Supreme Court Sets Aside Grant Of Land Acquisition Compensation Share To Persons Who Purchased Sites From Party Having No Title

The ten individuals had purchased sites on the land from a cooperative society and constructed property on it. The society claimed rights over the land but this claim was rejected by the courts. A portion of the land, including the sites purchased by these individuals, was acquired for a Metro Rail Project.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the ten persons made no claim before the HC or any competent authority for the grant of compensation, and neither did they the challenge the HC judgment affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff

“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 per cent 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 Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to receive the full amount payable in respect of acquisition of the suit property for the Metro Rail Project”, the Court observed.

The dispute revolved around 1 acre and 12 guntas of land located in Kempapura Agrahara Inam Village, Bangalore City. The land in question originally belonged to one BC Subbalakshmamma, who acquired occupancy rights over it through an order dated December 9, 1969. The plaintiff acquired the land from Subbalakshmamma through a registered sale deed dated June 10, 1975.

Thereafter, the plaintiff faced interference from REMCO Industrial Workers House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., which claimed rights over a portion of the land. Following a police survey, it was determined that the Society's claims over the plaintiff's land were unfounded. Despite this, possession remained with the Society, prompting the plaintiff to file a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the land, possession, and an injunction against one of the defendants, Defendant No. 20, who had allegedly constructed a building on the property.

On October 30, 1986, the Trial Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, recognizing his ownership over 1 acre and 3 guntas but rejecting his claim for possession due to discrepancies in the sale deed. The Karnataka HC ruled in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the Society's appeal.

The Supreme Court on the Society's appeal remanded the case back to the Trial Court. In 2008, the Trial Court again decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, declaring him the owner of 1 acre and 3 guntas and granting him possession.

The HC dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant Society and upheld the Trial Court's finding that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the suit property. However, it allowed the appeal filed by Defendant No. 20, holding that the site allotted to Defendant No. 20 was unrelated to the disputed property.

However, the HC ruled that the ten persons who purchased sites in the suit property from the defendant-Society were entitled to receive 30 percent of the compensation for the acquisition.

The plaintiff challenged the HC's ruling before the Supreme Court in the present appeals.

The plaintiff contended that Defendant No. 20 had not presented any evidence in court to support his claim. He further argued that the ten private defendants were not entitled to compensation, as they were members of the Society and their possession of the sites had been at their own risk. He maintained that, since he was declared the rightful owner, the compensation for the land acquired for the Metro Rail Project should be paid solely to him.

The Supreme Court noted that Defendant No. 20 had consistently claimed that the site allotted to him did not form part of the suit land, a claim that had not been disputed by the plaintiff. As a result, the Court upheld the HC's decision to set aside the Trial Court's findings concerning Defendant No. 20.

However, the Supreme Court held that the HC erred in awarding 30 percent of the compensation to the private defendants. The Court noted that no claim for compensation had been made by these defendants during the proceedings before the HC or any other authority.

Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the HC's decision to award 30 percent of the compensation to the private defendants.

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024

Case Title – Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 699