Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Ramaswamy vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
M.F.A. No.7095/2018
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.7095/2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.S. RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT. KATTAYA VILLAGE
KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 101.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by RUPA V
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V. ADV.,)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
H.R.P.NO.2
HASSAN - 573 201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
YAGACHI PROJECT, BELUR
HASAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573201.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANASOUDHA
BANGALORE-560009.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KAVERI NIRAVARI NIGAMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
M.F.A. No.7095/2018
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R4
SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HASSAN IN LAC NO.111/2014 DATED 06.02.2015 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO RS.1,00,000/- PER
GUNTA WITH 30% SOLATIUM AND 12% PER ANNUM ON THE
ENHANCED MARKET VALUE ALONG WITH INTEREST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
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
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and
award dated 06.02.2015 passed in LAC No.111/2014 by
the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hassan
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking
for higher compensation.
2. Heard Sri.Narasimha Murthy G.V., learned
counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Prashanth B.R.,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the Reference Court has committed a grave error in
determining the market value of the land in question at
Rs.20,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
SWAMYGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER AND ANOTHER1 has enhanced the market
value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is further submitted
that in the said case, the acquisition is for the same
purpose and of the same Hobli. Hence, the appellant in
MFA No.6899/2017 dt. 22.10.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
the instant case is also entitled for the similar benefit. He
seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel
for the respondent No.4 and the learned High Court
Government Pleader support the impugned judgment and
award of the Reference Court and submits that the
Reference Court has determined the market value based
on the evidence available on record which does not call for
any interference. It is further submitted that the
judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole
basis to enhance the compensation. In support of their
contentions, they have placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR
AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS2.
It is also submitted that the appellant is required to
adduce evidence to prove the market value of the lands in
question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal.
(2018) 13 SCC 96
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3,
the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 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 this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court calls for
any interference?"
6. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the appellant's lands measuring 6 guntas in
Sy.No.303 and measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.203 situated
at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk was
acquired vide preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act dated 30.12.2008 for the purpose of Yagachi
Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
passed an award dated 05.01.2012 fixing the market
value of the lands at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The appellant
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
sought the reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. The
Reference Court re-determined the market value at
Rs.20,000/- per gunta placing reliance on Ex.P6-the
judgment in LAC No.189/2014. The learned counsel for
the appellant has strongly placed reliance on the judgment
of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of SWAMYGOWDA
referred supra and seeks to enhance the compensation to
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. We have perused the judgment
of the co-ordinate Bench. In the said case, the
preliminary notification is dated 04.02.2009 and the
acquisition is of the land in Sy.No.9/p27 of Channangihalli
Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk. The acquisition is for
the Yagachi Reservoir project only. The co-ordinate
Bench, considering the decision of another co-ordinate
Bench and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta. In the instant case, the preliminary notification is
issued on 30.12.2008, the nature of the lands involved in
the present case and the land covered in the judgment of
the co-ordinate Bench are similar and are acquired for the
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
same purpose. Hence, we are of the considered view that
the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.
7. Insofar as the decision of MANOJ KUMAR AND
OTHERS referred supra is concerned, it has no application
to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note that the
nature of land involved in the referred decision of the High
Court is different and distinct. In the case on hand, the
acquisition is for the same purpose, the lands are of the
same Hobli and the nature of lands involved in both the
cases are having similar potentiality. Hence, we are of the
considered view that the land loser whose lands have been
acquired for the same purpose and having same
potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in the award of
the compensation.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed with costs.
ii. The market value of the lands measuring
guntas in Sy.No.203 situated at Kattaya
Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk is re-
determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta
with interest and statutory benefits.
iii. The appellant is not entitled to the interest
for the delay period of 1194 days.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
