The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case involving the ownership of the suit property situated in Sy. No. 305/2 in Kempapura Agrahara village, Bengaluru. The court upheld the ownership of the Appellant/Plaintiff, Lakshmesh M., rejecting the High Court's decision to allocate 30% compensation for ten sites to the private Defendants. However, it affirmed the High Court's decision that Defendant No. 20's site was not part of the disputed property. The appeals brought forward by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenged the High Court's findings on these issues, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellant/Plaintiff.

1. Ownership Dispute

• The case originated from O.S. No. 5634 of 1980, where the Appellant/Plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 132/2 (later renumbered Sy. No. 305/2) in Kempapura Agrahara village, Bengaluru.
• The Appellant/Plaintiff, Lakshmesh M., acquired the land through a registered sale deed from Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma in 1975.
• Defendant No. 1, REMCO Industrial Workers House Building Cooperative Society, and its members attempted to take possession of the land, claiming rights over it, which led to legal disputes.

2. High Court Decision

• The High Court, in its judgment dated 05.12.2014, upheld the Appellant/Plaintiff's ownership but also held that Defendant No. 20's allotted site was unrelated to Sy. No. 305/2.
• The High Court further awarded 30% of the compensation payable for ten sites to certain private Defendants (Defendant Nos. 9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 24).

3. Appeals

• The Appellant/Plaintiff challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that Defendant No. 20 had not provided sufficient evidence regarding the land allotment, and the private Defendants were not entitled to compensation.
• The appeals before the Supreme Court primarily questioned the High Court's findings regarding the compensation and the inclusion of Defendant No. 20’s site.

4. Supreme Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that Defendant No. 20's site was not part of the disputed property, dismissing the Appellant/Plaintiff’s challenge on that point.
• However, the Court set aside the High Court's award of 30% compensation to the private Defendants, holding that they had not claimed compensation during the trial and were not entitled to it. The Appellant/Plaintiff was declared entitled to the full compensation for the suit property acquired for the Metro Rail Project.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954: Pertinent to the vesting of land in the State and the recognition of occupancy rights.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that since the Appellant/Plaintiff was declared the lawful owner of the suit property and the private Defendants had not raised any claim for compensation in the earlier proceedings, the High Court's award of 30% compensation was unsustainable. Additionally, the court emphasized that Defendant No. 20’s site was not part of the disputed property, as the Appellant/Plaintiff failed to establish otherwise.

Subject:

• Property Law
• Ownership and Title Disputes
• Compensation Claims for Acquired Land

#PropertyLaw #Compensation #MetroRailProject #OwnershipDispute #SupremeCourtJudgment #LandAcquisition