Karnataka High Court
Subhashchandra vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
MSA No. 200165 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200165 OF 2021 (LA)
BETWEEN:
SUBHASHCHANDRA
S/O KASHANNA
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VENKATBENNUR VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY AND
SMT. SHIVALEELA S.S., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 1. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MATHAPATI M AND MIP, ROOM NO.7,
Location: HIGH MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAQBOOL AHMID, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2016 PASSED BY THE IV
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
MSA No. 200165 of 2021
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KALABURAGI
AT KALABURAGI IN LAC APPEAL NO.119/2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PLEASED TO MODIFY BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AT RS.2,36,824/- PER ACRE TREATING WET LAND FROM
RS.1,43,863/- PER ACRE DRY AS AWARDED BY THE LOWER
APPELLATE COURT AND FOR ANY OTHER ORDER THE
APPELLANT FOUND ENTITLED AND THE HON'BLE COURT
DEEMED FIT BE ALSO GRANTED IN INCLUDING THE ORDER OF
REMAND, WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, INTEREST AND
WITH COST, TO MEET THE REAL ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
With consent of both counsel, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 12.04.2016
passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi at
Kalaburagi in LACA no.119/2016 and judgment and award
dated 20.04.1996 passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in
LAC no.158/1994, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri SS Sajjanshetty, learned counsel submitted that
appeal was by claimant/land loser for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that for purpose of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
HC-KAR
construction of Khaji Kotnoor water tank, respondents acquired
wet land to extent of 6 acres in Sy.no.96 situated in Venakat
Benur village, taluk Kalaburagi under Preliminary Notification
issued on 08.11.1990 under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition
Act. It was submitted, on 27.10.1992, Rs.8,000/- per acre for
wet land was awarded. On application for reference filed by
claimant, reference Court registered LAC no.158/1994.
4. On contest, reference Court allowed same and re-
determined marked value of land acquired at Rs.20,000/- per
acre in respect of dry land and Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect
of wet land. Dissatisfied, land-loser filed LACA no.119/2016. In
said appeal, claimant relied on an award in respect of lands
acquired, belonging to same village, for same public purpose
under same Preliminary Notification in LACA no.277/2015.
Following said award, appeal was allowed. But, appellate Court
applied marked value determined in respect of dry land i.e. at
Rs.1,43,863/- per acre instead of Rs.2,15,800/- per acre
determined in respect of wet land. Therefore, present appeal
was filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
HC-KAR
5. It was submitted, first appellate Court had not
assigned any specific reasons for treating land of appellant as
dry land. It was submitted, in fact Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SLAO) had treated said land as wet land and awarded
compensation accordingly. Even, reference Court had
determined compensation of claimant's land by treating it as
wet land. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on other
hand opposed appeal.
7. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award
and records.
8. From above, point that would arise for consideration
is :
"Whether claimant/land-loser is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought for?"
9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following
reasons.
10. From above, only subsisting dispute is about nature
of claimant's land. Perusal of Ex.P-8 (Record of Rights) would
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
HC-KAR
show nature of land as wet land with 'tubewell' as source of
irrigation. Crops are shown as Sunflower and Jowar. Same is
corroborated by report at Ex.P-12, wherein it is stated that
amount was spent for digging Borewell. Moreover, reference
Court has treated claimant's land as wet land and awarded
compensation accordingly. Therefore, in absence of dispute
about nature of land by respondents, appellate Court could not
have treated it as dry land and awarded lesser compensation,
that too without specific reason. For aforesaid reasons, award
by appellate Court would not be justified. Since, appellate Court
has relied upon judgment and award in LACA no.277/2015,
wherein compensation for wet land acquired for same purpose
from same village was determined at Rs.2,15,800/-, claimant
would be entitle for same.
11. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part with cost. Judgment and
award dated 12.04.2016 passed by IV Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi at
Kalaburagi in LACA no.119/2016 is modified;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4088
HC-KAR
ii) Claimant is held entitled for compensation at rate
of Rs.2,15,800/- per acre with all consequential
benefits, and for interest, excluding delay period
of 1342 days as per order dated 21.07.2025.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
