Karnataka High Court
Siddalingamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10 February, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1157/2016 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1150/2016 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1152/2016 (LAC)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1158/2016 (LAC)
IN MFA No.1157/2016
BETWEEN:
1 . SIDDALINGAMURTHY,
S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A ALDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P. H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
IN MFA No.1150/2016
BETWEEN:
1 . I.N. SIDDARAMAIAH,
S/O. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT IDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P. H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR - 572101.
PROPOSED RESPONDENTS No.3 TO 5
3. SMT. A.B. RADHAMANI,
W/O LATE SIDDESH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
4. MR. DHARANEESH,
S/O LATE SIDDESH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
IDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5. SMT. RESHMA,
D/O LATE SIDDESH,
-3-
W/O SRI BASANTH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT THYAGATUR VILLAGE,
NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI S. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R3 TO R5)
IN MFA No.1152/2016
BETWEEN:
1 . SHIVARUDRAIAH,
S/O SIDDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A ALDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
TUMKUR-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
TUMKUR-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
IN MFA No.1158/2016
BETWEEN:
1 . SIDDALINGAMMA,
W/O SHIVARUDRAIAH,
-4-
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/A ALDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P. H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMKUR-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.10.2015 PASSED IN LAC
No.202/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
DATE ON WHICH THE APPEALS
WERE RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT 24.01.2025
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 10.02.2025
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
All these appeals arise from the award in LAC
No.202/2006 dated 06.10.2015 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, Gubbi. Reference to Civil Court was sought
by many land losers.
2. MFA No.1157/2016 is by claimant No.18 seeking
enhancement of compensation towards land and mango
trees. The Reference Court has awarded compensation
of Rs.3,88,500/- towards the value of 3 Acres of 28
Guntas and Rs.9,92,250/- towards the value of 27 mango
trees in Survey No.28/06, Idakanahalli Village, Nittur
Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.
3. MFA No.1152/2016 is by claimant No.7 seeking
enhancement of compensation towards land. The
Reference Court has awarded Rs.1,31,250/- compensation
towards the value of 1 Acre 10 Guntas in Survey No.27/1,
Idakanahalli Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.
-6-
4. MFA No.1158/2016 is by claimant No.21 seeking
enhancement of compensation towards land and coconut
trees. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,94,250/-/- towards value of 1 Acre 34 Guntas,
Rs.4,28,400/- towards value of 84 big coconut trees in
Survey No.35/1 and Rs.1,18,125/- towards value of 1 Acre
5 guntas, award of Rs.2,55,000/- towards the value of 50
big coconut trees and Rs.21,000/- towards the value of 7
small coconut trees in Survey No.29/1A of Idakanahalli
Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.
5. MFA No.1150/2016 is by claimant No.9 seeking
enhancement of compensation towards the land, coconut
trees, tamarind trees, jackfruit trees and mango trees. The
Reference Court has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,31,250/- towards value of 1 Acre 10 Guntas,
Rs.18,000/- towards value of 6 small coconut trees,
Rs.2,49,900/- towards the value of 49 big coconut trees in
Survey No.29/3A and Rs.1,31,250/- towards the value of
1 acre 10 guntas, Rs.2,95,800/- towards the value of 58
big coconut trees, Rs.72,000/- towards the value of 24
-7-
small coconut trees in Sy.No.29/3B and Rs.86,625/-
towards the value of 33 guntas, Rs.5,000/- towards the
value of 1 tamarind tree, Rs.8,000/- towards the value of
1 jackfruit tree, Rs.8,82,000/- towards the value of 24
mango trees in Sy.No.36/1 and Rs.63,000/- towards the
value of 24 guntas, Rs.2,29,500/- towards the value of 45
big coconut trees, Rs.3,000/- towards the value of 1 small
coconut tree, Rs.56,700/- towards the value of 45 small
coconut trees in Sy.No.26 of Idakanahalli Nittur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk.
6. The lands in question were notified by preliminary
notification dated 08.11.1990 and final notification dated
14.01.1992. The claimants filed a protest petition before
the respondents seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the same
was referred to the Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
7. In the case of claimant No.18, compensation awarded
by the Reference Court and enhancement sought in this
appeal are as under:
-8-
Particulars Compensation Compensation
fixed by the Trial claimed before
Court this Court
Sy. No.28/6
3 Acre 28 guntas 3,88,500/- 74,00,000/-
27 Mango trees 9,92,250/- 13,50,000/-
---------------
87,50,000/-
(-) 13,80,750/-
Total 13,80,750/- 73,69,250/-
30% Solatium 25,35,635/- 22,10,775/-
12% Additional 25,79,974/-
Market Value
Total 1,21,59,999/-
8. In case of claimant No.9, compensation awarded by
the Reference Court and enhancement sought in this
appeal are as under:
Particulars Compensation Compensation
fixed by the Trial claimed before
Court this Court
Sy. No.29/3A
1 Acre 10 guntas 1,31,250/- 25,00,000/-
6 coconut trees 18,000/- 90,000/-
49 coconut trees 2,49,900/- 12,25,000/-
Sy. No. 29/3B
1 Acre 18 guntas 1,31,250/- 29,00,000/-
58 coconut trees 2,95,800/- 14,50,000/-
24 coconut trees 72,000/- 3,60,000/-
Sy. No.36/1
33 guntas 16,50,000/-
86,625/-
1 Tamarind tree 30,000/-
5,000/-
1 Jackfruit tree 40,000/-
8,000/-
24 Mango trees 12,00,000/-
8,82,000/-
-9-
Sy. No. 26
24 guntas 63,000/- 12,00,000/-
45 coconut trees 2,29,500/- 13,75,000/-
1 coconut trees 3,000/- 15,000/-
45 coconut trees 56,700/- 6,75,000/-
(-)22,32,025/-
1,24,77,975/-
30% Solatium 37,43,393/-
12% interest [For Sy. No.
39,81,161/-
29/3A, 29/3B, 26 (1065)]
[For Sy. No.36/1 (661)
2,02,02,529/-
16.4.91-4.2.93]
9. In case of claimant No.7, compensation awarded by the
Reference Court and enhancement sought in this appeal
are as under:
Particulars Compensation Compensation
fixed by the Trial claimed before
Court this Court
Sy. No.27/1
1 Acre 10 guntas 1,31,250/- 25,00,000/-
Sugarcane ---- 2,25,000/-
(Rs.37,500/- per -------------
yield x 6 yields) 27,25,000/-
-------------
Amount awarded
1n LAC 202/06 (-) 1,31,250/-
25,93,750/-
__________
30% Solatium 7,78,125/-
For calculation of 12% AMV
No. of days: 16.04.1991 __________
- 15.3.1994 :1065 days 9,08,167.80
Total 42,80,042.80
- 10 -
10. In case of claimant No.21, compensation awarded by
the Reference Court and enhancement sought in this
appeal are as under:
Particulars Compensation Compensation
fixed by the claimed before
Trial Court this Court
Sy. No.35/1
1 Acre 34 guntas 1,94,250/- 27,00,000/-
84 coconut trees 4,28,400/- 21,00,000/-
Sy. No. 29/1A
1 Acre 5 guntas 1,18,125/- 22,50,000/-
50 coconut trees 2,55,000/- 12,50,000/-
7 coconut trees 21,000/- 1,05,000/-
(-)10,16,775/-
Total 10,16,775/- 73,88,225/-
30% Solatium 22,16,468/-
3,05,032/-
12% interest
(661 days) 16.4.91- 5,45,414/- 16,05,573/-
4.2.93
18,67,221/-
Total 1,12,10,266/-
11. Heard Sri P.H.Virupakshaiah and Sri R.Kumar,
learned advocates appearing for the appellants,
Sri R.A.Machakanur, learned AGA appearing for
respondent No.1 and Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned Counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
- 11 -
12. Learned advocates for the appellants submit that the
assessment of compensation of lands, malkis and trees is
not proper. The lands acquired were fertile, yielding
commercial crops and fetching huge income. The loss of
income is not considered while assessing the
compensation.
12.1 Learned Counsel further submits that in the
acquired lands, there were standing fruit bearing trees like
mango, jackfruit etc. The assessment of compensation
towards the fruit bearing trees is without any basis and
the compensation awarded is irrational.
12.2 Learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the
following judgments passed by the Reference Court:
(i) 2010 (5) Supreme Court Cases 747
Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and Another.
(ii) Order dated 03.07.2023 in MSA No.94/2016
(LA) passed by this Court.
(iii) Order dated 02.08.2023 in LAC (App)
No.153/2022 passed by the VI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, at Tumkur.
- 12 -
(iv) Order dated 09.02.2023 in LAC (App)
No.69/2022 passed by the II Additional District
& Sessions Judge, at Tumkur.
(v) Order dated 27.06.2022 in RA No.80/2022
passed by the Principal District & Sessions
Judge, at Tumkur.
12.3 Learned Counsel would submit that the lands in
question and the subject matter of the lands in Reference
Courts judgment are similarly situated and acquired for
the same purpose. It is contended that applying the parity
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2010)5 SCC
747, Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and Another, no
distinction can be made between the lands which are
identical and similar, though situated in different villages.
13. Shri R.A.Machakanur, learned AGA appearing for
respondent No.1 submits that the compensation awarded
by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and no
interference is warranted.
14. Shri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded
- 13 -
towards the land was based on its geographical location,
fertility and potentiality.
14.1 Learned Counsel further submits that unless the
claimants demonstrate the similarity and identicalness of
the property, mere on principles of parity, appellants are
not entitled to higher compensation.
14.2 Learned Counsel further submits that the
compensation awarded to fruit bearing trees is on the
analysis of it's yield and the price that would fetch from
sale of the fruits and also the age of the tree. In the
absence of any specific evidence by the claimants on the
age of the trees, the variety of fruit, the market conditions
of the fruit and other aspects, they are not entitled to
higher compensation, more so, on parity.
14.3 Insofar as the judgments of the Reference Court
relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants,
learned Counsel submits that the compensation awarded
at Rs.30,000/- per gunta in LAC (App) No.69/2022 is
without any basis. Further, the lands situated in the
- 14 -
referred judgment were in a different location. It is the
specific submission that the lands in the present case and
in the above referred case are of different Hoblis though of
the same Taluk. In the absence of similarity of the land
for its nature and locality, the principles of parity will not
apply. Learned Counsel submits that the said judgment
is under review seeking reduction of compensation.
15. On consideration of the pleadings and the submissions
made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the following
points arise for consideration of this court:
(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court towards value of land and
the mango, coconut and areca trees
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation?
Regarding Point No.1:
16. The ownership of the lands in question and the
claimants' entitlement to compensation are not under
- 15 -
dispute. A preliminary notification was issued on
18.11.1990, followed by the issuance of the final
notification on 14.01.1992. The acquisition was
undertaken for the purpose of constructing Hemavathi
Canal. The Reference Court, taking into account that
compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,625/- per gunta of
garden land had been awarded in LAC No. 250/2006 for
acquisitions during the year 1989-90, proceeded to award
compensation at the same rate of Rs. 2,625/- per gunta.
The present appeals have been filed challenging the said
compensation, with the claimants seeking an enhancement
thereof.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied
upon the judgment in LAC (App) No. 153/2022 dated
02.08.2023, wherein compensation was awarded at the
rate of Rs. 14,000/- per gunta. The determination of
compensation in LAC (App) No. 153/2022 was based on
the findings in LAC No. 70/2022, where the compensation
was assessed based on the material placed on record. The
lands involved in LAC No. 70/2022 and LAC (App) No.
- 16 -
153/2022 are situated in Sankapura Village, Nittur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk, while the lands under consideration in the
present case are located in Idakanahalli Village, Nittur
Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. Although there is no evidence on
record regarding the exact distance between Sankapura
and Idakanahalli, it is evident that both villages are
located within the same Hobli and Taluk. Consequently, it
can be reasonably presumed that the fertility and yielding
potential of the lands in both villages are comparable.
While an exact equivalence between the lands cannot be
established due to inherent variances in agricultural
properties, compensation for acquisition is assessed on the
basis of probabilities and reasonable comparisons. Under
such circumstances, reliance can be safely placed on the
compensation determined for similar lands. Accordingly,
this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation at
the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per gunta, consistent with the
award passed in LAC (App) No. 153/2022.
18. The reliance placed on LAC No. 69/2022, on the
ground that the acquisition was for the formation of
- 17 -
Hemavathi Canal and that compensation of Rs. 30,000/-
per gunta should be awarded on the principle of parity, is
not acceptable. The lands in LAC No. 69/2022 were
situated in Lakkenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.
No evidence has been adduced to establish the similarity
in geographical location or fertility between the lands
involved in the present case and those in LAC No.
69/2022. In the absence of such evidence, the principle of
parity cannot be applied solely on the basis of the purpose
of acquisition.
19. The learned Counsel for the appellants has placed
reliance on the judgment in R.A. No. 80/2022 to claim
compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per gunta.
However, the said judgment is not applicable to the
present case for the following reasons:
19.1 Firstly, the lands in R.A. No. 80/2022 were located
in Halanur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, which
falls in a different Hobli and Taluk. No evidence has been
produced to demonstrate any similarity in geographical
- 18 -
location or fertility between the lands in that case and the
lands under consideration in the present matter.
19.2 Secondly, the perusal of the reasoning in R.A. No.
80/2022 reveals that there is no clear or substantive basis
for determining compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- per gunta.
Consequently, reliance on the said judgment is untenable.
20. The Counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that due
to the arbitrary fixation of compensation, a review petition
has been filed, which is still pending. Notwithstanding the
pendency of the review, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- per
gunta in R.A. No.80/2022 is unsupported by any
reasonable basis and cannot be applied merely on the
grounds of parity. For the principle of parity to be
applicable, the reasoning and rationale behind the
judgment must be justifiable and align with the judicial
conscience of the Court. In the present case, we are
unable to find any valid or cogent grounds to apply the
judgment in R.A. No. 80/2022 or to award compensation
at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per gunta.
- 19 -
21. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to
interfere with the order of the Reference Court by
modifying the compensation as awarded.
Regarding Point No.2:
22. The lands involved in these appeals are located
within Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, which is the same locality
as the lands in LAC No. 153/2022. There is no reason to
conclude that the fertility or yielding capacity of the lands
in question differs from those in LAC No. 153/2022.
Furthermore, the compensation awarded in LAC No.
153/2022 is based on the findings in LAC No. 70/2022,
and these orders are not under challenge by the acquiring
authorities. The compensation rate of Rs. 14,000/- per
gunta has been consistently upheld for lands situated in
Nittur Hobli, acquired for the formation of the Hemavathi
Canal. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, this
Court is inclined to apply the principle of parity. Therefore,
the compensation for the land in the present case is fixed
at Rs. 14,000/- per gunta.
- 20 -
23. Insofar as the prayer for enhancement of
compensation for the mango tree, it is essential to
consider a variety of factors in determining the
compensation. These factors include the age of the tree,
the variety of the fruit or yield, the market value of the
fruit or yield, the expected lifespan of the tree, and its
yield capacity. Additionally, when valuing compensation for
trees, it is important to consider the number of fruits or
nuts produced by each tree, as well as the prevailing
market conditions, including demand and sustainability.
24. In the case of claimant No. 9, the Reference Court
awarded compensation of Rs. 5,100/- for the big coconut
tree, Rs.3,000/- for the small coconut tree, Rs. 5,000/- for
the tamarind tree, Rs. 8,000/- for the jackfruit tree, and
Rs. 1,260/- for the areca nut tree. Despite the claimants'
request for a substantial enhancement, no supporting
evidence was presented before either the Reference Court
or this Court.
25. In the absence of evidence regarding the age of the
trees, the variety of the fruit, its market sustainability, and
- 21 -
other pertinent factors, the request for enhancement
cannot be upheld. Moreover, no material has been placed
before this Court to indicate that the compensation
determined by the Reference Court for the trees is
unreasonable. After a thorough examination of the
Reference Court's order, this Court finds no grounds to
interfere or warrant an enhancement.
26. Therefore, the prayer for enhancement of
compensation for the trees is hereby rejected.
Consequently, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered
accordingly.
27. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award dated 06.10.2015 in
LAC No.202/2006 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Gubbi, is modified.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to compensation at
the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per gunta of land,
- 22 -
along with the applicable statutory benefits and
interest.
Before concluding, it is noted that the award of
compensation is currently in deposit before the Reference
Court.
I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 151 of CPC by
the claimant in MFA No.1150/2016 on behalf of
Smt. A.B.Radhamani, who is not a party to the appeal
before this Court. The application has been filed solely for
the purpose of requesting the Court for return of the trial
court record in order to release the compensation amount
held in deposit.
I.A. No.2/2024 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w
Section 151 of CPC seeking impleadment of applicants as
respondent Nos.3 to 5. The applicants are stated to be
legal heirs of claimant No.1. The impleadment is sought
to seek direction for return of TCR for release of the
amount.
It is to be noted that the claimant No.1 in LAC No.
202/2006 is not in appeal before this Court.
- 23 -
In light of the appeals having been finally disposed
of, the Registry is directed to immediately return the
records to the trial Court. Consequently, the applications
in I.A. Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 do not remain for further
consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.
The Reference Court shall release the compensation
amount in deposit expeditiously in favour of the claimants.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
YN
