Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
M.F.A. No.713/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.713/2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
2. SRI. PAPEGOWDA
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM 3. SRI. SUBBEGOWDA
Location: HIGH S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT. HONGERE VILLAGE
SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II
OFFICE AT D.C. OFFICE BUILDING
HASSAN-572101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
M.F.A. No.713/2018
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET AIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8TH JUNE 2015 IN
LAC NO.153/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN, BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION UP RS.22,67,437/- AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT 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 filed by the appellants-claimants under
Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') seeking for higher
compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 08.06.2015 passed in LAC No.153/2012 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
2. Heard Sri.Rajaram Sooryambail, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri.Prashanth B.R, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the Reference Court has committed grave error in
determining the market value of the land in question at
Rs.32,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the land of the
appellants measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli
Village, Shanthi Grama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan
District, was acquired for the purpose of construction of
Lift Irrigation Project. It is further submitted that the
Reference Court, in LAC Nos.58/2016 and connected
matters, arising out of acquisition of land for the same
purpose, has awarded the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-
per gunta. The land involved in those cases and the land in
the case on hand, are similar in nature and having same
potentiality. It is also submitted that this Court in MFA
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
No.6900/2017 and connected appeal, has considered the
various aspects and re-determined the compensation at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and the acquisition of land in the
said case was for Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal in terms of the said
judgment.
4. Per contra, Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel
for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court and submits that the appellants-claimants
are required to establish the market value of the acquired
land by cogent and legally acceptable evidence and not
just by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the
Reference Court and seek for compensation. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that
respondent No.2 was not a party in the judgments
referred by the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence,
those judgments cannot be relied and compensation
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
cannot be determined on the basis of the said judgment.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, the learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. The only 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 State Government has issued preliminary
notification dated 19.01.2007 followed by the final
notification dated 19.03.2008 to acquire various extents of
land including the land in question i.e., land measuring 20
guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli Village, Shanthigrama
Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, for the purpose of
Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project. The claimants in
order to prove the case before the Reference Court
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
examined PW-1 and got marked two documents as Exs.P-
1 & P-2. The respondents have not adduced any evidence
before the Reference Court. Considering the material
available on record, the Reference Court determined the
compensation at Rs.32,000/- per gunta with all benefits
under the provisions of the LA Act. It is also not in dispute
that the Reference Court in LAC No.58/2016 and
connected matters vide judgment dated 13.06.2016, has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all
benefits under the provisions of the LA Act. The
preliminary notification in the aforesaid judgment was
issued on 21.09.2006. Similarly, the Reference Court in
LAC No.160/2014 has awarded compensation at
Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all benefits under the
provisions of the LA Act and in the said case the
preliminary notification was issued on 27.08.2009, which
is two years subsequent to issuance of preliminary
notification in the case on hand. Hence, the appeal is
required to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid
judgments.
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
7. This Court, in the case of
Sri.A.B.Lakshmegowda vs. State of Karnataka and
another in MFA No.6900/2017 and connected appeal,
considering the various aspects and taking note of the fact
that the land acquired is for the same project and having
same potentiality and the land involved in the notification
are similar in nature, allowed the appeals and re-
determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.
Taking note of the aforesaid judgment and two other
judgments of the Reference Court referred supra, we are
of the considered view that the appellants are also entitled
to similar compensation. In view of the fact that the
acquisition in the case on hand and the cases refereed
supra, is for the same project and lands having same
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 awarding the compensation. Therefore, we
are of the view that the appellants-claimants are entitled
NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB
for compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all
statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the
LA Act.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed with costs
ii. The market value of the land measuring 20
guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli Village,
Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan
District is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta with interest and statutory benefits.
However, the appellants-claimants are not
entitled to interest for the delayed period of 864
days.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
