{"id":138691,"date":"2011-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-09-05T07:50:14","modified_gmt":"2016-09-05T02:20:14","slug":"exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                        Reportable\n\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 51-52 OF 2011\n\n             [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27804-27805\/2008]\n\n\n\n\nExecutive Engineer,\n\nKarnataka Housing Board                              ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nLand Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.               ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                 WITH\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 53-54 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27806-27807\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 55-56 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27808-27809\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 57-58 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27810-27811\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 59-60 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27812-27813\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 61-62 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27815-27816\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 63-64  of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27817-27818\/2008],\n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 71-72 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27819-27820\/2008]; and \n\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 73-74 of 2011 [@ SLP [C] Nos.27822-27823\/2008].\n\n\n                                               2\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.      An extent of 127 acres 26 guntas of lands in Betegeri village within <\/p>\n
the   municipal   limits   of   Gadag-Betegeri   Municipality,   was   acquired   for <\/p>\n
Karnataka   Housing   Board   in   pursuance   of   Preliminary   Notification   dated <\/p>\n
6.2.1992.   The   Land   Acquisition   Officer,   Gadag,   made   an   award   dated <\/p>\n
14.2.1997 awarding a compensation of Rs.45,000\/- per acre.<\/p>\n
3.      On   a   reference   being   made   at   the   instance   of   the   land   owners,   the <\/p>\n
Reference   Court,  by   judgment   and  award  dated  11.7.2003,  determined   the <\/p>\n
compensation   for   the   acquired   lands   as   Rs.2,17,372\/-   per   acre.   For   this <\/p>\n
purpose, the Reference Court relied upon Exhibit P-2   which is a sale deed <\/p>\n
dated 30.7.1992 executed by the Municipal Commissioner, Gadag-Betegeri <\/p>\n
Municipality in favour of one Manikamma in regard to a plot measuring 329 <\/p>\n
sq.   meters   which   was   sold   for   Rs.37,600\/-   in   an   auction   sale   on   2.1.1989 <\/p>\n
(which  works out to Rs.114.29 per sq.m). The Reference Court, therefore, <\/p>\n
arrived   at   the   market   value   per   acre   as   Rs.4,62,494\/-.   It   deducted   53% <\/p>\n
towards development (that is, towards areas to be set apart for roads, drains <\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
and   vacant   spaces   and   towards   cost   of   development)   and   arrived   at   the <\/p>\n
market value as Rs.2,17,372\/- per acre. The Reference Court referred to the <\/p>\n
evidence showing that the plot covered by Ex. P-2 was across the road from <\/p>\n
the acquired lands and was therefore a neighbouring property. <\/p>\n
4.     Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant (Housing Board) filed appeals. The <\/p>\n
land owners filed cross-objections. The High Court, by impugned judgment <\/p>\n
dated   30.1.2008,   dismissed   the   appeals   of   the   appellant   and   allowed   the <\/p>\n
cross-objections filed by the land owners and increased the compensation to <\/p>\n
Rs.4,42,000\/-   per   acre.   Instead   of   Ex.   P-2   relied   upon   by   the   Reference <\/p>\n
Court, the High Court relied upon Ex. P-19 which related to another auction <\/p>\n
sale   of   a   smaller   plot   measuring   150   sq.m.   by   the   Gadag-Betegeri <\/p>\n
municipality on 20.11.1989, for a price of Rs.24500\/- (which works out to a <\/p>\n
price  of  Rs.163.33  per  sq.m).  On  that  basis   the   High  Court  works   out  the <\/p>\n
market value per acre as Rs.6,60,977\/-. The High Court was of the view that <\/p>\n
the deduction\/cut towards development factor should be only 33% instead of <\/p>\n
53% adopted by the Reference Court. By deducting 33% from Rs.6,60,977\/- <\/p>\n
it arrived at the market value as Rs.4,42,875\/- per acre which was rounded <\/p>\n
off to Rs.442,000\/- per acre, while awarding the compensation. <\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.       Feeling   aggrieved,   the   Housing   Board   has   filed   these   appeals   by <\/p>\n
special leave.  The appellant have put forth the following contentions :<\/p>\n
(i)      Ex.   P-19   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court   did   not   relate   to   a <\/p>\n
neighbouring land whereas there was specific evidence that the plot covered <\/p>\n
by Ex. P-2 was in regard to a nearby land. Therefore, Ex. P-2 ought to have <\/p>\n
been preferred to Ex. P-19. Further as Ex.P-19 related to a very small plot it <\/p>\n
ought   to   have   been   ignored   and   the   transaction   relating   to   the   larger   plot <\/p>\n
(Ex.P-2) should have been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     The   High   Court   ought   to   have   maintained   the   cut   towards   cost   of <\/p>\n
development as 53% instead of applying a cut of 33%.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Auction sales do not furnish a safe guide for determination of market <\/p>\n
value   and   therefore,   the   High   Court   and   Reference   Court   ought   not   to   be <\/p>\n
relied upon either Ex.P19 or ExP2 which relate to auction sales.<\/p>\n
6.       We may deal with the last submission first. The standard method of <\/p>\n
determination   of   market   value   of   any   acquired   land   is   by   the   valuer <\/p>\n
evaluating the land on the date of valuation (publication of notification under <\/p>\n
section   4(1)   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   –   `Act’   for   short) <\/p>\n
notification, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land <\/p>\n
in open market  at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to <\/p>\n
sell   such  land   at  a  reasonable  price.  Thus,  the  market  value  is   determined <\/p>\n
with   reference   to   the   open   market   sale   of   comparable   land   in   the <\/p>\n
neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date <\/p>\n
of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market <\/p>\n
                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
value.   A   `willing   seller’   refers   to   a   person   who   is   not   acting   under   any <\/p>\n
pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A <\/p>\n
willing seller is a person who knowing the advantages and disadvantages of <\/p>\n
his property, sells the property after ascertaining the prevailing market prices <\/p>\n
at   the   fair   and   reasonable   value.   Similarly,   a   willing   purchaser   refers   to   a <\/p>\n
person   who   is   not   under   any   pressure   or   compulsion   to   purchase   the <\/p>\n
property,   and   who,   having   the   choice   of   different   properties,   voluntarily <\/p>\n
decides   to   buy   a   particular   property   by   assessing   its   advantages   and <\/p>\n
disadvantages   and   the   prevailing   market   value   thereof.   Of   course,   unless <\/p>\n
there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under registered <\/p>\n
sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by willing sellers to willing <\/p>\n
purchasers. Where however there is evidence or indications that the sale was <\/p>\n
not  at prevailing  fair  market  value,  it  has  to be  ignored.  But  auction sales <\/p>\n
stand on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in <\/p>\n
an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction. Human ego, <\/p>\n
and   desire   to   do   better   and   excel   other   competitors,   leads   to   competitive <\/p>\n
bidding,   each   trying   to   outbid   the   others.   Thus   in   a   well   advertised   open <\/p>\n
auction sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a <\/p>\n
tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On <\/p>\n
the other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial institutions, <\/p>\n
                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding <\/p>\n
title,   and   a   chance   of   litigation,   which   have   the   effect   of   dampening   the <\/p>\n
enthusiasm   of   bidders   and   making   them   cautious,   thereby   depressing   the <\/p>\n
price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher <\/p>\n
or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a <\/p>\n
result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other <\/p>\n
regular   traditional   sale   transactions   are   available   while   determining   the <\/p>\n
market   value   of   the   acquired   land.   This   Court   in  Raj   Kumar   v.   Haryana  <\/p>\n
State  –   2007   (7)   SCC   609,   observed   that   the   element   of   competition   in <\/p>\n
auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value. <\/p>\n
7.      But   where   an   open   auction   sale   is   the   only   comparable   sale <\/p>\n
transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in <\/p>\n
time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the <\/p>\n
price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction <\/p>\n
or  cut   to  off-set   the   competitive-hike   in  value.   In  this   case,   the  Reference <\/p>\n
Court and High Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale <\/p>\n
transactions,   found   them   to   be   inapplicable   as   they   related   to   far   away <\/p>\n
properties. Therefore we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On <\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances,  we are of the view that a deduction or cut of <\/p>\n
                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
20%   in   the   auction   price   disclosed   by   the   relied   upon   auction   transaction <\/p>\n
towards the factor of `competitive – price hike’ would enable us to arrive at <\/p>\n
the fair market price.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.      There is clear evidence that the plot sold under Ex. P-2 was very near <\/p>\n
to the acquired lands whereas there is no such specific evidence in regard to <\/p>\n
the proximity of the plot sold under Ex.P19, though that plot was also in the <\/p>\n
vicinity. Further, though both Ex. P2 and P19 relate to developed plots, Ex. <\/p>\n
P19 relates to a comparatively small plot of 150 sq.m. whereas Ex. P2 refers <\/p>\n
to a larger plot of 329 sq.m. Having regard to the proximity of location and <\/p>\n
the size, we are of the view that the Reference Court was justified in relying <\/p>\n
upon the sale transaction under Ex. P2 and the High Court was not justified <\/p>\n
in ignoring Ex. P2 and relying upon the transaction under Ex. P19. We may <\/p>\n
also note that the general rule that the highest of the comparable sales should <\/p>\n
be   relied   upon   will   not   apply,   where   the   sale   transactions   relied   upon   are <\/p>\n
auction   sales,   for   the   reasons   mentioned   in   para   (6)   above.   There   is   yet <\/p>\n
another important reason for ignoring the said auction sale for determining <\/p>\n
the   market   value   of   the   acquired   lands.   In   regard   to   acquisition   of   nearby <\/p>\n
lands within the Gadag-Betegeri  municipal  limits for the Karnataka Power <\/p>\n
Transmission   Corporation  in  pursuance   of a   preliminary  notification  dated <\/p>\n
                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
15.9.1994 this court determined the compensation as Rs.426,670\/- per acre <\/p>\n
(Executive   Engineer   (Electrical),   Karnataka   Power   Transmission  <\/p>\n
Corporation   Ltd.   Vs.   Assistant   Commissioner   &   LAO,   Gadag  –   CA <\/p>\n
Nos.1768-1775   of   2010   decided   on   11.2.2010).   That   land     abutted   the <\/p>\n
Sambarpur Road and was also near to the bus stand, market and educational <\/p>\n
institutions. That land was equally well-situated, if not better situated than <\/p>\n
the   acquired   lands.   When   this   court   has   determined   a   market   value   of <\/p>\n
Rs.426,670\/- in regard to a acquisition more than two and a half years later, <\/p>\n
that is 15.9.1994, the determination of higher compensation of Rs.4,42,875\/- <\/p>\n
as on 6.2.1992 based on Ex. P19, is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.      We may now consider what should be the proper compensation with <\/p>\n
reference   to   Ex.   P2.   The   sale   price   disclosed   by   the   said   auction   sale   on <\/p>\n
2.1.1989 is Rs.37600 for 329 sq.m. On that basis the value of one acre of <\/p>\n
land   works   out   to   Rs.4,62,494.   We   have   already   held   that   a   deduction   of <\/p>\n
20% has to be made to off-set the impact of competitive-hike involved in the <\/p>\n
auction   sale.   On   such   deduction   of   20%,   the   market   value   per   acre   as   on <\/p>\n
2.1.1989   would   be   Rs.3,69,995.   The   relevant   date   for   determination   of <\/p>\n
compensation in this case is 6.2.1992 and there is a gap of three years for <\/p>\n
which appropriate appreciation has to be provided for. Having regard to the <\/p>\n
                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
fact   that   the   acquired   lands   were   within   the   municipal   limits   with <\/p>\n
considerable development potential, adopting a cumulative increase of 10% <\/p>\n
per annum for three years, would enable us to arrive at the market value as <\/p>\n
on 6.2.1992. By applying such increase, the market value as on 6.2.1992 will <\/p>\n
be Rs.4,92,460\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.     Evidence   shows   that   the   acquired   lands   were   situated   within   the <\/p>\n
municipal   limits,   though   on   the   outskirts   of   Gadag-Betegeri   within   a <\/p>\n
distance   of  one  kilometer  from  Gadag   Railway   Station   and   the   bus   stand; <\/p>\n
and   that   there   were   several   residential   colonies   and   colleges   in   the <\/p>\n
surrounding areas. Therefore though the lands were agricultural, they could <\/p>\n
be classified as lands having urban development potential. Having regard to <\/p>\n
the   partial   access   to   infrastructural   facilities,   we   are   of   the   view   that   a <\/p>\n
deduction   of   40%   towards   cost   of   development   would   meet   the   ends   of <\/p>\n
justice.   On   the   facts   and   circumstances,   the   cut   of   53%   applied   by   the <\/p>\n
Reference  Court is too high and the cut of 33% applied by the High Court is <\/p>\n
low. On applying a cut of 40%, the rate per acre for the acquired land as on <\/p>\n
6.2.1992 would be Rs.2,95,476\/- (rounded off to Rs.2,95,500).<\/p>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
11.    Accordingly   we   allow   these   appeals   in   part   and   reduce   the <\/p>\n
compensation   awarded   from   Rs.4,42,875\/-   to   Rs.295,500\/-   per   acre.   The <\/p>\n
respondents will be entitled to all statutory benefits as already awarded. <\/p>\n
                                                        ……………………….J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                        (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                              ..........................J.\n\nJanuary 4, 2011.                                        (A K Patnaik)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 51-52 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27804-27805\/2008] Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board … Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nExec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1857,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011"},"wordCount":1857,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011","name":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka ... vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T02:20:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/exec-engineerkarnataka-vs-land-acquisition-officer-ors-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Exec.Engineer,Karnataka … vs Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}