Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs K.G. Bheema Reddy on 24 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100848 OF 2015
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB.100023 OF 2017
IN MFA NO. 100848/2015
BETWEEN:
K.G. BHEEMA REDDY S/O. ANJINAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. KORAGUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.10.25
16:08:34 +0530 (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BELLARY.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING
-2-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
DIVISION, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM BELLARY, IN LAC NO.17/2010, BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION, ALONG WITH ALL THE STATUTORY BENEFITS
AS PER THE LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB. NO.100023/2017
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PRE (ZILLA PANCHAYATH
ENGINEERING DIVISION),
(RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND
SANITATION DIVISION)
HOSPET ROAD, 2ND GATE,
COWL BAZAR, BELLARY-583102
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. K.G. BHEEMA REDDY
S/O. ANJINAPPA,
-3-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE,
BELLARY TQ. AND BELLARY DIST.
2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY, BELLARY REVENUE
SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER,
COMPOUND, BELLARY-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 22 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED IN LAC
NO.17/2010 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
BELLARY, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-4-
MFA No.100848/2015
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This MFA No.100848/2015 (LAC) is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short called as
'the Act'), praying for modification of the judgment and
award dated 26.04.2013 passed in LAC No.17/2010 on the
file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary and
to enhance the compensation with all statutory benefits as
per law.
2. This MFA Crob.No.100023/2017 is filed under
Order XLI Rule 22 CPC by the cross objector praying for
setting aside the judgment and award dated 26.04.2013
passed in LAC No.17/2010 on the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary.
3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity.
4. The facts of present case in nutshell are that the
lands bearing Survey No.122/2002 measuring 6.12 acres
and Survey No.526/2002 measuring 4.13 acres were
acquired by the first respondent by passing preliminary
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
notification under Section 4(1) dated 26.02.2009 and final
notification under Section 6(1) dated 20.12.2009 of the Act
for the benefit of respondent No.2 for construction of
drinking water reservoir through proceedings number
REV/LAQ/79/2008-09. The first respondent SLAO has
awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- per acre and awarded a sum of
₹5,64,988/- towards existence of well, ponds and pipeline
in the acquired property. The claimants have received the
amount under protest and filed their protest petition under
Section 18(1) of the Act and thereby matter was referred
before the Senior Civil Judge, Bellary under Section 18(1) of
the Act.
5. In the reference petition on behalf of claimant,
claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.36 and closed his side. On behalf of respondent, no
evidence was let in.
6. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has followed
the sale statistics method and by relying on Ex.P.8-sale
deed, has enhanced the compensation at ₹1,72,000/- per
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
acre and has given additional compensation of ₹1,00,000/-
towards the existence of well, pond, etc., in the acquired
property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimant
has filed the present appeal.
7. In this appeal, IA under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC,
along with judgment dated 02.06.2014 passed in LAC Nos.1
to 3 of 2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bellary is produced.
8. In the affidavit annexed to this IA No.2, the
appellant has stated that Ziilla Panchayath has acquired
land in Survey No.177-B measuring 7.61 acres, Survey
No.178-measuring 3.03 acres, Survey No.179 (portion)
measuring 0.16 acres, 175-A measuring 8.59 acres, 176-A
measuring 0.83 acres of Benakal village for the purpose of
erecting a reservoir for storing drinking water. The Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of
₹1,28,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and in the
reference petition LAC Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2012, the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge Court on appreciation of
evidence has awarded compensation of ₹15,00,000/- per
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
acre with solecism at 30% and other statutory benefits and
said lands are at a distance of 5 Kms. from Benakal village.
It is stated that the lands belong to same taluka and the
yield as well as potential are the same and hence,
presenting additional document is necessary for proper
adjudication of the matter. Hence, prayed for allowing IA
No.2.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. The learned counsel for claimants submitted that
the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in holding that the
claimants are entitled for ₹1,72,000/- per acre when the
neighbouring lands acquired for same purpose in the same
vicinity has been granted a compensation of ₹15,00,000/-
per acre with statutory benefits and has only considered the
sales statistics. It is also submitted that the claimants are
also entitled for compensation at the rate of ₹15,00,000/-
per acre which was granted to the neighbouring land owner.
Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and IA No.2.
11. Learned counsel for respondent and cross-
objector submitted that the learned trial Judge has not
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
verified the sale statistics in a proper manner. It is
submitted that even though learned Senior Civil Judge has
not considered the sale deed as per Exs.P9 on the ground
that it came into existence after the preliminary notification,
it has misread Ex.P.8 that it came into existence one month
prior to the preliminary notification whereas it was 10
months after preliminary notification. Hence, prayed for
setting aside the judgment and award passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge.
12. From the above facts, the points that arise for
consideration are:-
"1) Whether the appellant-claimant proves that the
compensation awarded by learned Senior Civil Judge is
meager and requires interference?
2) Whether the appellant has made out a case to
produce additional evidence shown in IA No.2?
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
3) Whether the cross-objectors-respondents proved
that the judgment and award passed by learned trial Judge
is exorbitant and requires interference?
4) What order or decree?"
13. Our finding on those points are as under for the
following reasons:-
Point No.2 - For the sake of convenience and clarity,
point No.2 is taken for consideration first, as it is pertaining
to production of additional evidence.
14. Along with IA No.2, appellant has produced the
additional evidence, i.e. the judgment passed in LAC Nos.1
to 3 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge
Bellary, dated 02.06.2014, which is not pertaining to
present notification. No material is produced before this
Court that the lands acquired in said case are similar in
nature as that of the present case. Furthermore, said
acquired lands are at Benakal village whereas the acquired
lands in present case are of Dammur village. Hence, we are
- 10 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
not inclined to accept the additional evidence produced
along with IA No.2. Furthermore, no proper or admissible
reasons are given to accept the additional evidence.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in negative.
15. Point Nos.1 and 3: These points are considered
together, as they require common discussion.
16. The judgment of the learned trial Court reveals
that the learned trial Judge relies upon the sale deed dated
01.04.2010 as per Ex.P.8 in respect of land bearing Survey
No.468A/1 measuring 1 acre 40 cents of Dammur village
and fixed the compensation at ₹1,72,000/- per acre. Said
sale deed is prior to 4(1) notification dated 26.02.2009.
17. Further, as discussed above, 4(1) notification
was issued on 20.06.2009 and thus it is prior to the sale
deed as per Ex.P.8. However, it is to be noted here that
even learned Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award
considering the sale statistics prior to passing of the award.
However, the sale deed relied by learned trial Judge is in
proximity to Section 4(1) Notification i.e. 10 months
difference between the two.
- 11 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
18. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in batch of LAC appeals reported in AIR 2025 SC
2306 between Ram Kishan (since deceased) through
His LRS. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others at para
No.25 and 26 has laid down the principles of de-escalation
and escalation and held as under:
"RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
(i) PRINCIPLE OF DE-ESCALATION AND ESCALATION
25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal
Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469: (AIR 2015 SC 2908),
finding that lands which were acquired by a later
notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands
acquired in the case in question in 1981, this Court
applied the principle of de-escalation. The relevant
parts of the judgment are set out hereunder:
"77. Further, the land which has been covered under
notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential
sites which were formed. The landowners in that case
produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988
respectively, which was 2 years and 2 months earlier
respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988
and some of which were two to three years earlier.
Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the
High Court of Karnataka redetermined the
compensation at Rs.7.5 per square feet of land bearing
Survey No.389 covered in award passed in MFA
No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005
after giving deduction towards the developmental
charges. de-escalation and conversion charges. The
same method should be applied in the case on hand.
- 12 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into
consideration the relevant fact that though the final
notification for the land covered in MFA No.3796 of
2005 and Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005 was in the
year 1988, it was for industrial development and the
said land was also leased in favour of the allottee
Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial
development. The land along with the other lands
covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by
the State Government for the purpose of the industrial
development and allotted to the Company for the
development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart
from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which
the lands of the appellants were notified for acquisition
to the land covered in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and
Cross-Objection No.213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact
that there is similarity in the nature of the land and
the purpose for which they were acquired.
80. As per the survey conducted by the State
Government, it is an undisputed fact that mineral is
available in the land and the Company is extracting
the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture
of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in
the present case is a short distance away from the lands
covered in MFA No.3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No.213
of 2005, both have been acquired for the purpose of
industrial development and sought to be used for the
same purpose by the Company. The land of the
appellants herein along with other lands that was
acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in
favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the
mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for
the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the
commercial purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants
is acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the
same is used for commercial purpose, Therefore,
determining deductions towards deescalation at 5% per
year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other
incidental charges would justify the redetermination of the
market value of the land of the appellants.........
- 13 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and
Others v. Land Acquisition Of ficer and Another,
(2012) 1 SCC 390: (AIR 2012 SC 446), this Court,
while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held
in Para 37, 40 and 42 as under:-
37. Even though escalation of market price
of land is a question of fact, which should
ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence
yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking
judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that
land prices are on the rise throughout the
country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are
certainly not an exception to the rule. The
exemplar sale deed dated 30-12-1983 was
executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days
after the publication of the preliminary Notification on
13-5-1982. Keeping in mind the judgments
referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that
no fault can be found with the determination
rendered by the High Court in making a
deduction of 10% under the head of "de-
escalation", specially when the period in question
exceeded one year (as for annual deductions),
by 7 months and 17 days."
19. Relying on the above said principles noted in the
above said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of
the considered opinion that de-escalation at 10% could be
made on this amount of ₹1,72,000/-. Thus, ₹17,200/- is to
be deducted from said amount.
20. Learned counsel for claimant vehemently
submitted arguments that in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 on the
- 14 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge Bellary, dated
02.06.2014, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge relied
upon the proceedings of Land Value Fixation Advisory
Committee headed by D.C. of Bellary and fixed the
compensation at ₹15,00,000/- per acre. However, the
claimant has not produced any material before the Court to
show the date of notification under Section 4(1) and Section
6(1) of the Act of said case. Thus, no material is produced
before this Court that the lands acquired in said case are
similar in nature as that of the present case. Furthermore,
said acquired lands are at Benakal village, whereas, the
acquired lands in present case are of Dammur village.
Hence, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid judgment
in LAC Nos.1 to 3 of 2012.
Except producing said judgment, the claimants have
not produced any material before the Court for
enhancement of the compensation.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the claimant
is entitled for ₹1,54,800/- with statutory benefits. As far as
- 15 -
C/W. MFA. CROB.No.100023/2017
enhancement of ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation on
existence of well, ponds, etc. is to be confirmed.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative and point
No.3 is answered in affirmative.
Point No.4:- In view of findings on point Nos.1 to 3,
we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
MFA No.100848/2015 (LAC) dismissed.
MFA Crob.No.100023/2017 is partly allowed.
Claimant is entitled for ₹.1,54,800/- with statutory
benefits. As far as enhancement of ₹1,00,000/- towards
compensation on existence of well, ponds, etc. is confirmed.
Cross objector-respondent No.1 in LAC No.17/2010 is not
liable to make payment and only respondent Nos.1 and 3
are liable to make payment. Except these modifications, the
remaining part of the award is unaltered.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
