Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court clarified that once a person is recognized as the owner of a disputed property, the mere possession of portions of the property by others does not entitle them to compensation when the land is acquired for public projects, such as the Metro Rail Project in Bengaluru.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih held that in the case at hand, the appellant-plaintiff, Lakshmesh M, was entitled to receive the full amount of compensation for the acquisition of the disputed property for the Metro Rail Project.

"In the absence of any claim with regard to their entitlement to compensation for the land acquired, the relief granted by the High Court in the appeal is not sustainable. Given the lack of pleadings, evidence on record, and submissions made at the time of hearing before the High Court, the judgment passed by it granting 30 % of the amount payable by way of compensation in respect of the ten sites in possession of the private defendants, deserves to be set aside," the bench said.

The apex court set aside the portion of impugned high court judgment awarding 30 % of the compensation amount for the sites allotted to the private defendants who were in possession of portions of the property belonging to the plaintiff. The court, however, clarified the private defendants were at liberty to seek any remedy as may be available to them under the law for compensation, if they choose to do so.

The matter arose out of two appeals preferred against the final judgment and order of December 05, 2014, by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

In its common impugned order, the high court upheld the March 31, 2008, judgment by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. This judgment recognized the appellant-plaintiff as the lawful owner of the suit property. Additionally, the high court determined that the site allotted to defendant No. 20 was not part of Sy No. 305/2 and ruled that the private defendants were entitled to 30% of the compensation for the ten sites situated on the disputed property.

Having examined the matter, the Supreme Court said, "It is not in dispute that till date, no claim whatsoever has been projected either in the appeal before the High Court or before any other competent authority for the grant of compensation for the land having been acquired."

The court also noted the judgment as had been passed by the high court affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff had not been challenged by any of the private defendants. The said judgment and the findings recorded therein have attained finality, it highlighted.

As per the facts of the case, Kempapura Agrahara village was an Inam village, and the land stood vested in the State in terms of the provisions contained in Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 with effect from February 01, 1959. 

Consequently, all jodidars retained interests corresponding to their respective shares. Among them was one Smt B C Subbalakshmamma, who held 1/7th share in the village. Pursuant to an application submitted by her to the competent authority, Smt Subbalakshmamma was granted occupancy rights for 1 acre and 3 guntas of land in Sy No 132/2 on December 9, 1962.

Although the initial mutation was sanctioned in her name, the Tehsildar, following an on-site inspection, adjusted the records to reflect the actual area in her possession. As a result, a revised mutation order of May 20, 1972 was passed, updating the record to 1 acre and 12 guntas in Sy No 132/2 in her name.

The land was subsequently renumbered as Sy No 305/2, with a measurement of 1 acre and 12 guntas. The appellant plaintiff, Lakshmesh M acquired this land from Smt Subbalakshmamma through a registered sale deed on June 10, 1975.

Case Title: Lakshmesh M Vs P Rajalakshmi (Dead by LRs) And Ors Etc