Supreme Court Quashes Compensation Award to Private Defendants in Land Dispute, Upholds Plaintiff's Ownership in Bengaluru Metro Rail Project Acquisition.

Legal Article by - DASARI SUDHEER (This Article was written by him during his Internship)

The Supreme Court, on September 11, 2024, delivered its verdict in the case of Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead by LRs.) & Others. It ended a long-pending dispute over property in the hands of the parties regarding the land acquired for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Project. While setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, whereby it had granted compensation of 30% to the private defendants, the apex court upheld the title right of appellant-Lakshmesh M.-over and above 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 305/2. It ordered that Lakshmesh M. shall be entitled to full compensation towards land acquisition and, on this very ground, dismissed the claim of the private defendants.

In the case of Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead by LRs.) & Others, on September 11, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a long pending land dispute regarding properties located in Bengaluru that were acquired for the city's Metro Rail Project. On appeal there was an order wherein appellant, Lakshmesh M., claimed legal recognition to his ownership of 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Survey No. 305/2, purportedly sold to him by Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma through a registered Sale Deed dated 1975. The long-standing dispute with the REMCO Industrial Workers House Building Cooperative Society and other private defendants who claimed rights over parts of the land formed the basis of the case. The Karnataka High Court had earlier ruled in favor of Lakshmesh M. while asserting such rights over parts of the acquired land by ordering the compensatory award to be shared equally between the state and the private defendants in the ratio of 70:30. This portion of the judgments awarded by the High Court, however, was overruled by the Supreme Court when it declared that private respondents were never able to claim compensation throughout the litigation process and, therefore, did not stand entitled to a share.

The Supreme Court of Appeals held that the questioned High Court decision granting the award of compensation to the respondents is unsustainable in law because at the same time there is no prior claim or evidence of entitlement to favor of the respondents. It, therefore, set aside the said judgment of the High Court awarding to the private respondents 30% of the total compensation and directed that full compensation for the land compulsorily acquired be made payable to Lakshmesh M.

While considering both the appeals, The Supreme Court has dismissed Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024 and decreed the Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024, and Appellate court held that it would be open that private respondents-otherwise shall be at liberty to pursue appropriate other remedies to seek compensation against whom ever, if so advised

The contention of the appellant was that the private respondents, who were members of the Society, had no juristic right over the land as their sites did not fall within Survey No. 305/2. In this regard, he further submitted that they should not be allowed to seek compensation for the area of land taken for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Project because he had been held, in a previous judgment of the High Court, to be the absolute owner of the property.

On their part, however, the private appellants averred that since they had been in possession of the sites, they were entitled to 30% of the compensation ordered for the acquisition. They claimed that their possession and construction on the land under their allotments from the Society entitled them to a share of the compensation for the acquired land.

The Supreme Court concluded it in the appellant's favour (Lakshmesh M). That his legitimate ownership over 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 305/2 was upheld and he is entitled for the full compensation for the land acquired for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Project. The High Court decision of granting compensation at 30% to private defendants was reversed by the Supreme Court as their submissions were that they could not prove their legal right and title over the land, nor have they filed any claim for compensation in the proceeding. In this judgment, absolute ownership by Lakshmesh M. was reaffirmed with an order that compensation be made wholly payable to him. The private defendants did retain, however, other routes by which they might have pursued their damages if they had chosen to do so.

Legal Soch Foundation offer mentorship sessions, CV and Cover Letter making, and email management services specifically designed for law students. To more more, contact 8797914487.