Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivanna vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
MSA No. 41 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.41 OF 2018 (LA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVANNA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O MADENAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER,
SRI.HRINETHRA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O MADENAHALLI,
Digitally signed KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
by DEVIKA M TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
MSA No. 41 of 2018
HC-KAR
SADASHIVANAGARA,
TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.201/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2013 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GUBBI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the appellant's counsel and also the
counsel appearing to the respondent No.1-State as well as
counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The main question involved in this MSA is for
non consideration of the enhancement of compensation in
R.A.No.201/2016 by the Appellate Court in rejecting the
claim in respect of 28 medium arecanut trees as well as 20
small arecanut trees and though Appellate Court observed
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
HC-KAR
in paragraph No.16 regarding total trees of 136 arecanut
trees, but award was passed only in respect of 88 trees
and hence the present M.S.A is filed before this Court in
respect of difference amount of value of 28 medium
arecanut trees and also rejected the appeal and hence the
present appeal is filed.
3. The counsel would contend that when the
award was passed in respect of total 136 tress and the
Reference Court considered the same and Appellate Court
ought not to have modified the same while rejecting the
appeal and ought to have enhanced the same.
4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1-State would submit that the Appellate
Court has taken note of that only 88 arecanut trees and
the same is considered. The Appellate Court also enhanced
the same for Rs.7,174/- per tree and made an observation
that the claimant has not produced any material to
establish the value of the medium and small arecanut
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
HC-KAR
trees before this Court. The said observation is based on
material.
5. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
also would contend that Appellate Court has not
committed any error and taken note of the material placed
on record and rightly rejected the claim of the appellant
for enhancement as well as when the documents are not
placed on record, not considered the same in the appeal
filed by the claimants.
6. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing to the respondents, the point that
would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an
error in modifying the judgment of the
Reference Court by allowing the
R.A.No.201/2016 in making an observation that
the claimant has not produced any material to
establish the value of the medium and small
arecanut trees before this Court?
2) What order?
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
HC-KAR
Point No.1:
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel as well as
the counsel appearing to the respondents, it is not in
dispute that there were 136 trees and also counsel
appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court
that the very award itself is very clear that total 136
arecanut trees and 3 coconut trees and award has been
passed. It is also important to note that in L.A.C reference
No.2/2012, the Reference Court also having taken note of
the very existence of 136 trees awarded the enhanced
compensation, but in the appeal, the Appellate Court
committed an error in making such an observation that no
material is placed, when the award has already been
passed in the respect of 136 trees and the Reference Court
also taken note of the big trees, small trees as well as the
medium trees and awarded the compensation. The
Appellate Court ought not to have modified the same
reducing the same only for 88 trees. The very respondents
have not disputed the very existence of 136 trees and
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
HC-KAR
award also passed while passing the award in respect of all
the trees and also the Reference Court taken note of the
same in respect of value of medium arecanut trees rate is
fixed as Rs.1,300/- and for 20 small arecanut trees is fixed
at Rs.600/- per tree, but Appellate Court committed an
error in coming to such a conclusion that no material on
record and the said observation is erroneous and First
Appellate Court committed an error in making such
observation that no material and already same was
considered and award was passed by the Land acquisition
officer in respect of the total trees as well as the Reference
Court also taken the note of the same. When such being
the case, it requires interference of this Court and
modifying order of the Reference Court is erroneous and
hence matter requires interference and the appellant is
entitled for compensation fixed by the Reference Court at
the rate of Rs.1,300/- per 28 medium arecanut trees and
also at the rate of Rs.600/- to 20 small arecanut trees and
NC: 2025:KHC:24984
HC-KAR
also other statutory benefits. Hence, I answer the point
No.1 as affirmative.
Point No.2:
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following order.
ORDER
i) The M.S.A is allowed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court
in reference to the rejection of claim of the
appellant for the value of 28 medium arecanut
trees and also 20 small arecanut trees is set-
aside and the same is allowed by granting the
amount of Rs.1,300/- to 28 medium arecanut
trees and also at the rate of Rs.600/- to the 20
small arecanut trees with all other statutory
benefits.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
