[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs J T Jayaramegowda on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
M.F.A. No.6314/2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6314/2021 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Digitally signed by KNNL, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
ARSHIFA BAHAR SHIVAMOGGA.
KHANAM
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR
SRI. SUDHAKAR B, ADV.,)
AND:
J.T. JAYARAMEGOWDA
S/O THAMMEGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED
REP. BY LRS.
1a. SMT. DANAMMA
W/O J.T. JAYARAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
1b. SMT. SUMA
W/O MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
M.F.A. No.6314/2021
HC-KAR
R/AT. MUTHINKOPPA VILLAGE
N.R. PURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577134.
2. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 (a & b)
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT N.R. PURA IN THE LAC NO.8/2017
AND SET ASIDE THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
M.F.A. No.6314/2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, KNNL,
Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga, under Section 54(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 30.01.2019 passed in LAC No.08/2017 by the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura (for short, 'the reference
Court').
2. Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.S.V.Prakash., learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the Reference Court has committed a grave error in
re-determining the market value of the land in question at
Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the
claimants have failed to produce any evidence to prove the
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
market value of the land in question. The Reference Court
based on Ex.P3 has re-determined the market value which
is impermissible. Hence, the impugned judgment of the
Reference Court needs to be interfered. It is further
submitted that the Reference Court cannot rely solely on
the judgment of another case and determine the market
value. It is also submitted that the claimants are required
to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land
in question. In the absence of any evidence, the
Reference Court has erred in re-determining the market
value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Hence, he seeks to
allow the appeal.
4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/claimants supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits
that the Reference Court, upon considering the material
available on record, has rightly determined the market
value. It is submitted that this Court, in other cases
pertaining to similarly situated lands acquired for the same
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
purpose, has re-determined the market value at
Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Therefore, the market value
determined by the Reference Court is just and proper and
does not warrant any interference. Hence, the present
appeal is liable to be rejected.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Reference
Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment
and re-determined the market value which is incorrect and
seeks to allow the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1(a) & 1(b)/claimants and learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is
"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court calls for any interference?"
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the claimants' land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas in
Sy.No.147 and an extent of 17 guntas in Sy.No.148 of
Mutthinakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, N.R.Pura Taluk, was
acquired by the State Government for the purpose of
Upper Thunga Project vide preliminary notification dated
23.10.2003 and final notification dated 05.05.2005. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award
by fixing the market value at Rs.37,300/- per acre . Being
aggrieved, the claimants have sought reference under
section 18(1) of the Act. The Reference Court re-
determined the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre
with all statutory benefits and interest.
8. The beneficiary of the acquisition has filed this
appeal contending that the claimants have failed to
establish the market value before the Reference Court,
and that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on
Ex.P3, i.e., the judgment in LAC No.7/2017. It is further
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
contended that the judgment of the Reference Court in
another case cannot be the sole basis for determining the
market value in the present case. However, the Reference
Court, after assigning detailed reasons, has arrived at the
conclusion that the land involved in the present case and
the land covered in LAC No.07/2017 - Ex.P-3 was acquired
for the same purpose, are identical in nature, and were
subjected to preliminary notifications issued in the year
2003 and re-determined the market value at
Rs.10,80,000/- per acre.
9. We have perused the material available on
record and are satisfied that the Reference Court was right
in treating the landowners covered in Ex.P3 - Judgment
and the landowner in the present case in the same
manner. The Reference Court has clearly recorded that the
land covered in Ex.P3 - Judgment and the land involved in
the present case were acquired for the same purpose, and
are located in the same village. Therefore, the appellant
cannot now argue that the Reference Court had no basis
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
for re-determining the compensation. We are of the view
that landowners whose lands are acquired under the same
notification, for the same purpose, and having the same
potential should not be treated differently when awarding
compensation. Since the acquisition of land in both the
cases took place in 2003, we are of the considered view
that the judgment and award of the Reference Court is
proper and does not require any interference.
10. This Court, in the case of The Executive
Engineer vs. B.V. Somanna Gowda and Another1, had
an occasion to consider the earlier decisions rendered by
the Co-ordinate Bench relating to acquisition of lands
situated in the same village and acquired for the very
same public purpose. After examining the material placed
therein, the Court affirmed the determination of the
market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. It is not in
dispute that the acquisition in the said case was initiated
MFA.No.6196/2021 dtd:14.03.2025
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
under the preliminary notification dated 05.11.2003, which
is identical in time and nature to the notification involved
in the present appeal. Having regard to the fact that the
land covered in the aforesaid judgment and the land
involved in the present case pertain to the same village,
were acquired for the same purpose, and were covered by
preliminary notifications issued in the same year, the
principle of parity requires that the claimants herein
should not be placed on a footing different from those in
the aforesaid decision. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decision squarely applies to the present case. In view of
the similarity in the factual matrix and guided by the
precedent referred to above, we are of the considered
view that the Reference Court has rightly determined the
market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Therefore, we
are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the
judgment and award passed by the reference Court.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
dismissed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB
HC-KAR
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67
