Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash vs The Union Of India on 25 July, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200843 OF 2022 (LAC)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202001 OF 2019 (LAC)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202002 OF 2019(LAC)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201011 OF 2021(LAC)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201243 OF 2021(LAC)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201470 OF 2021(LAC)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201478 OF 2021(LAC)
Digitally signed by MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200404 OF 2022(LAC)
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200405 OF 2022(LAC)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200051 OF 2023(CPC)
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200027 OF 2025(CPC)
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200028 OF 2025(CPC)
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200029 OF 2025(CPC)
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200030 OF 2025(CPC)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200843 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SURYAKANTH
S/O SHANKREPPA
AGED ABOUT : 50 YEARS,
R/O: KAMALAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI
PIN CODE: 585313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (S.C.RAILWAY)
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDERABAD (A.P) - 500 017.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI,
PIN CODE- 585 102.
3. OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR - DSGI FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC 59/2016 ON THE FILE
OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI AND
TO MODIFY JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2021 BY
ENHANCHING THE MARKET VALUE AT RS 150 PER SQ.FT. BY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202001 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL,
RAILWAYS, SECUNDRABAD,
(ANDHRA PRADESH) REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C. RAILWAYS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ITABAI W/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 313.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R2 & R3)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN L.A.C NO.24/2016 ON THE
FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN LAC
NO.24/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202002 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL,
RAILWAYS, RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING
SECUNDRABAD, (ANDHRA PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C.RAILWAYS SECUNDERABAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MURUGEPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA SHETTY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. PARVATI
W/O MURUGEPPA SHETTY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH R/O KAMALAPUR, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI- 585 105.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R3 & R4;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN L.A.C.NO.44/2016 ON THE
FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 07.08.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN
LAC.NO.44/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201011 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
SECUNDRABAD, (ANDHRA PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C.RAILWAYS
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MAHANTAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA
SAVARAGI, AGE: 46 YEARS,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 313.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA, FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C.NO.17/2016 ON
THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN LAC
NO.17/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201243 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAYS, SECUNDRABAD, (ANDHRA PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C.RAILWAYS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
AND:
1. SRI PRAKASH
S/O LALU,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 313.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C.NO.36/2016 ON
THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI
AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN LAC
NO.36/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201470 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAYS, SECUNDRABAD, (ANDHRA PRADESH)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C.RAILWAYS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PREMSINGH @ PRAKASH
S/O LALU,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, TQ: KAMALAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 105.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C. NO.34/2016
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN
LAC NO.34/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201478 OF 2021 (LAC):
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
SECUNDRABAD, (ANDHRA PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION, S.C.RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SHANTAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
1. SHIVASHARANAPPA
S/O SHANTAPPA
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI.
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED:14.07.2025)
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1(A);
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R2 & R3)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C. NO.42/2016
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN
LAC NO.42/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200404 OF 2022 (LAC):
BETWEEN:
OMKARNATH
S/O SRINIVAS RAO KULKARNI
AGE: 81 YEARS,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (S.C.RAILWAY)
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDERABAD (A.P) - 500 071.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI
P.C: 585 102.
3. OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR- DSGI FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA, FOR R2 & R3)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C. NO.61/2016
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
KALABURAGI AND TO MODIFY JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2021 BY ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE AT RS.150/-
PER SQ.FT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200405 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED: MAJOR,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.
PIN CODE: 585 313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (S.C.RAILWAY)
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDERABAD (A.P) - 500 071.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI
P.C: 585 102.
3. OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI. PIN CODE - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA FOR R2 & R3)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.A.C. NO.57/2016
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
KALABURAGI AND TO MODIFY JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2021 BY ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE AT RS.150/-
PER SQ.FT. BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA CROB.NO.200051 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
ITABAI
W/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KAMALAPURA,
TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDRABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500 003.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY - GA FOR R2 & R3)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KALABURAGI DATED
07.08.2019 IN LAC NO.24 OF 2016 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT
THE RATE OF RS.91/- PER SQ.FT. AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS INCLUDING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB.NO.200027 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI PREMSINGH @ PRAKASH
S/O LALU,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: GULBARGA.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
SECUNDRABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500 003.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R VIJAPUR-DSGI- FOR R1;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY - GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI DATED
03.02.2020 IN LAC NO.34 OF 2016 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT
THE RATE OF RS.50/- PER SQ.FT. AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS INCLUDING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB.NO.200028 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHANTAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA SAVARAGI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: GULBARGA.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDRABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500 003.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI- FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY - GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH
COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI DATED
03.02.2020 IN LAC NO.17 OF 2016 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT
THE RATE OF 50/- PER SQ.FT. AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS INCLUDING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB.NO.200029 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI PRAKASH
S/O LALU,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: GULBARGA.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDRABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500 003.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R VIJAPUR-DSGI- FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY - GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH
COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI DATED
03.02.2020 IN LAC NO.36 OF 2016 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT
THE RATE OF RS.50/- PER SQ.FT. AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS INCLUDING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB.NO.200030 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SHANTAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
DECEASED BY LRS:
SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O LATE SHANTAPPA
1.
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.
2. BHARATI W/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
RAILWAY NILAYA BUILDING,
SECUNDRABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH)
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI- FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY - GA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH
COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI DATED
03.02.2020 IN LAC NO.42 OF 2016 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT
THE RATE OF RS.50/- PER SQ.FT. AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS INCLUDING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING
POSSESSION AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS AND CROSS
OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
MFA No. 200843 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202001 of 2019
MFA No. 202002 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
The present appeals and the cross-objections arise
out of the various judgments and awards passed by the
reference Court in relation to acquisition of lands for laying
railway lines. The claimants and Union of India (through
Railways), have preferred the following appeals and cross-
objections.
2. MFA Nos.200843/2022, 200404/2021 and
200405/2021 are preferred by the claimants assailing the
judgment and award dated 29.09.2021 in LAC
Nos.59/2016, 61/2016 and 57/2016 on the file of the I
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi seeking enhancement
of compensation. The reference Court allowed the
reference petitions in part and held that the claimants are
entitled for a sum of Rs.24/- per sq. ft. for the acquired
land along with all statutory benefits.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
3. MFA Nos.202001/2019 and 202002/2019 are
preferred by the Union through Railways assailing the
judgment and award dated 07.08.2019 in LAC
Nos.24/2016 and 44/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, awarding compensation to the
claimants a sum of Rs.90/- per sq. ft. for the acquired land
with all statutory benefits and MFA CROB No.200051/2023
is preferred by the cross-objector/claimant in MFA
No.202001/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation
against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2019 in LAC
No.24/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi.
4. MFA Nos.201011/2021, 201243/2021,
201470/2021 and 201478/2021 are preferred by the
Union through Railways aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC Nos.17/2016, 36/2016,
34/2016 and 42/2016 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi, awarding compensation to the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
claimants a sum of Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft. for the acquired
N.A. potential dry land with all statutory benefits.
5. MFA CROB No.200027/2025 is preferred by the
cross-objector/claimant in MFA No.201470/2021 seeking
enhancement of compensation against the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC No.34/2016 on the file of
the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, MFA CROB
No.200028/2025 is preferred by the cross-
objector/claimant in MFA No.201011/2021 seeking
enhancement of compensation against the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC No.17/2016 on the file of
the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, MFA CROB
No.200029/2025 is preferred by the cross
objector/claimant in MFA No.201243/2021 seeking
enhancement of compensation against the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC No.36/2016 on the file of
the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, MFA CROB
No.200030/2025 is preferred by the cross
objectors/claimants in MFA No.201478/2021 seeking
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
enhancement of compensation against the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC No.42/2016 on the file of
the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi.
6. Brief facts:
The Land Acquisition Officer published 4(1)
Notification on 25.11.2010 for acquiring the lands
belonging to the claimants, situated at Kamalapur village,
Tq. and Dist. Kalaburagi. The acquisition was taken for
the purpose of laying the railway line from Gulbarga to
Bidar. The claimants are the absolute owners of the lands
acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. An award was
passed granting compensation at the rate Rs.45,500/- per
acre for dry land and Rs.68,250/- per acre for wet land.
7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimants preferred reference petition
under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
('Act', for short), claiming enhancement of compensation
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
contending that the lands acquired are very fertile and
irrigated lands. The land possesses N.A. potentiality being
adjacent to Kamalapur and the lands are situated at only
200 meters from National Highway No.218 and the
adjacent lands are converted into non-agricultural land
and their village is provided with civic amenities, which
has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer
while passing the award. They further contended that the
value of the said land was more than Rs.1,500/- per sq. ft.
8. There are three separate awards passed by the
different reference Courts in relation to the acquisition of
lands situated in Kamalapur village for the purpose of
laying the Gulbarga-Bidar Railway line, under the same
Notification dated 25.11.2010. In a batch of reference
petitions, the reference Court awarded compensation at
the rate of Rs.24/- per sq. ft. In certain cases, the
reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.45.45/- per
sq. ft. and Rs.90/- per sq. ft. Thus, creating a situation
where compensation has been awarded at three different
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
rates despite the lands acquired under the same
notification, for the same purpose and in the same
geographical vicinity.
9. Findings of the Reference Court while awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.24/- per sq. ft.
While awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.24/-
per sq. ft. , the reference Court placed primary reliance on
Ex.R.15, a sale deed dated 22.10.2009 in respect of plot
No.37, measuring 30 x 40 (1200 sq. ft) in Sy.No.14/1,
which was sold for a consideration of Rs.44,000/-.
According to the reference Court, this sale transaction was
considered to be more comparable and relevant to the
acquired lands. The reference Court though acknowledged
that Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 are proximate in time to the
preliminary notification dated 25.11.2010 and that the
properties were situated near Kamalapur Town, however,
distinguished these transactions on the ground that the
properties sold under Ex.P.29, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 were
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
small plots, intended for residential or commercial use and
all the three were facing major road or highway, which
elevated their market value. The reference Court observed
that Ex.P.31 dated 30.10.2009 an extent of 726 sq. ft.
which was sold for Rs.75,000/- was presumed to have sold
for commercial purpose and hence attracted higher price
and in contrast, the acquired land are of a large extent
and were agricultural in nature, lacking similar commercial
development or immediate marketability. The reference
Court rejected the sale deeds relied by the claimants and
accepted Ex.R.15 as appropriate exemplar for determining
compensation and ultimately awarded Rs.24/- per sq. ft.
along with all statutory benefits.
10. Findings of the Reference Court while awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft.
While awarding compensation at the rate of
Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft. relied upon the sale deed dated
30.10.2009 (Ex.P.18 in LAC No.36/2016) pertaining to
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
open plot No.2, measuring 22' x 33' (726 sq. ft.) which
was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-. The
reference Court observed that per square foot rate in the
said transaction came to Rs.103.30/- (i.e., Rs.75,000/726
sq. ft.) since the acquisition notification was issued in
2010, the reference Court applied 10% escalation bringing
the value to Rs.113.63/- per sq. ft. The reference Court
placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs. M.A. Aziz and Others1 (Aziz)
following the Apex Court decision in National Fertilizers
Vs. Jagga Singh(deceased) through LRs. And
another2 (Jagga Singh) and held that the total
permissible deduction on account of development charges
and other relevant components should not exceed 60% of
the market value. Applying this principle, the reference
Court deducted 60% from Rs.113.63/- which resulted in
net value of Rs.45.45/- sq. ft. and held that the claimants
MFA No.32505/2011 C/w 30207/2002,
200635/2014 and 200656/2014, DD:20.06.2014
(2012) 1 SCC 74
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
are entitled for compensation of Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft. with
all statutory benefits.
11. Findings of the Reference Court while awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq. ft.
The reference Court while awarding compensation of
Rs.90/- per sq. ft. for the acquired lands placed substantial
reliance on the judgment in LAC No.163/2004 and
connected matters. In that case, the Court had determined
the market value at Rs.90/- per sq. ft. for lands situated at
Mahagaon village, acquired for the same public purpose
i.e., Bidar-Gulbarga new railway line project and under the
same year of acquisition.
12. It is relevant to state here that in LAC
No.163/2004 and connected matters, pertaining to lands
situated at Mahagaon village acquired for the Bidar-
Gulbarga new railway line project, the appellant -
Railways had preferred an appeal in MFA No.201775/2018
and connected matters before this Court. This Court after
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
hearing the parties, allowed the said appeals and re-
determined the compensation payable to the claimants by
reducing the market value from Rs.90/- per sq. ft. to
Rs.37/- per sq. ft. The claimants preferred Special Leave
Petition before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.8440-
8441/2021, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
05.10.2021. However, the Apex Court granted liberty to
the claimants to file a review petition which has since been
filed and is pending consideration.
13. The fact that the compensation in Mahagaon
has already been scaled down judicially from Rs.90/- per
sq. ft. to Rs.37/- per sq. ft. and affirmed by the Apex
Court, unless overturn in review, becomes a binding
precedent against awarding Rs.90/- per sq. ft. in
Kamalapur, especially when the Mahagaon acquisition was
relied upon by the reference Court.
14. We have heard Smt. S. Susheela, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sudarshan M.,
the learned counsel appearing for some of the claimants,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants and cross-objectors, Sri Manvendra
Reddy along with Sri Narendra M. Reddy, Sri Sudheer
Singh R. Vijapur, learned counsel appearing for the
Railways.
15. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela for
the claimants submit that the reference Courts have
awarded varying rates of compensation of Rs.24/- per sq.
ft., Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft. and Rs.90/- per sq. ft. for
similarly situated lands acquired under the same
notification dated 25.11.2010 for the same public purpose,
this disparity is arbitrary, discriminatory and violates the
settled law that identically situated land owners should not
be treated unequally and places reliance on the decision of
Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Ram
and another3 (Bal Ram). It is further submitted that, the
lands are situated at Kamalapur village, it is a N.A.
potential land, just 200 meters from NH-218, adjacent to
(2010) 5 SCC 747
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
developed town Kamalapur, now a Taluka headquarters
and the lands are fertile, irrigated and have
commercial/residential potential at the time of acquisition.
Reliance is placed on Ex.P.31, sale deed dated
30.10.2009, where 726 sq. ft. plot has been sold for
Rs.75,000/- and value arriving at Rs.103.30/- per sq. ft.
It is submitted if reasonable escalation of 10% is added,
the value would arrive at Rs.113.63/- per sq. ft. Placing
reliance upon Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),
Fardikot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and others4
(Mehrawal Khewaji) submits that when several exemplars
are produced with reference to similar lands, the one
indicating the highest value and if it is found to be
bonafide transaction should be preferred and in the instant
case, the sale deed dated 30.10.2009 (Ex.P.31) is
bonafide and is the highest exemplar and must be
preferred.
(2012) 5 SCC 432
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
16. It is argued that deduction of development
charges can be permissible for residential layout
development and there cannot be deduction towards
development charges for laying of railway line, places
reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Nelson Fernandes and Ors Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, South Goa and Others5 (Nelson Fernandes).
And also reliance is placed on the decision of C.R.
Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
and Estate6 (C.R. Nagaraja) and contends that no
evidence was presented showing any requirement by the
Railways for development and thus would contend that
there could not be any development charge by way of
deduction and the compensation has to be confirmed as
per the sale deed dated 30.10.2009 (Ex.P.31).
17. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon
the decision of the Apex Court in the case Chimanlal
AIR 2007 SC 1414
C.A.No.117/2009 DD: 24.02.2009
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Poona and another7 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas).
18. Learned counsel Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil
appearing for the claimants and for the cross-objectors
would take similar contentions as raised by the learned
Senior Counsel. In support of his contentions apart from
relying upon Mehrawal Khewaji stated supra, he places
reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and another
(Anjani Molu)8 in the context of considering the highest of
the exemplar for determination of market value.
Deduction towards development charges, it is contended
that the acquisition is for laying the railway lines and only
in case the land is acquired for housing purpose, the
deduction for civic amenities can be made, however, he
would submit that in the event the Court would deduct
towards the development charges, the normal rule for
deduction would be 1/3rd and in support of this contention,
AIR 1988 SC 1652
C.A.No.8042/2004, DD: 07.12.2010
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
he places reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in
the case of M.S.N. Nadaf (deceased) by LRs and
Others Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer9 (M.S.N.
Nadar), U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul
Islam and Another10 (U.P.Avas) by the Full Bench where
deduction of 1/3rd is upheld.
19. Learned counsel Sri Manvendra Reddy
appearing for the Railways would vehemently contend that
the compensation awarded based on reliable sale deed,
such as, Ex.R.15 dated 22.10.2009 where 1200 sq. ft. was
sold for Rs.44,000/- working out to 36.66 sq. ft. adding
this escalation of 10% and deducting for development
charges rounded off to Rs.24/- per sq. ft. was rightly
arrived. It is contended that the claimants have failed to
prove exact location, proximity and infrastructure
similarity of the exemplars relied upon them. It is
submitted that the acquired land is large in extent,
Ex.P.29, P.30 and P.31 relate to small sized residential
AIR 2004 SC 3444
1998 (1) SCR 254
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
plots abutting highways or major roads used for
commercial purpose and the claimants exemplars are not
comparable and rightly not placed reliance by the
reference Court while awarding Rs.24/- per sq. ft. Placing
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Vithal Rao Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer11 (Vithal
Rao) submits that isolated sale transactions cannot be
taken into consideration. It is submitted that deduction for
development at 60% is permissible and justified and it is
in line with the decision of this Court in Aziz's case stated
supra and Jagga Singh by the Apex Court stated supra.
20. To the argument advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the Railways regarding the bar in
law to exemplars of small plots being considered, learned
Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela would argue that there is
no bar in law for taking the exemplars of smaller plots into
consideration and places reliance upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh and Others
AIR 2017 SC 3330
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
Vs. Meerut Development Authority and Another12
(Rishi Pal Singh).
21. Having heard the learned counsel for both
sides, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the judgments and awards passed by
the reference Court is in line with the settled
proposition of law and whether same warrants any
interference in the present facts and circumstances?"
22. It is pertinent to note that the conversion
potential of the acquired lands is not much in dispute
particularly in view of the fact that the Railways have not
challenged the award of compensation at the rate of
Rs.24/- per sq. ft. Therefore, in the absence of any appeal
against award of Rs.24/- per sq. ft. by the acquiring body,
the only remaining legal issue is the extent of
enhancement to be awarded based on bonafide, proximate
and higher value exemplars, after applying reasonable
deductions.
AIR 2006 SC 3572
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
23. The claimants relied upon the following
exemplar for determination of market value of the
acquired land:
i. Ex.P.29- Sale deed dated 07.06.2010 in respect
of Plot No.24 measuring 30 x 40 in Sy.No.19/1
for consideration of Rs.96,000/- which works out
Rs.80/- per sq. ft. (96,000/1,200).
ii. Ex.P.30- Sale deed dated 07.06.2010 in respect
of Plot No.21 measuring 40 x 40 in Sy.No.19/1
for consideration of Rs.1,27,000/- which works
out Rs.79.38 per sq. ft. (1,27,000/1,600).
iii. Ex.P.31- Sale deed dated 30.10.2009 in respect
of Plot No.2 measuring 22 x 33 sold for
Rs.75,000/- which works out Rs.103.31 per sq.
ft. (75,000/726).
24. And the Railways relied upon the following
exemplar for determination of market value of the
acquired land:
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
i. Ex.R.5- Sale deed dated 20.02.2009 in respect of
Sy.No.390/2 measuring 2362.5 sq ft. for
consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- which works out
Rs.63.49/- per sq. ft. (1,50,000/2362.5).
ii. Ex.R.6- Sale deed dated 27.01.2010 in respect of
Plot No.139 measuring 30 x 40 for consideration
of Rs.44,000/- which works out Rs.36.67 per sq.
ft. (44,000/1,200).
iii. Ex.R.12- Sale deed dated 09.10.2009 in respect
for consideration of Rs.40,000/- which works out
Rs.26.67 per sq. ft. (40,000/1,500).
iv. Ex.R.13- Sale deed dated 28.05.2009 in respect
of Plot No.5 in Sy.No.4/A1 measuring 30 x 40 for
consideration of Rs.36,000/- which works out
Rs.30 per sq. ft. (36,000/1,200).
v. Ex.R.14- Sale deed dated 16.05.2011 in respect
of Plot No.24/1 in Sy.No.390/2 measuring 30 x
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
40 for consideration of Rs.54,000/- which works
out Rs.45 per sq. ft. (54,000/1,200).
vi. Ex.R.15- Sale deed dated 22.10.2009 in respect
for consideration of Rs.44,000/- which works out
Rs.36.67 per sq. ft. (44,000/1,200).
25. Methodology of determination:
The Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal
Hargovinddas stated supra emphasized that the sale
deeds must be proximate in time, location and nature, and
bonafide. If all criteria are met, highest exemplar is to be
preferred. The Apex Court has held the following factors to
be borne in mind while determining the market value of
the land.
(1) Determined as on the crucial date of publication
of the modification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition
Act 9dates of Notification under Ss.6 and 9 are
irrelevant)
(2) The determination has to be made standing on
the date line of valuation (date of publication of
notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from
the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable
price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that
the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable
price.
(3) In doing so by the instances method, the court
has to correlate the market value reflected in the
most comparable instance which provides the index
of market value.
(4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into
account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in
anticipation of acquisition of land).
(5) Even post-notification instances can be taken
into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2)
genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not
motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on
account of the resultant improvement in
development prospects.
(6) The most comparable instances out of the
genuine instances have to be identified on the
following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(7) Having identified the instances which provide the
index of market value the price reflected therein may
be taken as the norm and the market value of the
land under acquisition may be deduced by making
suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors
vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition.
(8) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may
be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a
prudent purchaser would do.
(9) The market value of the land under acquisition
has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price
reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus
factors and unloading it for minus factors."
26. The "highest exemplar rule" is a settled
principle of law in land acquisition matters. It means that
when multiple sale instances (exemplars) are available
and bonafide, the highest price transaction should be
adopted to determine the market value of the acquired
land. The Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji
stated supra held that "when there are several exemplars
with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that
the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a
bonafide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value with similar land
in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller near about the time of acquisition. In our
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds
pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of
the Government, the transaction representing the highest
value should be preferred to the rest unless there are
strong circumstances justifying a different Course. It is
not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds
placed before the authority/Court for fixing fair
compensation."
27. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Anjani
Molu stated supra held that "the legal position is that
even where there are several exemplars with reference to
similar lands, usually the highest exemplars which is a
bonafide transaction, will be considered". The relevant
para No.13, reads as under:
"13. The legal position is that even where there
are several exemplars with reference to similar
lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is
a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where
however there are several sales of similar lands
whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
average thereof can be taken, as representing the
market price. But where the values disclosed in
respect of two sales are markedly different, it can
only lead to an inference that they are with reference
to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on
account of under-valuation or other price depressing
reasons. Consequently averaging can not be resorted
to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in
this behalf "
28. The Apex Court in the case of Bal Ram stated
supra emphasized that it is unfair to discriminate between
the land owners to pay more to some and less to others
when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are
identical and similar, though lying in different villages and
held that implicitly requiring the highest value exemplar to
ensure equal treatment.
29. The Apex Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh
stated supra has held that there is no bar in law to
exemplars of small plots being considered.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
30. Bearing in mind the settled proposition of law in
the decisions stated supra, the genuine and bonafide
transaction proximate to the point of acquisition of the
land situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands
possessing similar value has to be considered. The
highest value exemplar in the several sale instances is
Ex.P.31 dated 30.10.2009 in respect of plot No.21,
measuring 726 sq. ft. sold for Rs.75,000/- has to be taken
as a highest bonafide exemplar (Rs.75,000 / 726 sq.ft.)
comes to Rs.103.30/- per sq. ft. adding 10% since the
date of acquisition is of the year 2010, the market value
would come to Rs.113.63/- per sq. ft.
31. Deduction towards development charges:
When exemplars of small developed plots are used to
determine the market value of large lands, deductions are
applied for development charges. In the case of U.P.
Avas by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court stated supra
held that when sale instances of small developed plots to
determine compensation for large land, 1/3rd deduction is
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
appropriate to account for development cost and land to
be set aside for public use. The Apex Court in Mehrawal
Khewaji held that deduction must be reasonable and not
arbitrary, and Courts should examine the nature, location
and purpose of acquisition. If the land has developed
potential or abuts urban areas, lower deduction 25% to
30% may suffice. Even in Aziz's case stated supra, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the total
deductions for development and other factors must not
exceed 60%. The Apex Court in the case of Nelson
Fernandes stated supra observed that in projects like
railway line, no land is used for amenities or left open so
development deduction is irrelevant. In C.R. Nagaraja's
case, the Apex Court observed that "where the lands are
acquired for public purpose like setting up of industries or
setting up of housing colonies or other such allied
purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled to deduct
some amount from the payable compensation on account
of development charges, however, it has to be established
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
by positive evidence that such development charges are
justified."
32. In the instant case, we do not find any such
discussion or evidence put-forth by the Railways to show
the possible expenditure for such development. The land
acquired in the instant cases are development potential,
acquired for railway lines, especially near developed area,
like Kamalapur and in light of the decision narrated supra,
the deduction towards development charges which we feel
appropriate is 1/3rd i.e. 33.33% to be reasonable. Thus,
taking that the nature of the land acquired is N.A.
potential land and to some extent in large, the purpose of
acquisition is for laying railway line, the development
requirement is minimal as no internal development, like
parks, roads, etc. is required for railway projects, the
exemplar sale deed taken is dated 30.10.2009 plot size
726 sq. ft. at Rs.75,000/-. The compensation that would
be arrived is Rs.75,000 / 726 sq. ft., the price per sq. ft.
comes to Rs.103.30/-, escalation for one year at the rate
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
of 10% since the notification is of the year 2010, it comes
to Rs.113.63/- per sq. ft. applying 1/3rd deduction i.e.,
33.33% of Rs.113.63/- comes to Rs.37.87/-. The
compensation that is arrived is Rs.75.76/- per sq. ft.
(Rs.113.65 - Rs.37.87). Accordingly, the point raised for
consideration is answered, and we pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA Nos.200843/2022, 200404/2021
and 200405/2021 preferred by the claimants are
hereby allowed in part with costs, the
judgment and award dated 29.09.2021 in
LAC Nos.59/2016, 61/2016 and 57/2016 on the
file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi
are hereby modified holding that the claimants
are entitled for Rs.75.76/- per sq. ft. with
statutory benefits with admissible additions as
against a sum of Rs.24/- per sq. ft. awarded by
the reference Court.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
ii) MFA Nos.201011/2021, MFA
No.201243/2021, 201470/2021, 201478/2021
preferred by the Railways challenging the
judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 in LAC
Nos.17/2016, 36/2016, 34/2016, 42/2016 on
the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi are hereby dismissed and the MFA
CROB No.200027/2025, MFA CROB
No.200028/2025, MFA CROB No.200029/2025,
MFA CROB No.200030/2025 preferred by the
cross-objectors/claimants in the present appeals
are hereby allowed in part with costs and the
judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 passed
by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi are
hereby modified holding that the claimants are
entitled for a sum of Rs.75.76/- per sq. ft. with
statutory benefits with admissible additions as
against Rs.45.45/- per sq. ft. awarded by the
reference Court.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
iii) MFA Nos.202001/2019, 202002/2019
preferred by the Railways are allowed in part,
reducing the compensation to Rs.75.76/- per sq.
ft. as against Rs.90/- per sq. ft. awarded by the
reference Court. In light of allowing of the
appeals in part preferred by the Railways,
MFA CROB No.200051/2023 preferred by the
cross-objector/claimant seeking enhancement
over and above Rs.90/- per sq. ft. is hereby
dismissed. The claimants are entitled for
Rs.75.76/- per sq. ft. with statutory benefits
with admissible additions as against a sum of
Rs.90/- per sq. ft. awarded by the reference
Court.
iv) Deficit Court fee if any payable by
claimants to be paid within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the order.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4227-DB
HC-KAR AND 11 OTHERS
v) Interest on delay period to be
excluded.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
