Karnataka High Court
Kuppegowda vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
M.F.A. No.10457/2018
C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10457/2018 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10456/2018 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.10457/2018:
BETWEEN:
KUPPEGOWDA
S/O MALLESGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/OF. GANIGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
KATTAYA HOBLI
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.
BAHAR KHANAM ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
H.R.P-II, HASSAN-573201
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
M.F.A. No.10457/2018
C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018
3. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION
BELUR, HASAN DIVISION-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN LAC NO.478/2014 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN. MODIFY AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC
NO.478/2014 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT HASSAN & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.10456/2018:
BETWEEN:
G.T. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/OF. GANIGANAKOPPAL VILLAGE
KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK-573201
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
H.R.P.-II, HASSAN-573201
HASSAN DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
M.F.A. No.10457/2018
C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
3. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION
BELUR, HASSAN DIVISION-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN LAC NO.482/2014 BY THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
HASSAN. MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01.08.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.482/2014 BY
THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT HASSAN & ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 31.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
M.F.A. No.10457/2018
C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same
are heard finally.
2. MFA No.10457/2018 is filed by the claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 24.04.2015
passed in LAC No.478/2014 by the Court of the Addl. Sr.
Civil Judge, Hassan and MFA No.10456/2018 is filed by the
claimant challenging the judgment and award dated
01.08.2015 passed in LAC No.482/2014 by the Court of
the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher
compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court
4. In MFA No.10457/2018 (LAC No.478/2014), the
claimant's land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.317/1
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan
Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for
the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market
value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court re-
determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta
along with all the statutory benefits.
5. In MFA No.10456/2018 (LAC No.482/2014),
claimant's land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2
situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan
Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for
the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market
value at Rs.70,160/- per acre. The Reference Court re-
determined the market value at Rs.20,500/- per gunta
along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the
claimants are in appeal.
6. Sri.Chethan B., learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the Reference Court has committed
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
a grave error in determining the market value of the lands
in question without considering the evidence on record. It
is submitted that the acquisition of the lands arise out of
the same notification. This Court in MFA Nos.8760/2018,
8703/2018, 8873/2018 and 3870/2021 enhanced the
market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. He seeks to re-
determine the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta
with all statutory benefits in these appeals.
7. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2
support the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3
submits that the respondent No.3 is the beneficiary of the
acquisition and they were not arrayed as party to the
proceedings before the Reference Court and only in the
appeal, they have been impleaded. Hence, it would be
appropriate to remand the matters back to the Reference
Court to enable the parties to adduce evidence. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
submitted that the claimants shall establish the market
value by leading evidence and they cannot rely on the
judgments of this Court and seek for higher compensation.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. In support of his
contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION
LTD. Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)
NEYVELY AND OTHERS1, GURMIT SINGH BHATIA Vs.
KIRAN KANT ROBINSON AND OTHERS2, U.P.AWAS
EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. GYAN DEVI (DEAD) BY
LRS. AND OTHERS3, MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS4 and the judgment
of this Court in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERY
NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. Vs. SRI.LOKESH AND
ANOTHER5.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly
submits that the judgments relied on by the claimants no
(1995) 1 SCC 221
(2020) 13 SCC 773
(1995) 2 SCC 326
(2018) 13 SCC 96
MFA No.4091/2018 dt. 19.02.21
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
doubt arise from the same notification and from the same
region, but the burden is on the claimants to prove the
market value of the lands. Hence, the determination of
the market value by the Reference Court is just and does
not call for any enhancement. He seeks to dismiss the
appeals.
9. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants, the learned High
Court Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the material available on record. The
point that arises for consideration in these appeals is
"Whether the impugned judgments and awards
passed by the Reference Court call for any
interference?"
10. The undisputed facts in these appeals are that
in MFA No.10457/2018, the claimant's land measuring 23
guntas in Sy.No.317/1 situated at Doranahosahalli Village,
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired
vide preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and final notification
issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed
the award on 05.01.2012 by determining the market value
of the land in question at Rs.77,200/- per acre with all
statutory benefits.
11. In MFA No.10456/2018, the claimant's land
measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2 situated at
Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District was acquired vide preliminary notification
dated 06.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and
final notification dated 01.08.2011 issued under Section
6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on
07.10.2013 by determining the market value of the land in
question at Rs.70,160/- per acre with all statutory
benefits.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
12. It is not in dispute that the acquisition in both
the cases is for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project.
The acquisition in both the cases are the lands situated at
Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District. The nature of land in both the
notifications are similar and acquired for the same
purpose. Though the notifications issued for the
acquisition of the aforesaid lands are on different dates,
the nature of the land and potentiality are one and the
same as is evident by the award passed by the SLAO.
13. The contentions of the respondent No.3 that the
matters are required to be remanded back to the
Reference Court as they were not parties before the
Reference Court and they intend to adduce the evidence
and that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel
for the claimants cannot be a basis to enhance the
compensation, are taken note of for the purpose of
rejection only. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
cases of LAKSHMEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS6 and
SANNEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER AND OTHERS7 has considered the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION
OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER8 and held that
when the acquired lands are more or less situated nearby,
when the acquired lands are identical and similar and
acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to
discriminate between the land owners to pay more
compensation to some of the land owners and less
compensation to the others. The Bench has also recorded
that the said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH
AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR9
and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta. In the aforesaid case, the preliminary notification
was issued in the year 2009 and the acquisition was for
the same purpose as in the case on hand. In the instant
MFA No.8703/2018 dt. 25.09.21
MFA No.8760/2018 dt. 24.09.21
(2010) 5 SCC 747
(2017) 4 SCC 717
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
appeals, though the preliminary notifications are of the
years 2008 and 2010, respectively, the nature of lands
and their potentiality are similar to that of the subject
matter of the lands covered in the aforesaid appeals.
Hence, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we
are of the considered view that the land losers in these
appeals are also entitled to similar benefits. The
Reference Court in LAC Nos.128/2015 to 132/2015 and
LAC No.45/2016 c/w LAC No.126/2015 vide judgment
dated 02.08.2016 has re-determined the market value at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The judgments of the Reference
Court clearly indicate that the subject matter of the
acquisition arise from the preliminary notifications dated
14.03.2008, 11.02.2009, 06.05.2010 and 06.07.2007 and
the acquisition was for the purpose of the same project as
in the instant case. The subject matter involved in one of
the LAC was from the same Hobli also. Hence, the
contention of the respondent No.3 that the matters require
remand has no merit.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
14. Another Reference Court in LAC No.90/2016
c/w LAC Nos.87/2016 and 88/2016 vide judgment dated
26.09.2022 has enhanced the market value of the land at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. The
aforesaid judgments of the Reference Court indicate that
the acquisition was for the same project and the
preliminary notifications are also dated 30.12.2008. It is
also not in dispute that the judgments of the Co-ordinate
Bench referred supra and the judgments of the Reference
Court referred supra have attained finality and there is no
challenge to the said judgments either by the State
Government or by the respondent No.3-beneficiary of the
acquisitions. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the
respondent No.3-beneficiary was arrayed as a party in the
aforesaid appeals and the proceedings before the
Reference Court. Without challenging the aforesaid
judgments, the respondent No.3 cannot now contend that
the matters require remand as they have accepted the re-
determination of the compensation in respect of the lands
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
covered under the aforesaid judgments acquired for the
same purpose at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.
15. This Court is conscious that the acquisition
proceedings are initiated in the years 2008 and 2010,
respectively and the claimants are the farmers who lost
their lands to the extents of 23 guntas and 13 guntas,
respectively and if the matters are remitted back, it would
cause further delay in getting the compensation. It is trite
law that the order of remand is not to be passed in a
routine manner because unwarranted order of remand
merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving
the cause of justice.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has
placed reliance on the decisions referred supra which have
no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
There is no dispute that the beneficiary of the acquisition
is a necessary party however, the respondent No.3 has
neither challenged the order of impleadment passed in the
present proceedings nor challenged the impugned
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
judgments of the Reference Court by filing independent
appeal. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, we are not inclined to remand the matters back
to the Reference Court. The contention that the decision
of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be applied ipso facto to
the facts of the instant case as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR referred
supra, has no application to the facts of the case as the
respondent No.3 has accepted the 4 judgments of this
Court and 2 judgments of the Reference Court referred
supra which have attained finality. Hence, no purpose
would be served in remanding the matters to determine
the market value of the lands in question as already the
Reference Court and this Court on appreciation of the
various factors re-determined the market value at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Considering the fact that the
lands covered under these appeals and the lands covered
in the aforesaid judgments are identical and similar,
acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to
discriminate the land owners. Hence, we are of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
considered view that the appeals deserve to be allowed by
re-determining the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the
provisions of the Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the
following
ORDER
i. MFA No.10457/2018 and MFA
No.10456/2018 are allowed.
ii. In MFA No.10457/2018, the market value
of the land measuring 23 guntas in
Sy.No.317/1 situated at Doranahosahalli
Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District is re-determined at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and
statutory benefits.
iii. In MFA No.10456/2018, the market value
of the land measuring 13 guntas in
Sy.No.313/2 situated at Doranahosahalli
Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk,
Hassan District is re-determined at
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and
statutory benefits. The claimant is not
entitled to the interest for the delay period
of 1132 days.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
