Karnataka High Court
Sri.Basappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
MFA No. 309 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.309/2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE'S.
1(a) SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O BASAPPA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
signed by
RUPA V 1(b) SRI. GANESH
Location: S/O BASAPPA
High Court AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Of
Karnataka
1(c) SRI. LOKESH
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
APPELLANT 1(a) TO 1(c) ARE
R/AT KODACHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HONNALLI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
1(d) SMT. MANJAMMA
D/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
KODACHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NYAMATHI TALUK
MADANA BHAVI POST
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 223.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
MFA No. 309 of 2015
HC-KAR
1(e) SMT. KUSUMAMMA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MALLIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NYAMATHI TALUK
BELAGUTTI POST
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 223.
1(f) SMT. LALITHAMMA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PARVATA MALLESHWARA NILAYA
DURGA GUDDI, 3RD CROSS
HONNALI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
1(g) SMT. SHANTHA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TIMMAPURA, HONNALI TALUK
HANUMANAHALLI POST
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 224.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
HONNALI CITY, HONNALLI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1
SRI. B R PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
MFA No. 309 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATE.13.7.2012 PASSED IN LAC.NO.157/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
31.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 passed in LAC
No.157/2009 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,
Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court')
seeking for higher compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Reference
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
appeal are that the claimant's lands measuring 1 acre 28
guntas in Sy.No.43/P4 and 15.5 guntas in Sy.No.35/P2
situated at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Honnalli Taluk, was acquired by the respondents for the
purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value of
the land at Rs.29,333/- per acre. Upon reference, the
Reference Court recorded the evidence. The other
claimants in the common judgment were examined as
PWs-1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. The
respondent did not adduce any evidence but with consent,
got marked copy of the award as Ex.R1. The Reference
Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, re-
determined the market value of the lands in Sy.No.35/P2
and Sy.No.43/P4 at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre along with all
statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant
has filed this appeal seeking higher compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
4. Sri.Nagarajappa A, learned counsel for the
claimant submits that the impugned judgment and award
is without considering the evidence on record in its proper
perspective. It is submitted that the Reference Court did
not consider the earlier judgments of this Court in MFA
Nos.1556/2010, 6788/2012, 7005/2007, 7004/2007 and
7007/2007, wherein the Court fixed the market value of
the nearby lands at Rs.150/- per sq. ft. It is further
submitted that the claimant's lands in Sy.No.43/P4 and
Sy.No.35/P2 at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Honnalli
Taluk, are similar in nature and have the same potential as
those lands. The lands are only about 8 to 10 kilometres
away from Alkola village where similar lands were acquired
for the same purpose of Upper Tunga Project. Therefore,
the claimant also deserves the same rate of compensation.
It is further submitted that valuable trees like tamarind,
areca nut, and bevu trees were standing on the acquired
lands but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given
very low compensation for them. This should have been
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
properly considered while fixing the total market value. It
is also submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has awarded higher compensation to the lands where
areca nut and other trees are grown. Hence, the learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment
and award of the Reference Court should be modified and
the compensation should be enhanced in line with the
decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments:
a. B. NAGOJI RAO Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR1
b. SRI BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER2
c. SRI D.G. PARAMESHWARAPPAJANGLI Vs.
SLAO AND ANOTHER3
d. SRI VEERAPPA B Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER4
e. SRI K. BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER5
f. ALIMOHAMMAD BEIGH AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR6
Civil Appeal No.9361/2017 dt. 20.07.2017
MFA No.1556/2010 dt. 07.07.2011
MFA No.7480/2012 dt. 29.01.2014
MFA No.6847/2012 dt. 29.01.2024
MSA No.91/2013 dt. 25.06.2014
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
g. SRI VITHAL RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. SLAO7
h. UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND
ANOTHER8
i. K. PERIASAMI Vs. SUB-TAHSILDAR9
j. RAJA RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB10
k. SRI G.C. SHARANAPPA Vs. SLAO AND
ANOTHER11
l. SRI NINGOJI RAO AND OTHERS Vs. SLAO
AND ANOTHER12
m. SRI ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SLAO
AND ANOTHER13
5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 and Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1
supported the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court and submitted that the determination of
the market value by the Reference Court is just and does
not warrant any enhancement. It is submitted that the
(2017) 4 SCC 717
(2017) 8 SCC 558
AIR 2004 SC 3981
(1994) 4 SCC 180
(1987 Supp.) SCC 19
MFA No.3364/2012 dt. 13.01.2020
MFA No.7123/2014 dt. 13.01.2020
MFA No.8200/2015 dt. 13.01.2020
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
award of compensation at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. pertains to
lands situated within the town limits having non-
agricultural potential whereas the acquired lands in the
present appeal are purely agricultural in nature where
sugarcane crop was being cultivated. Hence, such
comparison is inapplicable. The learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 further submitted that the lands in this
appeal and that of M.F.A. No.393/2015 decided by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court are identical, pertaining to the
same village, acquired under the same notification and for
the same purpose. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused
the material available on record. We have given our
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on
both sides.
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
7. The point that would arise for consideration in
this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court calls for any
interference?"
8. The records indicate that the claimant's lands
measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Survey No.43/P4 and 15.5
guntas in Survey No.35/P2 of Kodachagondanahalli
Village, Kasba Hobli, Honnalli Taluk, were acquired for the
Upper Tunga Project. The preliminary notification was
issued on 05.06.2003 followed by the final notification
dated 27.01.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
passed an award on 30.05.2005, fixing the market value
of the land at Rs.29,333/- per acre. The Reference Court
enhanced the market value of the acquired lands at
Rs.1,04,500/- per acre with all other statutory benefits.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
9. The primary grievance of the claimant is that
the Reference Court, while determining the market value
of the acquired lands, has erred in treating the same as
kushki (dry) land, despite clear and cogent evidence
showing that the lands were irrigated and fertile with crops
such as sugarcane, arecanut and tamarind being
cultivated. The claimant contended that this erroneous
classification has resulted in an unduly low fixation of the
market value at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre. The respondents,
however, argued that the Reference Court has rightly
determined the value since the lands were primarily
agricultural and situated away from the town limits. They
contended that the rates adopted in earlier cases of
nearby town lands having non-agricultural potential cannot
be made applicable to the lands under acquisition in the
present case.
10. On careful consideration of the records and the
rival submissions, this Court finds that the Reference Court
failed to properly appreciate the nature and potential of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
the acquired lands. The documentary evidence and the
oral testimony of PWs-1 and 2 clearly establish the
existence of bore wells and irrigation facilities in the lands.
The evidence further discloses that sugarcane was grown
therein which are typically irrigated crops requiring
sustainable water supply. The very nature of cultivation
thus contradicts the finding of the Reference Court that
the lands were kushki in nature. The classification of the
lands plays a significant role in determining its market
value. Irrigated lands, by reason of higher productivity
and cropping potential, naturally command a higher value
compared to dry lands. Therefore, once it is established
that the acquired lands were irrigated, the market value
determined on the assumption that they were dry, cannot
be sustained.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
B.NAGOJI RAO, referred supra and contend that the
quality of the land and the crop grown is required to be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
considered. Further, he placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of SRI.BASAPPA, referred supra
and contend that the appellants are entitled to
Rs.10,08,000/- per acre. It is to be noticed that in the
said judgment, Rs.2,65,500/- was considered for the lands
where the sugarcane crop was grown and Rs.10,08,000/-
to the areca nut crops grown in the said lands. In the
instant case, the records indicate that the sugarcane crop
is grown. He further relies on the decision of
SRI.K.BASAPPA, referred supra and contend that this
Court, while considering the miscellaneous second appeal
has awarded Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. Again, it is to be
noticed that the land covered in the said appeal was where
the areca nut garden was existing and based on
capitalisation method, the compensation was awarded.
The decisions in the case of SRI.G.C.SHARANAPPA and
in the case of SRI.NINGOJI RAO AND OTHERS, referred
supra of the co-ordinate Bench also have no application to
the facts of the case. In the said case, the compensation
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
was awarded at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. taking into account
the fact that the subject matter of the lands were within
the city limits.
12. The next question is the determination of the
correct market value. It is true that the claimant has not
produced any independent sale transaction or reliable
documentary evidence indicating the prevailing market
rate as on the date of the preliminary notification, i.e.,
05.06.2003. However, the absence of such direct
evidence is not fatal when there exists judicial precedent
pertaining to similar lands acquired under the same
notification and for the same purpose. When such
comparable instances are available through earlier judicial
pronouncements, the Court can rely upon them for
maintaining uniformity and avoiding disparity in the
compensation between similarly situated landowners.
13. In the present case, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, in SMT.RATHNAMMA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS14, while
considering the lands acquired under the same notification
and for the same Upper Tunga Project, has determined the
market value at ₹2,62,500/- per acre for irrigated lands.
The lands involved in that case and the present appeal are
situated in the same village and are similar in fertility,
irrigation, and agricultural potential. The principle of parity
mandates that the similarly placed claimants whose lands
are acquired under the same notification for the same
purpose should receive uniform compensation, unless
substantial distinguishing features are shown. No such
distinguishing factor is demonstrated by the respondents
in the present case.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court
holds that the Reference Court erred in treating the lands
as kushki and in awarding inadequate compensation. The
lands being irrigated and fertile, and in light of the co-
ordinate Bench's decision in SMT. RATHNAMMA, referred
MFA No.333/2015 dt. 17.04.2021
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45220-DB
HC-KAR
supra , the fair and reasonable market value is to be re-
fixed at ₹2,62,500/- per acre. The appellants are
accordingly entitled to the enhanced compensation along
with all statutory benefits and interest as per law.
15. For the preceding analysis, the appeal is
allowed-in-part with costs.
The appellants are entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.2,62,500/- per acre along with all statutory
benefits and interest as per law. However, the appellants
are not entitled for interest for the delayed period.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
