Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs B V Somanna Gowda on 14 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
MFA No. 6196 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH 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. 6196 OF 2021 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KNNL, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.V SOMANNA GOWDA
S/O VENKATE GOWDA
Digitally signed by
AGED: MAJOR
MAYAGAIAH R/AT MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE
VINUTHA
N.R PURA TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134
KARNATAKA
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2,
R1-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.10.2018 PASSED IN LAC.NO.11/2017 (LAC NO. 21/2014),
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
MFA No. 6196 of 2021
PURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the appellant-The
Executive Engineer, KNNL, Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga
directed against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2018 in
L.A.C No.11/2017(LAC No.21/2014) passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Reference Court'), whereby, the Reference Court has allowed
the application in part filed under Section 18(1) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent No.1 herein.
2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2
before the Reference Court and the respondent No.1 herein was
the claimant before the Reference Court.
3. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
The land of the respondent No.1 measuring 2 acres 15
guntas situated at Sy.No.57/1p of Muttinakoppa Village, Kasaba
Hobli, N.R.Pura Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Upper
Thunga project vide Preliminary Notification dated 05.11.2003
and the SLAO passed an award of Rs.37,300/- per acre. The
said award was sought in reference under Section 18(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
in LAC No.11/2017 (LAC No.21/2014) by the respondent No.1
before the Reference Court.
4. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, the
claimant/respondent No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P25, however, the appellant did not adduce
any evidence.
5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the Reference Court re-determined the market value of the
land from Rs.37,300/- to Rs.10,80,000/- per acre with all
statutory benefits and interest. Challenging the reckoned
compensation, the beneficiary of acquisition is in appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Sudhakar
.S, for the appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
No.2, albeit, respondent No.1 was served notice but remained
unrepresented. We have perused the materials made available
before us including the judgment and award of the Reference
Court.
7. Sri. Sudhakar. S, the learned counsel for the
appellant authority contended that the Reference Court,
without duly appreciating the evidence on record has re-
determined the market value of the land and enhanced it to
Rs.10,80,000/- per acre by placing reliance solely on the
judgment in MFA No.1556/2010 (LAC). It is further contended
that the respondent No.1 failed to produce an iota of evidence
before the Reference Court regarding the actual market value.
The evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 has failed to
establish the quality, fertility and potentiality of the land
acquired belonging to the respondent No.1. Aside from the
RTC extract, no other document has been produced by the
claimant/respondent No.1 to prove the said aspect. Supporting
his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND
OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in
(2018) 13 SCC 96 and prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Government Advocate, the sole point arising
for our consideration is:
"Whether the Reference Court is justified
in enhancing the compensation by partly
allowing the claim petition filed by the
respondent No.1 in LAC No.11/2017 (LAC
No.21/2014) dated 09.11.2018?"
9. The materials available on record indicate that in
LAC No.11/2017 (LAC No.21/2014) land measuring 2 acres 15
guntas in bearing Sy.No.57/1p of Muttinakoppa Village, Kasaba
Hobli, N.R. Pura Taluk was acquired to benefit the appellant in
constructing channel of Upper Thunga Project by issuing
Preliminary Notification dated 05.11.2003. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO), considering the nature of the land,
determined the market value at Rs.37,300/- per acre and the
award was passed by the SLAO on 10.01.2007. The said award
was challenged by the claimant/respondent No.1 before the
Reference Court.
10. The respondent No.1, to prove his case examined
himself as PW.1 and deposed that the acquired land was an
irrigated land with high potential to yield commercial crops. The
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
yield certificate produced by the respondent No.1 as per Ex.P7
demonstrated that the respondent No.1 harvested coconuts for
the purpose of commercial use and also grew areca nuts. The
Reference Court, considering the oral and documentary
evidence recorded detailed reasons regarding the nature of
land and its potentiality. The Reference Court has considered
the judgment in MFA No.1556/2010, BASAPPA AND THE
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER AND ANOTHER
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and re-
determined the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Nevertheless, the other land losers for
the same project in land bearing Sy.Nos.190 and 173/3 of the
same village and acquired under same Preliminary Notification
had also challenged the SLAO award in LAC Nos.5/2017 and
7/2017. In the said reference the Reference Court enhanced
the award to Rs.10,80,000/- instead of Rs.37,300/-. Though
the authority challenged the said award before this Court in
MFA No.6605/2021 c/w MFA No.6073/2021 dated 27.02.2025
respectively, however, in both the cases, the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court by considering the evidence and materials placed
by both the parties, dismissed the said appeals and confirmed
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
the award passed by the Reference Court vide order dated
27.02.2025. We have meticulously perused the comprehensive
materials on record. It could be gathered from the instant case
that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of Upper
Thunga Project and the Preliminary Notification was issued
dated 05.11.2003. Admittedly, the Preliminary Notification in
the case on hand was issued 3 years after the Preliminary
Notification was issued in the case of BASAPPA referred supra.
The Reference Court has admittedly not given any escalation
for the period of 3 years and it has considered the market value
of the land as determined in the case of BASAPPA referred
supra. We have also noticed that the nature of land covered is
irrigated land and the crops grown are commercial crops.
Hence, the contention of the appellant is that the Reference
Court has erred in placing reliance on the case of BASAPPA
referred supra, as it has no merit and is liable to be rejected.
11. We have also taken note of the judgment of the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT Vs. Sayyad Farooq
and Others in MFA No.6605/2021 dated 27.02.2025. The co-
ordinate bench, taking note of the fact that the acquisition was
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
for the purpose of Upper Thunga Project and considering the
judgment passed in the case of BASAPPA referred supra, has
affirmed the determination of market value at Rs.10,80,000/-.
The appellant challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the appeal came to be dismissed vide order
dated 13.07.2022.
12. Insofar as the decision of MANOJ KUMAR AND
OTHERS referred supra is concerned, it has no application to
the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case the
Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the nature of land involved
in the referred decision of the High Court is different and
distinct. In the case on hand, the acquisition is for the same
purpose and the nature of land involved is similar having
similar potentiality to grow commercial crops. Except the
change of survey numbers, the other aspects of the land and
purpose of acquisition are similar. In such circumstances, we
are of the considered view that, the case in hand stands on
similar footing as that of BASAPPA and SYED FAROOQ AND
OTHERS as referred supra. Against this backdrop, we do not
find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court. Accordingly, we
NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB
answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceeding
to pass the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed being devoid
of merits.
Pending interlocutory application[s], if any, stands
disposed of.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
