Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Sri Jayakumar on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
M.F.A. No.4344/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH 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.4344/2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR
KARNATAKA SRI. RAMACHANDRAN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. JAYAKUMAR
S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. VENKATESH
S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
3. LOKESH
S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT GADIKOPPA
WARD NO. 35, SAGAR ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
M.F.A. No.4344/2018
4. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADV., FOR
R1 TO R3
SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R4)
THI MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.31.08.2015
PASSED ON LAC NO.136/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
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 filed by the Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Shivamogga under
Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') being aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 31.08.2015 passed in LAC
No.136/2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Shivamogga.
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
2. Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for
Sri.Ramchandran, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.Sanganagouda G. Patil, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent No.4.
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.150/- per square feet. It is submitted that the
Reference Court at paragraph No.14 of the judgment has
taken note of the judgment passed in MFA.No.3559/2013
(LAC). The said judgment of this Court was based on
MSA.No.33/2011 and the lands covered in
MSA.No.33/2011 were of Ankola Village, Shimoga Taluk,
and in the instant case the lands situated at Malligenahalli
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. This Court in
MFA.No.7998/2014 connected with other appeals arising
out of Alkola Village, Shivamogga District, considering the
judgment of this Court in MSA.No.33-41/2011 and the
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
judgments passed by the Reference Court in
LAC.No.109/2003, and LAC.No.102/2003, has fixed the
market value at Rs.105/- per square feet. Hence, the
impugned judgment in this appeal is required to be
interfered by re-determining the market value of the land
in question at Rs.105/- per square feet. Hence, he seeks
to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Sangangouda G. Patil, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits
that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in
MFA.No.7998/2014 connected with other appeals relied by
the appellant has no application to the case on hand. It is
further submitted that the claimants' land is admittedly
the converted land for residential purpose and the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench referred by the
appellant is pertaining to the agricultural land. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader
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 pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are the owners
of agricultural land in Sy.No.19/P measuring 8 acres 27
guntas of Malligenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga
Taluk. The State Government acquired the respondent
Nos.1 to 3's land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas for the
purpose of construction and formation of channel coming
under Upper Tunga Project. The material available on
record indicate that the land in question was converted for
non-agricultural purpose by the jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner vide order dated 05.10.2000. The claimants
examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
Reference Court placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in MFA.No.3559/2013 which was marked as Ex.P5,
re-determined the market value at Rs.150/- per square
feet with all statutory benefits. The Reference Court has
recorded the finding that the land acquired in
MFA.No.3559/2019 is of the same village and for the same
project. The Reference Court has also recorded the clear
finding that the land comes within the vicinity of the City
Municipality and it is very near to National Highway. The
distance between the acquired land and the city bus stand
is just 2 kms and abutting to the land there is a
polytechnic college and the entire area is developed. The
said finding of the Reference Court is based on the
pleading and evidence available on record. Admittedly, the
appellant has not adduced any evidence before the
Reference Court nor produced any evidence before this
Court to disbelieve the evidence on record and to arrive at
a different conclusion.
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Co-ordinate bench in
MFA.No.7998/2014 and connected appeals has
re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per square
feet and the same market value is required to be
re-assessed in the instant case. The aforesaid contention
is required to be rejected for the simple reason that in
MFA.No.7998/2014 and connected appeals disposed of on
13.01.2020 clearly indicate that the said judgment was
passed considering the judgments of reference court in
LAC.No.109/2003 and LAC.No.102/2003. The Co-ordinate
Bench has clearly recorded the finding at paragraph No.5
that the market value of the lands covered in MSA.No.33-
41/2011 was assessed in respect of residential plot.
However, the lands in LAC.No.109/2003 and
LAC.No.102/2003 are agricultural lands. Hence, contrary
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit. We have also meticulously perused the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA.No.3559/2013
disposed of on 08.10.2013 and MSA.No.33/2011 and
NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB
connected appeals disposed of on 16.08.2012 by the
learned Single Judge and noticed that this Court on
appreciation of the fact that the lands are converted for
non-residential use and re-determined the market value at
Rs.150/- per square feet. In our view, the Reference Court
is fully justified in placing reliance on Ex.P5 and it has
assigned detailed reasons for determination of market
value. We do not find any error or perversity in the
impugned judgment calling for interference in this appeal.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
