The Land Acquisition Officer vs Kum Nireeksha Nadig
2025 Latest Caselaw 4712 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Land Acquisition Officer vs Kum Nireeksha Nadig on 5 March, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB
                                                             MFA No. 2724 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                              PRESENT

                              THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                                                   AND

                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2724 OF 2020 (LAC)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
                            ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

                      2.    DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
                            BHADRA WILD LIFE SANCTUARY,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
                                                                    ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V         AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   KUM. NIREEKSHA NADIG
                            D/O N. SUBRAMANYA PRASAD
                            AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                            NEAR RESIDENCE OF ASGAR RICE,
                            MILL MAIN ROAD, GOWRI KALUVAY,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
                      ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.
                      20.11.2019, PASSED IN LAC NO.9/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB
                                          MFA No. 2724 of 2020




II-ADDITIONAL    SENIOR    CIVIL  JUDGE    AND   JMFC.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT-1984.

    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 RAJESH RAI K

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The State has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal

against the judgment passed in LAC No.9/2010 dated

20.11.2019 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at

Chikkamagaluru, whereby the Reference Court, partly allowed

the claim petition filed under Section 18(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by

the respondent.

2. The abridged facts apposite for consideration are as

under:

The property bearing Sy.No.26/p of Hipla Village, Jagara

Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk measuring an extent of 12 acre 19

guntas belonged to the respondent was acquired by the

appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

'the LAO' for short) for the purpose of Bhadra Wild Life

Sanctuary. The award was approved by the Government vide

Notification No.Kar/E/7/Bhu.Swa.Chi.2002 dated 24.06.2002

and this was communicated to the respondent vide No.LAQ

41/2001-02 dated 25.06.2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The said property originally belonged to the father of

respondent-Late Subramanya Prasad. The LAO awarded a sum

of Rs.80,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits stipulated

in Section 23(1A) of the Act. However, while determining the

compensation, the LAO failed to consider the guideline value

determined by the Government for coffee land and also failed

to award compensation for the standing trees and bamboos on

the acquired land. As such, the respondent filed the reference

in LAC No.9/2010 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Chikkamagaluru for enhancement of compensation.

3. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, the

respondent-claimant examined herself as PW.1 and additionally

examined one more witness on her behalf as PW.2 and marked

54 documents as Exs.P1 to P54. The officer of the appellant

was examined as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1

and R2.

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

4. After assessment of oral and documentary

evidence, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition

filed by the respondent and awarded the compensation and

passed the order which reads as under:

"The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act-1984 is hereby partly allowed with costs.

The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.70,11,600/- with respect to acquired land and trees. Since the petitioner is already received Rs.14,17,100/-. The petitioner is entitled for remaining balance of Rs.55,94,500/-.

The claimant is entitled for additional market value at the rate of 12% on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of preliminary notification till the date of award as provided U/s 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act.

The claimant is entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced market value as per Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.

As per Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner is entitled to an interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced market value for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum after expiry of period of 1 year till the date of payment after deducting the amount already paid to the petitioner by the opponent under the provisions of Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984.

The respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within the period of 90 days from the date of this judgment and payment of

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

compensation will be subject to any deduction of any encumbrance in respect of the acquired property."

Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the State

preferred this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned Additional Government

Advocate for the appellants and the learned counsel for

respondent.

6. The primary contention of the learned AGA is that

the Reference Court grossly erred while enhancing the

compensation without appreciating the evidence and

documents on records in right perspective. The Reference Court

enhanced the compensation merely based on the affidavit filed

by the respondent. As a matter of fact, PW.1 in her cross-

examination categorically admitted that after acquisition of land

bearing Sy.No.26/p she received the entire compensation

amount of Rs.14,17,160/- awarded by the competent authority

and was additionally compensated by granting land in Kelaguru

Grama to an extent of 10 acres and 60 x 90 plot. To

substantiate his contention, the AGA adduced additional

documents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference

Court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

contended that the Reference Court following a meticulous

perusal of the comprehensive evidence and documents placed

before it, passed a well reasoned judgment and awarded the

compensation which does not call for any interference at the

hands of this Court.

8. He further contended that though the Reference

Court directed the Range Forest Officer and the ADLR to inspect

the land in dispute to submit a report regarding the standing

trees on the land, however, they failed to submit the report and

as such, the Reference Court based on the evidence of PWs.1

and 2 arrived at the conclusion that the LAO grossly erred while

passing the award without duly considering the fact that there

stood trees, bamboo shoots and coffee shrubs. As such, the

Reference Court passed a reasonable award. Accordingly, he

prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties, the sole point arising for our consideration is:

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

"Whether the Reference Court is justified in enhancing the compensation by partly allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in LAC No.9/2010 dated 20.11.2019?"

10. It could be gathered from records that the

agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26/p measuring 12 acre 19

guntas of Hipla Village belonged to one Late Subramanyra

Prasad i.e., the father of the respondent and that the said land

was acquired for the purpose of Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary.

Further, it is not in dispute that the said land was a coffee

plantation. The Reference Court while allowing the claim

petition re-appreciated the entire evidence available on record.

Albeit, RW.1 placed Ex.R1 and R2, however, he failed to

produce any such credible documents to prove that the

respondent was granted the rehabilitation award. Further, his

evidence establishes that the Commissioner report adduced

before the Reference Court discloses the standing trees and

bamboo shoots on the disputed land.

11. Though the learned AGA vehemently contended

that the additional documents adduced by him depicts that the

respondent was rehabilitated by granting agricultural land and

plots in myriad parts of the said village, the same was

NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB

considered by the Reference Court while enhancing the

compensation. Against this backdrop, we find no good ground

to interfere in the award passed by the Reference Court.

Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed being devoid

of merits.

SD/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

SD/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

HKV