Karnataka High Court Revises Land Compensation for Hassan-Bengaluru Railway Line: Market Value Fixed at ₹200/sq. ft.; Additional Compensation for Trees Granted

Post-Notification Evidence Cannot Determine Compensation - Karnataka High Court revised the compensation for land acquired for the Hassan-Bengaluru railway line under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court reduced the market value of the acquired land from ₹250 per sq. ft. to ₹200 per sq. ft., noting that the Reference Court had erroneously relied on post-notification market evidence from 2018, whereas the relevant date for determining market value was the notification year 2007.

The High Court also allowed the claimant’s cross-objection in part, granting an additional ₹4,59,459/- for 157 teak trees and 18 coconut trees omitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the Reference Court.

"Compensation Must Be Based on Contemporaneous Evidence," Rules Court

The land in question, measuring 17 guntas in Nademavinapura Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru, was acquired through a preliminary notification dated January 18, 2007, for the new railway line project. The LAO had originally awarded ₹3,54,184/- for the land and associated losses. Dissatisfied, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, resulting in the Reference Court re-determining the market value at ₹250 per sq. ft.

The High Court found flaws in the Reference Court's methodology, stating: "Market value evidence must be contemporaneous with the notification year, 2007. Reliance on post-notification documents like Ex.P49 from 2018 violates this principle. Valuation of ₹250 per sq. ft. is unsupported by credible evidence for the relevant period."

Instead, the High Court applied the principle of uniformity, relying on its own precedent in Venkataramanaiah v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru-Hassan Railway & Others, where similarly situated land acquired under the same notification was valued at ₹200 per sq. ft. The Court stated: "The interest of justice demands consistency. Lands acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose must have uniform valuation unless significant distinguishing factors are proven."

The High Court also addressed a key omission by the Reference Court regarding compensation for 157 teak and 18 coconut trees identified in the mahazar (Ex.P23). The LAO and Reference Court had overlooked these trees while calculating compensation. The claimant argued that this oversight was contrary to the evidence on record.

After reviewing Ex.P23, the High Court observed: "Ex.P23 clearly establishes that out of 358 teak trees, only 201 were considered for compensation. Similarly, out of 33 coconut trees, only 15 were accounted for. The claimant is entitled to compensation for the omitted 157 teak and 18 coconut trees."

The Court awarded ₹3,37,707/- for the omitted teak trees (at ₹2,151 per tree) and ₹1,21,752/- for the omitted coconut trees (at ₹6,764 per tree), totaling ₹4,59,459/-.

Market Value of Land Reassessed at ₹200/sq. ft.
The High Court rejected the Reference Court's reliance on RW-1's alleged admission of market value at ₹250 per sq. ft., noting:
"There is no evidence or admission by RW-1 substantiating a market value of ₹250 per sq. ft. for the relevant period. Instead, evidence points to a fair valuation of ₹200 per sq. ft. as determined in related cases."

The Court also rejected the appellant's contention that the sale consideration in related cases amounted to ₹120 per sq. ft., clarifying:

"The sale deed relied upon indicates a market value of ₹220 per sq. ft., not ₹120. Misinterpretation of evidence cannot form the basis for reducing compensation further."

Market Value Adjusted: The Court revised the market value of the land to ₹200 per sq. ft., with interest and statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Omitted Trees Compensated: The claimant was awarded ₹4,59,459/- for 157 teak and 18 coconut trees omitted by the LAO and Reference Court.
Other Compensation Upheld: The enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court for structures, fixtures, and the remaining trees was upheld.
The High Court stated: "The re-determination balances the interests of the appellant-beneficiary and the claimant, ensuring just compensation based on contemporaneous evidence and established precedents."

Date of Decision: January 24, 2025