Anne Gowda vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 9455 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9455 Kant
Judgement Date : 27 October, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Anne Gowda vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 October, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB
                                                        MFA No. 7278 of 2015


                HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 27TH 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. 7278 OF 2015(LAC)
               BETWEEN:

               ANNE GOWDA
               S/O APPAJI GOWDA
               AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
               ECHALAHALLY VILLAGE,
               KANDLI POST, KASABA HOBLI
               HASSAN TALUK.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
               AND:

               1.    SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Digitally            HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR
signed by            PLANNING-2, HASSAN.
RUPA V
Location:      2.    MANAGING DIRECTOR
High Court
Of Karnataka         CAUVERY NEEREVARI NIGAM
                     SURFACE WATER DATA
                     CENTRE BUILDING
                     ANANDRAO CIRCLE
                     BENGALURU.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
               (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA FOR R1;
                    SRI. PRASHANTH B. R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
               ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2014
               PASSED IN LAC.NO. 63/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
               SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB
                                         MFA No. 7278 of 2015


HC-KAR



FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FOR FURTHER
COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,              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 under Section 54(1) of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and

award dated 11.07.2014 passed in LAC.No.63/2011 by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

2. The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the

Reference Court', the appellant as claimant and the respondent

as the respondent for the purpose of convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are

that the claimant's land in Sy.Nos.51/1, 51/2, 3/2, 4/1

measuring 11 guntas, 6½ guntas, 2 guntas and 17 guntas,

respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired

for the benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary

notification dated 30.03.2006 and final notification dated

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB

HC-KAR

16.12.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an

award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at

Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the

market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the

claimant is in appeal.

4. Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Reference Court has not considered

the pleading and evidence in its proper prospective and

awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the

similarly placed land losers have got higher compensation.

Hence, he seeks to reconsider the evidence on record by

allowing the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 is the

beneficiary of the acquisition and was not arrayed as a party

before the Reference Court. Hence, it would be appropriate to

implead the respondent No.2 before the Reference Court by

permitting him to adduce evidence. He seeks to remand the

matter to the Reference Court with a direction to permit the

parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB

HC-KAR

value of the land in question. In response to the said

submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly

concedes to remand the matter. It is submitted that the co-

ordinate Bench in the case of T.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND

ANOTHER 1 had remanded the matter back.

6. Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional Government

Advocate for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned

judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material available

on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions made on both sides.

8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal

is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

MFA No.8077/16 dt. 25.9.25

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB

HC-KAR

9. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative

for the following reasons:

a) The parties to the proceedings does not dispute that

the lands in Sy.Nos.51/1, 51/2, 3/2, 4/1 measuring 11

guntas, 6½ guntas, 2 guntas and 17 guntas, respectively,

of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for the

benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary

notification dated 30.03.2006 and final notification dated

16.12.2006. The LAO passed an award on 31.01.2009

and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per

acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at

Rs.20,000/- per gunta.

b) The learned counsel for the appellant seeks for

enhancement of the market value by re-appreciating the

evidence on record by contending that the similarly

placed land losers have received higher compensation.

However, no judgment in support of his contention is

produced. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2

fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and award of

the Reference Court is without arraying the respondent

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB

HC-KAR

No.2 in the appeal as a party to the proceedings who is

the beneficiary of the acquisition. The learned counsel for