000 per acre  could not be interfered with. In our view, the learned counsel for the claimant is  right in submitting that both the Courts were not correct  in not awarding compensation as claimed by the  appellant. The counsel is also right in referring to B.M.  Krishnamurthy, particularly as to location of the land in  question for claiming enhanced compensation vis-‘-vis  land bearing Survey No. 14. For the said purpose, he  relied upon paragraph 6 of B.M. Krishnamurthy. The  counsel also drew our attention to map which is on  record.  It clearly shows that the land of Survey Nos. 112  and 113 is better located than the land of Survey No. 14  in B.N. Krishnamurthy. He also referred to deposition of  Syed Abdul Khader, the then Special Land Acquisition  Officer, Bangalore from 1964 to 1967. The witness  admitted that Kissan Factory was located at the distance  of 3/4th mile from the acquired land. He further stated  that the Corporation limits were about two furlongs from  the acquired land. There was industrial potentiality of  the lands though the acquired lands were not converted.  He stated that Survey No. 112 was situated adjoining  Bangalore-Madras Highway and was in between old  Madras road and Madras-Bangalore Railway line.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

According to him, New Aero Engine Factory was very  much in existence at the time of acquisition and it was  opposite Survey No.112 on the other side of the old  Madras road. Near about the acquired land, there were  other factories also. Corporation limit was within a  distance of 50-60 yards from Aero Engine Factory limits.  He further stated that approach road from NGEF to old  Madras road was adjacent to Survey No. 112.  Byappanahalli Railway Station was 1 or 1-= furlongs  form Survey No. 112. He admitted that Survey No. 113  was abutting Survey No.112 and what was stated about  Survey No.112 held good as regards Survey No.113 also.  He admitted that Bangalore-Madras road was a National  Highway. In view of the location of land being situated on  National Highway of Bangalore-Madras, near Railway  line and situated in Industrial Area, in our opinion, the  claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20  per square yard as claimed by her. Of course, it is  admitted that the land was not converted to non- agricultural use for which the owner was required to pay  an amount of Rs.3,000 per acre and to that extent the  amount deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, both the  appeals are allowed and the claimant is held entitled to  compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per square yard less  Rs.3,000 per acre. The appeals are accordingly allowed  with costs to the said extent.