Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs K.G. Bheema Reddy on 24 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100848 OF 2015
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB.100023 OF 2017
IN MFA NO. 100848/2015
BETWEEN:
K.G. BHEEMA REDDY S/O. ANJINAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. KORAGUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.10.25
16:08:34 +0530 (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BELLARY.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING
-2-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
DIVISION, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM BELLARY, IN LAC NO.17/2010, BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION, ALONG WITH ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS
AS PER THE LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB. NO.100023/2017
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PRE (ZILLA PANCHAYATH
ENGINEERING DIVISION),
(RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND
SANITATION DIVISION)
HOSPET ROAD, 2ND GATE,
COWL BAZAR, BELLARY-583102
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. K.G. BHEEMA REDDY
S/O. ANJINAPPA,
-3-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE,
BELLARY TQ. AND BELLARY DIST.
2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY, BELLARY REVENUE
SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER,
COMPOUND, BELLARY-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 22 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED IN LAC
NO.17/2010 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
BELLARY, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-4-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) This MFA No.100848/2015 (LAC) is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short called as 'the Act'), praying for modification of the judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 passed in LAC No.17/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary and to enhance the compensation with all statutory benefits as per law.
2. This MFA Crob.No.100023/2017 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC by the cross objector praying for setting aside the judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 passed in LAC No.17/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary.
3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity.
4. The facts of present case in nutshell are that the lands bearing Survey No.122/2002 measuring 6.12 acres and Survey No.526/2002 measuring 4.13 acres were acquired by the first respondent by passing preliminary -5- MFA No.100848/2015 C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 notification under Section 4(1) dated 26.02.2009 and final notification under Section 6(1) dated 20.12.2009 of the Act for the benefit of respondent No.2 for construction of drinking water reservoir through proceedings number REV/LAQ/79/2008-09. The first respondent SLAO has awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- per acre and awarded a sum of ₹5,64,988/- towards existence of well, ponds and pipeline in the acquired property. The claimants have received the amount under protest and filed their protest petition under Section 18(1) of the Act and thereby matter was referred before the Senior Civil Judge, Bellary under Section 18(1) of the Act.
5. In the reference petition on behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.36 and closed his side. On behalf of respondent, no evidence was let in.
6. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has followed the sale statistics method and by relying on Ex.P.8-sale deed, has enhanced the compensation at ₹1,72,000/- per -6- MFA No.100848/2015 C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 acre and has given additional compensation of ₹1,00,000/- towards the existence of well, pond, etc., in the acquired property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal.
7. In this appeal, IA under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, along with judgment dated 02.06.2014 passed in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary is produced.
8. In the affidavit annexed to this IA No.2, the appellant has stated that Ziilla Panchayath has acquired land in Survey No.177-B measuring 7.61 acres, Survey No.178-measuring 3.03 acres, Survey No.179 (portion) measuring 0.16 acres, 175-A measuring 8.59 acres, 176-A measuring 0.83 acres of Benakal village for the purpose of erecting a reservoir for storing drinking water. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of ₹1,28,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and in the reference petition LAC Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2012, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court on appreciation of evidence has awarded compensation of ₹15,00,000/- per -7- MFA No.100848/2015 C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 acre with solecism at 30% and other statutory benefits and said lands are at a distance of 5 Kms. from Benakal village. It is stated that the lands belong to same taluka and the yield as well as potential are the same and hence, presenting additional document is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. Hence, prayed for allowing IA No.2.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. The learned counsel for claimants submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in holding that the claimants are entitled for ₹1,72,000/- per acre when the neighbouring lands acquired for same purpose in the same vicinity has been granted a compensation of ₹15,00,000/- per acre with statutory benefits and has only considered the sales statistics. It is also submitted that the claimants are also entitled for compensation at the rate of ₹15,00,000/- per acre which was granted to the neighbouring land owner. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and IA No.2.
11. Learned counsel for respondent and cross- objector submitted that the learned trial Judge has not -8- MFA No.100848/2015 C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 verified the sale statistics in a proper manner. It is submitted that even though learned Senior Civil Judge has not considered the sale deed as per Exs.P9 on the ground that it came into existence after the preliminary notification, it has misread Ex.P.8 that it came into existence one month prior to the preliminary notification whereas it was 10 months after preliminary notification. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
12. From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:-
"1) Whether the appellant-claimant proves that the compensation awarded by learned Senior Civil Judge is meager and requires interference?
2) Whether the appellant has made out a case to produce additional evidence shown in IA No.2?-9- MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
3) Whether the cross-objectors-respondents proved that the judgment and award passed by learned trial Judge is exorbitant and requires interference?
4) What order or decree?"
13. Our finding on those points are as under for the following reasons:-
Point No.2 - For the sake of convenience and clarity, point No.2 is taken for consideration first, as it is pertaining to production of additional evidence.
14. Along with IA No.2, appellant has produced the additional evidence, i.e. the judgment passed in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge Bellary, dated 02.06.2014, which is not pertaining to present notification. No material is produced before this Court that the lands acquired in said case are similar in nature as that of the present case. Furthermore, said acquired lands are at Benakal village whereas the acquired lands in present case are of Dammur village. Hence, we are
- 10 -
MFA No.100848/2015C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 not inclined to accept the additional evidence produced along with IA No.2. Furthermore, no proper or admissible reasons are given to accept the additional evidence. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in negative.
15. Point Nos.1 and 3: These points are considered together, as they require common discussion.
16. The judgment of the learned trial Court reveals that the learned trial Judge relies upon the sale deed dated 01.04.2010 as per Ex.P.8 in respect of land bearing Survey No.468A/1 measuring 1 acre 40 cents of Dammur village and fixed the compensation at ₹1,72,000/- per acre. Said sale deed is prior to 4(1) notification dated 26.02.2009.
17. Further, as discussed above, 4(1) notification was issued on 20.06.2009 and thus it is prior to the sale deed as per Ex.P.8. However, it is to be noted here that even learned Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award considering the sale statistics prior to passing of the award. However, the sale deed relied by learned trial Judge is in proximity to Section 4(1) Notification i.e. 10 months difference between the two.
- 11 -
MFA No.100848/2015C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
18. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in batch of LAC appeals reported in AIR 2025 SC 2306 between Ram Kishan (since deceased) through His LRS. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others at para No.25 and 26 has laid down the principles of de-escalation and escalation and held as under:
"RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
(i) PRINCIPLE OF DE-ESCALATION AND ESCALATION
25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469: (AIR 2015 SC 2908), finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in 1981, this Court applied the principle of de-escalation. The relevant parts of the judgment are set out hereunder:
"77. Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs.7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No.389 covered in award passed in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental charges. de-escalation and conversion charges. The same method should be applied in the case on hand.
- 12 -MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005 was in the year 1988, it was for industrial development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were notified for acquisition to the land covered in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the purpose for which they were acquired.
80. As per the survey conducted by the State Government, it is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short distance away from the lands covered in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with other lands that was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the commercial purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants is acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose, Therefore, determining deductions towards deescalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental charges would justify the redetermination of the market value of the land of the appellants.........
- 13 -MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others v. Land Acquisition Of ficer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390: (AIR 2012 SC 446), this Court, while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held in Para 37, 40 and 42 as under:-
37. Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30-12-1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication of the preliminary Notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping in mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of "de-
escalation", specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days."
19. Relying on the above said principles noted in the above said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that de-escalation at 10% could be made on this amount of ₹1,72,000/-. Thus, ₹17,200/- is to be deducted from said amount.
20. Learned counsel for claimant vehemently submitted arguments that in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 on the
- 14 -
MFA No.100848/2015C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge Bellary, dated 02.06.2014, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge relied upon the proceedings of Land Value Fixation Advisory Committee headed by D.C. of Bellary and fixed the compensation at ₹15,00,000/- per acre. However, the claimant has not produced any material before the Court to show the date of notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Act of said case. Thus, no material is produced before this Court that the lands acquired in said case are similar in nature as that of the present case. Furthermore, said acquired lands are at Benakal village, whereas, the acquired lands in present case are of Dammur village. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid judgment in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012.
Except producing said judgment, the claimants have not produced any material before the Court for enhancement of the compensation.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the claimant is entitled for ₹1,54,800/- with statutory benefits. As far as
- 15 -
MFA No.100848/2015C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017 enhancement of ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation on existence of well, ponds, etc. is to be confirmed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative and point No.3 is answered in affirmative.
Point No.4:- In view of findings on point Nos.1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER MFA No.100848/2015 (LAC) dismissed.
MFA Crob.No.100023/2017 is partly allowed.
Claimant is entitled for ₹.1,54,800/- with statutory benefits. As far as enhancement of ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation on existence of well, ponds, etc. is confirmed. Cross objector-respondent No.1 in LAC No.17/2010 is not liable to make payment and only respondent Nos.1 and 3 are liable to make payment. Except these modifications, the remaining part of the award is unaltered.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VMB, ct-cmu, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28