Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lalithamma vs Land Acquisition Officer on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
M.F.A. No.1754/2017
C/W M.F.A. No.1311/2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.1754/2017 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1311/2016 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.1754/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
Digitally signed KOLAR.
by RUPA V
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Court of
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
karnataka
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
[AMENDED ON 27.10.2017 AS PER
ORDER DATED 27.10.2017].
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA)
AND:
SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE GOPAL RAO
SINCE DIED AND
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE THE LRS.
1. SRI. N.G. SAMPATH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
M.F.A. No.1754/2017
C/W M.F.A. No.1311/2016
HC-KAR
[DIED DURING TRIAL
DELETED AS PER C.O.DTD:02.03.2017]
2. SRI. N.G. VASUDEVA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
3. SRI. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
4. SRI. N.G. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
5. SRI. N.G. SHESHAGIRI RAO
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
6. SRI. N.G. AMARANATH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR.
ALL ARE SONS OF LATE GOPAL RAO
AND TRUSTEES OF GOPAL RAO
MEMORIAL TRUST
RESIDENTS OF D.C. EXTENSION
TEKAL ROAD, KOLAR TOWN-563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV., FOR R2 TO R6
(R1 DEAD BY LRS R2 TO R6)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2015 MADE BY THE LEARNED I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT KOLAR IN LAC NO.01/2009 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.1311/2016:
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE GOPAL RAO
SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1 TO 5.
1. SRI. N.G. VASUDEV
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
M.F.A. No.1754/2017
C/W M.F.A. No.1311/2016
HC-KAR
2. SRI. N.G. SRINIVASAN
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3. SRI. N.G. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. SRI. N.G. SHESHAGIRI RAO
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
5. SRI. N.G. AMARANATH
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
ALL R/AT P G EXTENSION
KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR-563101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV.,)
AND:
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR-563101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN
LAC NO.1/09 DATED 09.10.2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
FIXING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND OF THE APPELLANTS
ONLY AT RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE INSTEAD OF RS.25,00,000/-
PER ACRE AND AWARD THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION BY
CALCULATING THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DIFFERENCE
AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- PER ACRE CLAIMED AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE MFA's HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
M.F.A. No.1754/2017
C/W M.F.A. No.1311/2016
HC-KAR
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)
MFA No.1311/2016 is filed by the claimants seeking for
higher compensation and MFA No.1754/2017 is filed by the
Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Kolar and another. Both the
appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 09.10.2015
passed in LAC No.1/2009 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kolar.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Reference Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals
are that the claimants are the owners of land measuring 3
acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.222 of Narasapura Village, Narasapura
Hobli, Kolar Taluk. The State Government issued preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 23.01.2003 and
final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on
20.06.2003. The LAO determined the market value and passed
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
an award on 24.05.2004 awarding total compensation of
Rs.7,63,215/-. The claimants sought a reference under Section
18(1) of the Act. The Reference Court recorded the evidence.
The claimant No.3 examined himself as PW-1, got marked
Exs.P1 to P14. The respondent did not adduce oral evidence
but with consent got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Reference
Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
re-determined the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and also awarded statutory benefits.
Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as State are in appeal.
4. Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants submits that the Reference Court has
committed a grave error in awarding meagre compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- per acre without appreciating the fact that the
land in question is abutting Narasapura town which was used
for the purpose of touring talkies which is evident from Exs.P1
and P2. It is further submitted that the claimants have
produced the sale deeds at Exs.P11 and P12 which demonstrate
that the land measuring 2 acres 28½ guntas was sold at
Rs.1,41,44,000/- in the year 2009 and similarly under Ex.P12,
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
1 acre 24 guntas of land was sold at Rs.16,00,000/- in the year
1999 and considering these evidence, the compensation is
required to be re-determined atleast at Rs.25,00,000/- per
acre. It is also submitted that the Reference Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that the land was having non-agricultural
potential. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal filed by the
claimants by dismissing the appeal filed by the State.
5. Per contra, Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent-State submits that
the Reference Court, without any justifiable reason has
enhanced the market value of the land in question at
Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the LAO has
considered the sale statistics of Narasapura Village for the
relevant period and awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-
per acre for dry land and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for wet land.
It is further submitted that Exs.P11 and P12 cannot be the
basis to determine the market value as they are much prior and
much later to the preliminary notification in question. Hence,
she seeks to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants by
allowing the appeal of the State.
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants-claimants, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent-State and perused
the material available on record including the original record of
the Reference Court. We have given our anxious consideration
to the submissions made on both sides.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court calls for any interference?"
8. The answer to the above point is answered in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
a. Before adverting to the issue involved in these
appeals, it would be useful to refer to the relevant paragraphs
of the decision of the Apex Court in CHIMANLAL
HARGOVINDDAS vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, POONA & ANOTHER1, as under:
"The following factors must be etched on the mental
screen:
(1988) 3 SCC 751
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot
take into account the material relied upon by the Land
Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is
produced and proved before the Court.
1. By Certificate under Article 133( l)(a) of the Constitution
of India as it existed at the material time.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not
to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or
exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the
Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land
Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for
making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless
produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the
Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or
disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm,
modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land
Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original
proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh
on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to
show that the price offered for his land in the award is
inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the
other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates
of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date
line of valuation (date of publication of notification
under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser
willing to purchase land from the open market and is
prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the
land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most
comparable instance which provides the index of market
value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of
Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into
account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3)
the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to
pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement
in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine
instances have to be identified on the following
considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the
index of market value the price reflected therein may be
taken as the norm and the market value of the land under
acquisition may be deduced by making suitable
adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land
under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be
drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be
evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has
there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in
the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it
for minus factors
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to
be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent
man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate
some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a
distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to death.
4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled
up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed
locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land under 6. some special
acquisition. disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of
an adjoining property to whom
it may have some very special
advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on
the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast
or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable
guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A
building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds. cannot be
compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq.
yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach
of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by
preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space,
plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers
(meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the
hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted
by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an
appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to
account for land required to be set apart for carving out
lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to
some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or
urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and
whether waiting period during which the capital of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter
and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern
bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of
land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense."
Keeping in mind the broader guidelines laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision,
we consider the case on hand.
b. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of
land owned by the respondent is measuring 3 acres 5
guntas in Sy.No.222 of Narasapura Village, Narasapura
Hobli, Kolar Taluk which was acquired by the State
Government by issuing preliminary notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, on 23.01.2003 and final
declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on
20.06.2003. The LAO determined the market value and
passed an award on 24.05.2004 awarding total
compensation of Rs.7,63,215/-. The reference Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.
c. The claimants adduced the oral evidence of
claimant No.3 which indicates that the acquired land was
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
used for non agriculture purpose and the property is
fenced with stone slabs and portion of the land was used
for touring talkies. The aforesaid evidence indicates that
the acquired land abuts to the town limits of Narasapura.
The evidence further indicate that towards the eastern
side of the land in question Vemgal main road is situated
and on southern side national highway is situated at a
distance of 300 mtrs. The cinema theater of
Ashwathnarayan Shetty abuts to the acquired land. The
Narasapura bus stand, commercial complex, shops,
panchayath office, police station, hospital are situated
within the distance of 100 mtrs. The claimant No.3
deposed that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board (for short 'KIADB') and housing board acquired
lands in neighboring villages and the compensation is
fixed at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. Also number of layouts
are formed in the acquired land and the sites of 30 x 40
feet have been sold at Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-
per site. The said witness has been cross examined by
the respondent and nothing was elicited to disbelieve the
evidence of PW.1. It is to be noticed that the respondent
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
has not adduced oral evidence before the reference
Court. Hence, the contention of the learned AGA that the
sales statistics average relied by the Land Acquisition
Officer while passing the award is required to be
considered, has no merit as the Land Acquisition Officer
has not entered the witness box by producing sales
statistics or the other documentary evidence to justify the
award of compensation. The claimants placed reliance on
Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 which indicate that the acquired land is
abutting to Narasapura town and within the village limits.
The aforesaid exhibits corroborates with the oral
testimony of PW.1 which indicates that the acquired land
was having non agriculture potential. Ex.P6 is the notice
issued by KIADB to the land owners under Section 29 (2)
of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act,
1966 (for short 'the KIADB Act') which indicate that the
KIADB has fixed consent market value of the land
acquired by it at Rs.29,00,000/- per acre. It is to be
noticed that the said land was acquired under the
preliminary notification dated 06.09.2006 as it is evident
from Ex.P7 and the final notification on 25.08.2007 as it
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
is evident from Ex.P8. The subject matter of the land
acquired is on 23.01.2003 and the aforesaid exhibit is
pertaining to 2006, and there is a gap of three years.
Ex.P11 is the sale deed dated 25.02.2009 pertaining to
the Sy.No.35/1 measuring 2 acre 28½ guntas of
Byrasandra Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and the
sale consideration is 141.44 Lakhs. The sale deed at
Ex.P11 is again not of the same village but adjacent
village and the distance between the Byrasandra village
and Narasapura village is not forthcoming from the
evidence on record. It is also to be noticed that the sale
deed is of the year 2009 and acquisition in question is of
the year 2003, and there is a gap of six years. Similarly,
Ex.P12 dated 23.09.1999 is pertaining to land measuring
1 acre 24 guntas of Byrasandra Village and the sale
consideration is Rs.16,00,000/- . Ex.P12 is nearly 3½
years prior to the issuance of preliminary notification
dated 23.01.2003 and it is not in dispute that the said
land is converted for non agriculture purpose. Exs.P13
and 14 are the awards passed under the provisions of the
National Highways Act, 1956 and the acquisition is of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
year 2006 and as per the award, Rs.25,00,000/- per acre
was the compensation awarded. Admittedly, the aforesaid
exhibits are not contemporaneous documents to place full
reliance to arrive at a conclusion and to determine the
market value of the land in question. The KIADB
acquired the land of the adjacent village in the year 2006
and consent award was passed by fixing the market value
at Rs.29,00,000/- per acre which is 3 years after the
preliminary notification in question. Ex.P11-sale deed of
the year 2009 with regard to the land in Byrasandra
Village which is on the higher side, cannot be the basis to
arrive at a conclusion with regard to determine the
market value of the land in question. Ex.P12 which is of
the year 1999, and the land was sold approximately at
Rs.10,00,000/- per acre can be considered for the
purpose of arriving at a conclusion with regard to the
market value of the land in question. However, 3½ years
escalation to the aforesaid consideration at the rate of
15% approximately is required to be considered to
determine the market value of the land in question.
Similarly, Exs.P13 and P14 are the awards passed by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
authority under the provisions of NHAI. Again the
acquisition is of the year 2006 wherein Rs.25,00,000/-
per acre compensation has been awarded and the lands
covered under the aforesaid award are of different village.
Considering Exs.P13, 14 as well as Ex.P6, if the principle
of de-escalation at the rate of 10% is applied, the
approximate market value can be arrived. On re-
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, we are of the considered view that the claimants
have neither produced sale deeds of Narasapura Village
nor produced guidance value notification of Narasapura
Village. Hence, it would be difficult to arrive at the
correct market value of the land in question. Considering
Exs.P6, P12, P13 and P14, the oral testimony of PW-1
and our reasons recorded supra, we are of the considered
view that the interest of justice would be met if we re-
determine the market value of the land in question at
Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. We have considered the
acquired land as having non-agricultural potential.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41247-DB
HC-KAR
9. For the aforementioned reasons, MFA
No.1311/2016 is allowed-in-part with costs.
MFA No.1754/2017 is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and award of the Reference
Court dated 09.10.2015 passed in LAC No.1/2009 by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, is modified by re-
determining the market value of the land in question at
Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) per acre with
solatium, statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation
amount in terms of the judgment and award within a period of
8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV/ABK
