Karnataka High Court
B K Shivakumar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
MFA No. 1791 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2025 (AA)
BETWEEN:
1. B K SHIVAKUMAR
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. B.K. GIREESH
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. B.K. UMMESH
Digitally signed S/O KARIBASAPPA,
by NIRMALA
DEVI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH COURT ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST,
OF R/O HALE BATHI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577 566.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
MFA No. 1791 of 2025
HC-KAR
P.B. ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 501,
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER (NH 48)
NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI
TEMPLE,
KSRTC DEPOT ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-577 501,
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NH-48, NEAR GMIT COLLEGE,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 PASSED IN A.P.NO.03/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT 1996.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
MFA No. 1791 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section
37(1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter
A&C Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere [Commercial
Court] in A.P. No.3/2024. The appellants had filed the said petition
under Section 34 of the A&C Act, impugning an arbitral award
dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
[respondent No.1], Chithathurga, Haveri Division (NH-48),
Davanagere District, Davanagere [Annexure-B].
2. The disputes essentially relate to the compensation
determined by respondent No.3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer
[hereafter 'SLAO'] in respect of land measuring 1010 square
meters located in Halebathi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Davanagere
Taluk ['subject land'] which was acquired pursuant to the
notifications dated 29.01.2016 under Section 3A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 ['Act, 1956'] and 27.01.2017 issued under
Section 3D(1) of the Act, 1956. The SLAO has determined the
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
HC-KAR
compensation payable for the subject land at Rs.3,59,388/-.
Additionally, the compensation for the loss of trees and plant was
determined at Rs.22,508/- and construction raised thereon at
Rs.42,13,242/-, the SLAO also determined the solatium at 100% of
the amount at Rs.45,95,138/- and further 12% interest. The total
compensation is determined at Rs.92,59,279/-.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred an
application under Section 3G (5) of the Act,1956. It is the
appellants' case that the compensation determined was below the
market value. In particular, the appellants claimed that the subject
land was converted for non-agricultural purposes and therefore, the
compensation is required to be determined on the basis of rates of
converted for non-agricultural purposes. However, the SLAO has
determined the compensation of subject land based on the premise
that it is an agricultural land. The appellants also sought additional
compensation for the building and construction raised on the
subject land.
4. The arbitral Tribunal rejected the said claims in terms of the
impugned order, principally on the ground that the appellants had
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
HC-KAR
failed to produce any evidence to establish that the value of the
subject land was significantly higher than that determined by the
SLAO. The appellants had also failed to produce any order
converting the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The
arbitral Tribunal also observed that it had no jurisdiction to enhance
the compensation with regard to respective buildings.
5. The appellants filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C
Act to set aside the award. However, the same was dismissed by
the impugned order.
6. The principal question that falls for consideration is 'whether
the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is
vitiated by patent illegality or is otherwise opposed to the public
policy of India?'
7. In our view, none of the aforesaid grounds -- as are
specified in Section 34 of the A&C Act -- are established. As
noticed above, the impugned award is premised on the basis that
the appellants have failed to produce any documentary or other
evidence to establish that the value of the subject land is
significantly higher than as determined by the SLAO. Since the
NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB
HC-KAR
appellants' claim was not supported by any evidence or material
evidence, the arbitral Tribunal rejected the same.
8. In our view, the decision does not suffer from any perversity
or non application of mind as concededly there are no documents
or material on record to establish that the value of the subject land
was higher than as determined by the SLAO. The appellants claim
that the value of the land was required to be determined on the
basis of rates for commercial land, was also rejected as the
appellants had not produced any material to show that the subject
land was legally converted. In view of the above, we find no merit
in the present appeal.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BS
