Karnataka High Court
Ramanna S/O Tammanna Habaagond vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer And Ors on 4 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
MFA No. 201149 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201149 OF 2017 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
RAMANNA
S/O TAMMANNA HABAGOND
DECEASED BY LRS.,
1. SIDDAPPA
S/O RAMANNA HABAGOND
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIRDON,
TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
2. BABURAI
S/O RAMANNA HABAGOND
Digitally signed
by RAMESH AGE: 52 YEARS,
MATHAPATI OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH R/O: SHIRDON,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
3. SHIREWA
D/O RAMANNA HABAGOND
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIRDON,
TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
MFA No. 201149 of 2017
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
& ASST. COMMISSIONER, INDI - 586 209.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY DR. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, A.A.G. AND
SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, INDI, DATED
20.12.2013 IN L.A.C. NO.6 OF 2010 AND FIX MARKET VALUE
AT THE RATE OF RS.4,00,000/- PER ACRE AND AWARD ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS AND OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
MFA No. 201149 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 20.12.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, in LAC no.6/2010,
this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, learned counsel for
appellants submitted that appeal was filed by claimant-land
loser seeking for enhancement of compensation. It was
submitted that under Preliminary Notification dated
08.02.2007, an extent of 8 acres of irrigated land in Sy.No.144
of Shiradon village, Indi Taluk, was acquired for public purpose
for formation of Shiradon Tank. In award passed by SLAO on
22.08.2008, compensation of Rs.57,000/- per acre was fixed.
Dissatisfied with award, claimant had sought reference.
Reference Court in LAC no.6/2010 along with other connected
references determined market value of lands at Rs.3,44,500/-
per acre along with statutory benefits and interest. Not satisfied
with determination, claimant has preferred this second appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
4. Though claimant had led evidence before Reference
Court for enhancement on capitalization method as well as
exemplar method, learned counsel for appellants submitted
that claimant, at present was pressing claim for enhancement
based on exemplar method by relying only on Exs.P22 and P23.
It was submitted that Exs.P22 and P23 were judgment and
award passed in LAC no.50/2011 along with connected matters
by II-Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bijapur on 25.06.2013
answering reference for determination of value of irrigated and
dry lands of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli villages. It was
submitted said villages were nearby villages wherein similar
crop pattern and yield was noted and preliminary notification
for acquisition in said case was issued on 29.11.2008 which
would be contemporaneous. It was submitted that Reference
Court in said matter had re-determined compensation in case
of irrigated lands at Rs.5,51,250/-, Rs.5,38,250/- and
Rs.5,30,250/- in respect of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli
villages. It was submitted that appellants would be satisfied
even if valuation for Honnalli village is granted.
5. On other hand, Dr.Archana P.Tiwari, learned
Additional Advocate General for Sri Maqbool Ahmed, learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
Additional Government Advocate submitted that Shiradon
village was not immediate neighboring village of either
Honnalli, Hunshyal or Jambagi. It was further submitted that
there was no material or evidence to establish that lands in said
villages were similar in nature as that in present case. It was
submitted that claimant having failed to produce any material
such as Sub-Registrar Guidance value, contemporaneous sale
deeds, etc., cannot seek to rely on assessment of
compensation in respect of lands in other villages. It was
further submitted that since valuation in exemplar award was
based on jaggery production, she sought to rely on decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hirabai and others v. LAO
Cum Asst. Commissioner1 to contend that Hon'ble Supreme
Court in similar circumstances, had not only deducted 50%
towards cost of cultivation but had also deducted further 40%
for conversion of sugar cane into jaggery. Hence, there would
be no scope for enhancement and sought for dismissal.
6. In reply, learned counsel for appellants submitted
that in course of his examination-in-chief, claimant had
(2010)10 SCC 492
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
specifically stated about similarity of lands in Shiradon village
with that of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli villages. He had
also stated about award of SLAO and enhancement of
compensation by reference Court under Exs.P22 and P23. Since
claimant was relying upon net determined market value, there
would be no scope for any reduction by referring to
methodology adopted in Hirabai's case (supra). It was also
submitted that after deduction of cultivation cost, there would
be no scope for further deduction. And except making
suggestion about dis-similarities of lands, there was absolutely
no evidence on part of respondents to substantiate their
contention.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
8. From above, it is seen that respondents have
accepted award only. Claimant is in appeal for enhancement.
Therefore, points that would arise for consideration are:
(a) Whether award of reference Court is inadequate?
(b) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as per Exs.P22 and P23?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
9. This is claimant's appeal for further enhancement.
Acquisition of claimant's land for formation of Tank, passing of
award by SLAO fixing of market value @ Rs.57,000/- per acre,
claimant filing reference application and enhancement of
market value to Rs.3,44,500/- per acre by reference Court are
not in dispute. Date of Preliminary Notification in instant case is
08.02.2007. Therefore, determination of market value has to
be as on date of Preliminary Notification. In his application for
reference filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,
claimant had stated market value of acquisition lands were
more than Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. He also stated that his
lands were irrigated with 5 HP motor pumpset and pipeline and
claimant was growing commercial crops therein. To
substantiate same, claimant produced Ex.P7, record of rights of
acquired lands for year 2001 and 2002, wherein crops grown
are recorded as sugarcane, cotton and etc. He has also
produced certified copy of judgment and award passed in LAC
no.50/2011 and connected matters as Exs.P22 and P23.
Perusal of Ex.P22 would reveal that crops grown in lands of
Jambagi, Hunshyal and Honnalli and crops grown in acquired
lands in present case were sugarcane. But 4(1) notification for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
acquisition was issued on 29.11.2008, which would nearly one
year nine months after lands acquired in question. It is settled
principle of law that fixation of market value of lands can be on
any of methods i.e., expert opinion method, sales statistics
method and capitalization of income method apart from
exemplar.
10. In instant case, claimant has chosen to rely upon
exemplar method i.e., award passed for acquisition of lands in
LAC no.50/2011 and connected matters. Reference Court
therein considering crop grown in said lands as sugarcane
deducted 50% towards cultivation cost. Since claimant's therein
had stated that they were producing jaggerry, price of jaggery
was considered by deducting further amount for cost of jaggery
production and market value for irrigated land in Hunshyal was
arrived at Rs.5,51,250/-. By same method, market value of
lands in Jambagi was arrived at Rs.5,38,250/- and Honnalli was
arrived at Rs.5,30,250/-.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Peerappa
Hanmantha Harijan (D) by L.Rs and others V. State of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
Karnataka and another2, has stated that even later award if
in respect of neighboring villages could be considered, after
verifying that same is not based on artificial escalation of value,
by de-escalating @ 5% per annum. Preliminary Notification in
present case is about a year and nine months prior to
exemplary. There is no specific evidence about which village
among three villages was proximate to Shiradon village.
Therefore, it would be safer to consider valuation fixed for
Honnalli village. Thus, computation of market value in present
case would be Rs.5,30,250/- less 7.5% which comes to
Rs.4,90,481/-. Claimant has restricted his claim to
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. Same would not bar this Court from
awarding higher compensation if entitled to, but by directing
payment of Court fee for balance amount.
12. Point for consideration is therefore answered in
affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(a) Appeal is allowed with costs.
AIR 2015 SC 2908
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835
HC-KAR
(b) Claimant is held entitled for market value of land
@ Rs.4,90,481/- per acre.
(c) Registry to draw decree only after payment of
deficit Court fee.
(d) It is seen that while condoning delay in filing
appeal as well as while filing application for
bringing legal representatives of deceased
appellant on record, this Court had denied
interest for total number of 2251 days.
Therefore, claimant would not be entitled to
interest for said period.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB,MSR
Ct;Vk
