Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkataiah vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 February, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB
                                                      M.F.A. No.714/2018




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.714/2018 (LAC)


                BETWEEN:

                 SRI. VENKATAIAH
                 S/O GOVINDAIAH
                 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                 R/AT. CHANNAGIHALLI VILLAGE
                 KATTAYA HOBLI
Digitally signed HASAN TALUK-572201.
by RUPA V                                                    ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.,)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                AND:

                SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II
                OFFICE AT D.C. OFFICE BUILDING
                HASSAN-572101.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP)


                     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
                ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE
                IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3RD AUGUST 2015
                IN LAC NO.319/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II
                ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN, BY
                ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION UP TO 43,29,134/- AND
                GRANT SUCH OTHER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB
                                         M.F.A. No.714/2018




MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is by the claimant seeking for higher

compensation challenging the judgment and award dated

03.08.2015 passed in LAC.No.319/2014 by the II

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

2. Heard.

3. Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for

the appellant submits that the Reference Court has

committed grave error in awarding meagre compensation

of Rs.20,500/- per gunta with statutory benefits and

interest without appreciating the potentiality of the land. It

is submitted that the land of the appellant measuring 33

guntas in Sy.No.9 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli,

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

Hassan Taluk has been acquired by the State for the

purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project and similarly placed

land looser has approached this Court seeking for higher

compensation in MFA.No.6899/2017. A Co-ordinate Bench

of this court vide judgment dated 22.10.2024 has

considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and re-determined the market value of the acquired land

at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. He

submits that the acquisition in the instant case and the

case of Sri.Swamygowda vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer and Another in MFA.No.6899/2017 are arising

out of the same notification and acquisition is for the same

purpose and also of the same Village. Hence, similar

benefits are required to be granted to the appellant herein.

He seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the

compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

4. Per contra, learned AGA supports the impugned

judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits

that the appellant is required to prove the nature of land

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

and its potentiality before the Reference Court by leading

evidence. He submits that the claimant is required to

prove his case by cogent and legally acceptable evidence

and prove the market value. He further submits that the

determination of the market value by the Reference Court

is based on the pleading and evidence on record and does

not call for any enhancement. He seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellant and learned AGA appearing for

the respondent 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?"

6. The undisputed facts between the parties are

that the appellant is the owner of land measuring 33

guntas in Sy.No.9 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli,

Hassan Taluk and the said land has been acquired by the

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

State government for Yagachi Reservoir Project vide

preliminary notification dated 04.02.2009 and final

notification dated 16.11.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer

determined the market value of the land in question by

passing an award dated 04.01.2012 by fixing the market

value at Rs.52,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits

and interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant sought a

reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence

on record, by common judgment re-determined the

market value at Rs.20,500/- per gunta with all statutory

benefits and interest. Being aggrieved, the

claimant/appellant is in appeal seeking for higher

compensation.

7. In support of the contention, learned counsel

for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Sri.Swamygowds vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

and Another referred supra. We have meticulously

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

perused to the grounds urged in the appeal and the

reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench. We have noticed that

the acquisitions in both the cases are for the same project

i.e., Yagachi Reservoir Project, the preliminary notification

in both the cases were issued on 04.02.2009 and lands

covered in both the cases are from the same village. The

Co-ordinate Bench taking note of the earlier decisions and

the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

re-determined the market value and enhanced the

compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

8. We are of the considered view that the nature

of the land involved in the present appeal and the nature

of land covered in the aforesaid judgment are of the same

Village and acquired for the same purpose under same

notifications, hence the land owners covered in two set of

cases cannot be treated dissimilarly. Our view gain

support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. BAL RAM AND

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

ANOTHER1. Therefore, the appellant in the instant case

is also entitled to the similar market value for his land

acquired for the same purpose under the same

notifications. Applying the said analogy we have

re-determined the compensation in the instant case at

Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and

interest. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i) The MFA.No.714/2018 is allowed in part

with costs.

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

03.08.2015 passed in LAC.No.319/2014 by

the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Hassan is modified.

iii) The market value of the acquired land

measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.9 of

Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli,

(2010) 5 SCC 747

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB

Hassan Taluk and District is re-determined

at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

iv) The Claimant is entitled to all statutory

benefits and interest as per provisions of

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

v) The appellant is not entitled to interest for

delayed period of 808 days.