Karnataka High Court
Prakashaiah @ Prakash vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
MSA No. 22 of 2023
C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023
MSA No. 139 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.22 OF 2023 (LA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.23 OF 2023 (LA)
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2023 (LA)
IN MSA NO.22/2023:
BETWEEN:
PRAKASHAIAH @ PRAKASH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT KODINAGENAHALLI VILLAGE
NITTUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK-572223
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
TUMAKURU-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
KUNIGAL ROAD
TUMAKURU-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
MSA No. 22 of 2023
C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023
MSA No. 139 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.214/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU AND ETC.
IN MSA NO.23/2023:
BETWEEN:
THAMMAIAH @ BORAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
H.T. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH @ BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT HONNENAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
KUNIGAL ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.196/2018 ON THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
MSA No. 22 of 2023
C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023
MSA No. 139 of 2023
HC-KAR
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.
IN MSA NO.139/2023:
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/A MATTIGHATTA VILLAGE
NITTURU HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK-572219
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPEICAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
TUMAKURU-572101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE
KUNIGAL ROAD
TUMAKURU-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.202/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
MSA No. 22 of 2023
C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023
MSA No. 139 of 2023
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2. These appeals are filed seeking for enhancement of
compensation. In MSA No.22/2023, the land acquired of the
appellant is 3½ guntas of Kodinagenahalli village, Nittur hobli,
Gubbi taluk; in MSA No.23/2023, the land acquired of the
appellant is four guntas of Honnavalli village, Kasaba hobli,
Gubbi taluk and in MSA No.139/2023, the land acquired of the
appellant is 21 guntas of Mattigatta village Nittur holbi, Gubbi
taluk.
3. The counsel would submit the Trial Court granted
the compensation of Rs.8,000/- per gunta but the First
Appellate Court dismissed the claim of the respective appellants
on the ground that no documents are placed before the Court
for enhancement of compensation in respect of the subject
lands are concerned, but in respect of coconut tree is
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
concerned, the same was enhanced. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the present appeals are filed before this Court.
4. The counsel for the respective appellants in support
of his arguments relies upon the orders passed by the different
Courts. In LAC No.144/2022 dated 12.02.2024, compensation
was awarded per gunta at the rate of Rs.14,000/-; in LAC
No.49/2023 dated 16.12.2024, wherein also compensation of
Rs.14,000/- was awarded wherein the said lands were also
acquired for the same purpose. The counsel also relied upon
the judgment passed in LAC No.117/2022 dated 30.06.2025
wherein also granted an amount of Rs.14,000/- and the same
is also for the same purpose. The counsel also relied upon
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in MSA No.1157/2016
connected with other matters dated 10.02.2025 and brought to
notice of this Court that the land was acquired for the same
purpose but compensation awarded in those cases also
Rs.14,000/- per gunta and nature of land is also same i.e., dry
land. The counsel would submit that though the notifications
are different. In the Division Bench judgment, the notification is
of the year 1992. But the present acquisition is of the year
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
2004-05 and the other three judgments considered by the First
Appellate Court is of the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08
and nature of the properties are same. Hence, prayed this
Court to award the very same compensation of Rs.14,000/- per
gunta.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 would submit that though the lands are
acquired for the same purpose, but the notifications are
different and also the distance between the properties are also
different. The counsel relies upon the judgment of Apex Court
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96 in the case of MANOJ KUMAR
AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS and
brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 11 to 17 wherein in
detail discussion was made that the High Courts are adopting
the method in considering the earlier judgments and the
compensation cannot be determined blindly following the
previous award and judgment, hence, the same has to be
considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. The Court
has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the
previous awards without due consideration of the facts and
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question.
The Apex Court also held that take note of the distance
between the land and also value differ from distance to
distance, even two to three kilometers distance may also make
the material difference in value since land abutting highway
may fetch higher value but not the land situated in interior
villages. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 14 wherein it is held that if any additional evidence
is placed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the same has to be
allowed and given an opportunity to lead evidence for rebuttal
to other side.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State would
vehemently contend that the appellants have not placed on
record any documentary proof for the value of the property at
the time of acquisition and even not placed any other evidence
before the Court for enhancement of compensation. Hence, the
First Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim made by the
appellants, thus, the question of enhancement does not arise.
The counsel also would submit that the certificate of market
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
value i.e., Guidelines Value is also not placed before the Court.
Hence, the question of enhancement does not arise.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and in keeping the submissions as well as
principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court, this
Court has to consider that whether it is a case for
enhancement.
8. Having considered the grounds and also the
principles laid down in the judgment, the point that arise for
the consideration of this Court is:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court
committed an error in declining to enhance
the compensation in respect of lands which
were acquired for the same purpose?
2. What order?
Point No.1
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also considering the material on record,
it is not in dispute that land is acquired for Hemavathi Water
Channel and nature of the property is also dry land. The
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
properties which were acquired also though from different
villages, but from the same hobli and the said fact is also not in
dispute. The land acquired in MSA No.22/2023 is only 3½
guntas; in MSA No.23/2023 is four guntas and in MSA
No.139/2023 is 21 guntas i.e., only a small portion of land was
acquired. When such being the case, the Court has to take note
of nature of the land. No doubt, there is no dispute with regard
to the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court
referred by the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 wherein
the Apex Court in detail discussed about the trend in following
for enhancement of compensation and the same cannot be a
precedent. At the same time, the Court has to take note of the
purpose for which the land was acquired. No doubt, the Apex
Court also taken note of current value reflected by comparable
sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination for
compensation. In the case on hand, sale statistics is not given
and as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the
State, the Guidance Value is also not placed before the Court.
But the fact is that land was acquired for the same purpose and
already there was an enhancement granting compensation of
Rs.14,000/-. Even this Court also in the appeal referred above,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
in a case of acquisition in respect of particular hobli
Headquarter, Nittur Hobli, in a case of dry land, awarded
compensation of Rs.14,000/- in respect of Notification of the
year 1992. When such being the case, there cannot be two
yardsticks for granting of compensation. The First Appellate
Court fails to take note of the fact that the land which were
acquired are only a small portion of land i.e., 3½ guntas, 4
guntas and 21 guntas and not having the land of acres and the
same were also a dry land. When such being the case, the First
Appellate Court ought to have considered the same when there
are judgments in a similarly situated property in the very same
hobli Headquarters, though from different villages and the
extent is only a smaller extent and apart from that nature of
the land is also a dry land and the acquisition is also for the
same purpose. Even the Division Bench of this Court, in respect
of the acquisition of the year 1992, Rs.14,000/- was awarded
for per gunta. But in the present case, acquisition is of the year
2004 and First Appellate Court also in other different Regular
appeals, in respect of the acquisition of the year 2005, 2006
and 2007, similar rate of Rs.14,000/- was awarded. Under such
circumstances, when the Properties are in similar nature and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43671
HC-KAR
for similar purpose, acquisition was made, same amount should
be awarded. In the judgment of the Apex Court, it is held that
only considering the earlier judgment, cannot grant the
compensation blindly but take note of the nature of land
Acquired and also the purpose for which the land was acquired.
Taking note of the said fact into consideration, the appellants
are entitled for similar rate of compensation i.e., Rs.14,000/-
per gunta with other statutory benefits in respect of the land
which are acquired. Hence, the point for consideration is
answered partly affirmative.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Appeals are allowed in part granting compensation of
Rs.14,000/- per gunta with other statutory benefits as entitled.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
