Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner And Ors vs Aravind And Ors on 18 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
MFA No. 201550 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201549 of 2019
MFA No. 201552 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201550 OF 2019 (LAC)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201549 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201552 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201554 OF 2019
IN MFA NO.201550/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MATHAPATI MINOR IRRIGATION, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)
AND:
NOORUDDIN HAJ DADAMATTI
R/O DHANARAGI - 586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
MFA No. 201550 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201549 of 2019
MFA No. 201552 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) of LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
15.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN L.A.C.NO.69/2011.
IN MFA NO.201549/2019:
BETWEEN
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)
AND:
1. ARAVIND S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
AGE: MAJOR,
2. BASAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
AGE: MAJOR,
3. RAJU S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
AGE: MAJOR,
ALL R/O DHANARGI VILLAGE - 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) of LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
MFA No. 201550 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201549 of 2019
MFA No. 201552 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
15.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN L.A.C.NO.68/2011.
IN MFA NO.201552/2019:
BETWEEN
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)
AND:
MALLAPPA RAYAGONDAPPA TELI
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O DHANARAGI - 586101.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) of LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
15.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN L.A.C.NO.73/2011.
IN MFA NO.201554/2019:
BETWEEN
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
MFA No. 201550 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201549 of 2019
MFA No. 201552 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA
AND:
1. BASAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
2. ARAVIND S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
3. RAJAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA TELI
4. BHARATI B. TELI
5. ASHWIN B. TELI
(MINOR R/BY MOTHER GUARDIAN
BHARATI)
ALL ARE R/O DHANARGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 - SERVED;
R5 - MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) of LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
15.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN L.A.C.NO.81/2011.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
MFA No. 201550 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201549 of 2019
MFA No. 201552 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
These appeals are filed under Section 54(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'LA
Act'). The appeals filed are as under:
i) MFA.No.201550/2019 is filed challenging the
judgment and award in LAC.No.69/2011.
ii) MFA.No.201549/2019 is filed challenging the
judgment and award in LAC.No.68/2011.
iii) MFA.No.201552/2019 is filed challenging the
judgment and award in LAC.No.73/2011.
iv) MFA.201554/2019 is filed challenging the
judgment and award in LAC.No.81/2011.
All these appeals have been filed by the Assistant
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayapura and
others challenging the Common Judgment and Award
dated 15.06.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, at Vijayapura.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these
appeals are that the appellant-authority issued preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act on
14.02.2008 to acquire various extents of land for the
construction of minor irrigation tank at Dhanargi Village.
The final notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act
came to be issued on 28.03.2009 and later, the award was
passed. Being aggrieved, the owners sought for reference
and the reference Court under the impugned judgment re-
determined the market value at Rs.5,51,250/- per acre,
with statutory benefits. Being aggrieved the State-
authorities are in appeal.
3. Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional
Advocate General submits that the reference Court has
committed grave error in enhancing the compensation to
Rs.5,51,250/- per acre without considering the evidence
on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that
the respondents-claimants have failed to produce any
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
evidence to show the yield of the crop and income arising
from the acquired land before the reference Court and the
reference Court has erred in solely relying on Ex.P40 while
enhancing the compensation. It is further submitted that
the respondents-claimants are required to adduce
evidence before the reference Court and establish the
market value of the land which they have failed to do.
Hence, she seeks to allow the appeals filed by the State by
setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the
reference Court.
4. Per contra, Smt. Rathna N. Shivayogimath,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants
supports the impugned judgment and award of the
reference Court and submits that the claimants adduced
evidence before the reference Court and produced as
many as 49 documents but the reference Court solely
considering Ex.P40 i.e., the judgment and award in
LAC.No.79-80/2011, enhanced the compensation to
Rs.5,51,250/- per acre. It is further submitted that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
reference Court has passed the common judgment in
different LACs and the State has preferred appeal before
the District Court in LAC.Appeal.No.44/2018 challenging
the common judgment and the said appeal was came to
be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 and
thereafter, the appellants have satisfied the judgment and
award of the reference Court in the execution proceedings.
Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeals.
5. The reference Court framed the points for
consideration and recorded the evidence. The claimants
examined PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P49. The
respondents did not adduce any evidence, but with the
consent got marked Ex.R1. The reference Court on
appreciation of the evidence on record re-determined the
market value at Rs.5,51,250/- per acre, with statutory
interest and benefits. Being aggrieved, the State-
authorities are in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for
respondents - claimants and perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced and the
material available on record. The point that arises for our
consideration in these appeals is as under:
"Whether re-determination of compensation
by the reference Court at Rs.5,51,250/- per
acre calls for any interference?"
7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the appellant-authority has issued a preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act on
14.02.2008. The final notification came to be issued
under Section 6(1) of the LA Act on 28.03.2009. The
appellant No.1 passed the award dated 24.09.2010 by
determining the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.51,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved the respondents -
claimants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the LA
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
Act. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.5,51,250/- per acre, with all statutory benefits. The
subject matter of the acquisition in these appeals are from
Dhanargi Village, Vijayapura Taluk and District and the
acquisition is for the construction of minor irrigation tank
at Dhanargi Village. The subject matter of the lands in
these appeals are as under:
Extend of land
Sl.No. LAC.Nos. Survey Nos.
acquired
1. 68/2011 207/2 4 acres 5 guntas
2. 69/2011 206/2D 1 acre 18 guntas
3 acres 20 guntas
3. 73/2011 208/1B (10 guntas phot
kharab)
16 acres (1 acre
phot kharab)
8. The reference Court has considered the oral
evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence on record
and recorded the finding that in Ex.P40 i.e., the judgment
passed by the same reference Court in LAC.Nos.79 &
80/2011 dated 05.07.2013, the reference Court has
enhanced the compensation at Rs.5,51,250/- in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.59/1, 58/1+2 of Hunashyal Village
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
which were acquired under the notification dated
29.11.2008 for the purpose of construction of minor
irrigation tank at Hunashyal Village and the distance
between the land in question and Hunashyal Village is very
less and the lands covered under the said notification are
also irrigated lands as can be seen from Ex.R1 - the
General Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
9. We have perused the determination of market
value at Ex.P40 by the reference Court. In the said case,
the nature of the land and its potentiality is similar to that
of the lands acquired in the case on hand and the
acquisition is also for the benefit of the same department
i.e., Minor Irrigation Department for the purpose of
construction of a tank. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Lakshmegowda vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Others1 and Sannegowda vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and others has
MFA.No.8703/2018 dated 25.09.2021
MFA.No.8760/2018 dated 24.09.2021
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Ram and
another3 and held that when the acquired lands are more
or less situated nearby, when the acquired lands are
identical and similar and acquired for the same purpose, it
would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners
to pay more compensation to some of the land owners and
less compensation to the others. The reference Court
considering the gap of nine months between the
notification dated 29.11.2008 covered in Ex.P40 and the
notification dated 14.02.2008 issued in the case on hand
has applied 3.5% de-escalation and re-determined the
market value at Rs.5,51,250/-. Hence, we do not find any
error or perversity in the finding recorded by the reference
Court calling for interference in these appeals.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents-
claimants has filed a memo dated 18.03.2025 along with
the judgments and orders of the trial Courts. The material
(2010) 5 SCC 747
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
on record indicates that the appellants have filed
LAC.Appeal.No.44/2018 challenging the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.06.2017 passed in
LAC.No.66/2011 by the reference Court. The said appeal
was filed by the appellants before the District Court
challenging the very same impugned common judgment
and awards in different LACs in view of pecuniary
jurisdiction. The Appellate Court in LAC.Appeal
No.41/2018, LAC.Appeal.No.42/2018, LAC.Appeal
No.44/2018 and LAC.Appeal.No.45/2018 vide judgment
dated 12.12.2019 dismissed the appeals filed by the
appellant-State. In other words, the finding recorded by
the reference Court in the impugned judgments and
awards, has been upheld by the Appellate Court in the
aforesaid appeals by confirming the re-determination of
market value by the reference Court. The order sheets in
aforesaid LACs further reveal that the appellants have
satisfied the judgment and award of the reference Court
after dismissal for the aforesaid appeals. In view of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1698-DB
AND 1 OTHER
same, we are of the considered view that these appeals
also deserved to be dismissed.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA.Nos.201550/2019, 201549/2019,
201552/2019 and 201554/2019 are
dismissed.
(ii) No orders as to cost.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MCR
CT: PS
