Karnataka High Court
B A Thimmegowda vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 15 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
M.F.A. No.8694/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8694/2018 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
S/O APPAJIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
1. B.T. SURESHA
S/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
by RUPA V C/O B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
Location: High 110 FEET RING ROAD
Court of NEAR BRILLIANT COLLAGE
karnataka BEHIND G.U.K. BAR
HEMAVATHI NAGARA
HASSAN - 573201.
2. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O K.P. RAJEGOWDA
R/AT. NEAR THARA HOSPETEL
VINAYAKA NAGARA, ARKALGUD
HASSAN - 573201.
3. RAMACHANDRA B.T.
S/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT. KATTAYA HOBLI
BACHIHALLI, KITTANE
HASSAN - 573201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
M.F.A. No.8694/2018
HC-KAR
4. B.T. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. BACHIHALLI, KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN - 573201.
5. B.T. KUMARASWAMY
S/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. BACHIHALLI, KITTANE
HASSAN 573201.
6 B.T. SATHISHA
S/O LATE B.A. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT. 235 D, VINAYAKA NAGAR
2ND CROSS, ARKALGUD
HASSAN - 573201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
H.R.P.-II, HASSAN-573201
HASSAN DISTRICT
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION
BELUR,
HASSAN DIVISION - 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
M.F.A. No.8694/2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAC ACT, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.184/2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN. MODIFY AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.184/2014 BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 04.07.2015 passed in LAC
No.184/2014 by the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil
Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (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:40796-DB
HC-KAR
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 33 guntas in
Survey No.45/1 situated at Bhachihalli Village, Kattaya
Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, was acquired by the
respondents for the purpose of the Yagachi Reservoir
Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
determined the market value of the land at Rs.55,800/-
per acre. Upon reference, the Reference Court re-
determined the market value at Rs.20,500/- per gunta
along with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same,
the claimant has filed this appeal seeking higher
compensation.
4. Sri.Chethan B., learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the Reference Court has committed
a grave error in determining the market value of the land
in question without considering the evidence on record. It
is submitted that this Court in MFA No. 10457/2018 c/w
MFA No.10456/2018 and in MFA Nos.8760/2018, MFA
No.1475/2018, has already enhanced the market value of
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
the similarly situated lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.
The lands referred in the aforesaid appeals and the land in
question are located in same Hobli and were acquired for
the same purpose i.e., for Yagachi Reservior Project, and
the lands are identical and similar in nature. Hence, he
seeks to re-determine the market value of the land in
question at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory
benefits.
5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 and Smt.Prathiksha R.K., learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 support the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court and submit that the determination of the
market value by the Reference Court is just and does not
call for any enhancement. Hence, they seek to dismiss
the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants, the learned Additional
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both side.
The point that would arises for consideration in this
appeals is "Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court calls for any
interference?"
7. The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the
claimant's land measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.45/1
situated at Bhachihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan
Taluk, Hassan District was acquired for the purpose of
Yagachi Reservoir project vide preliminary notification
dated 05.02.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
and final notification dated 16.11.2009 issued under
Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on
02.12.2011 by determining the market value of the land in
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
question at Rs.55,800/- per acre with all statutory
benefits.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
cases of SANNEGOWDA vs. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS1 and
KUPPEGOWDA vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER AND OTHERS2, has 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 Bench has also recorded
that the said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH
MFA.No.8760/2018 dated 24.09.2021
MFA.No.10457/2018 c/w MFA.No.10456/2018 dated 05.02.2025
(2010) 5 SCC 747
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR4
and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per
gunta. In the aforesaid cases, the preliminary notifications
for acquisition were issued in the years 2008, 2009, and
2010, whereas in the present appeal, the preliminary
notification was issued on 05.02.2009. The acquisition in
all these cases was undertaken for the same public
purpose and pertains to lands situated within the same
Hobli, i.e. Kattaya Hobli. Though the notifications were
issued on different dates, the nature of the lands and their
potentiality remain identical. The lands involved in the
earlier cases and the land under acquisition in the present
appeal are similar and identical in nature and are from
same Hobli. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in
the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered view that
the land loser in the present appeal is also entitled to the
same benefits, including the enhanced market value and
statutory entitlements, as granted in the earlier connected
matters.
(2017) 4 SCC 717
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
9. It is also not in dispute that the judgments of
the co-ordinate Bench referred supra have attained finality
and there is no challenge to the said judgments either by
the State Government or by the respondent No.3-
beneficiary of the acquisition.
10. Considering the fact that the land covered in
this appeal and the lands covered in the aforesaid
judgments are identical and similar, acquired for the same
purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate the land
owners. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
appeal deserves to be allowed by re-determining the
compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory
benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, appeal is
allowed with costs.
12. The market value of the land measuring 33
guntas in Sy.No.45/1 situated at Bhachihalli Village,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40796-DB
HC-KAR
Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-
determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and
statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK/BSR
