[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Asst. Commissioner vs St. Philomina Girls High School on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
M.F.A. No.457/2019
C/W M.F.A. No.3803/2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.457/2019 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3803/2017 (LAC)
IN M.F.A. No.457/2019:
BETWEEN:
ST. PHILOMINA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
AND P.U. COLLEGE
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
by SISTER JASMIN @ JASINTHA KOREYA
ARSHIFA BAHAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
KHANAM ST. PHILOMINA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH COURT OF AND P.U. COLLEGE, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD
KARNATAKA HASSAN - 573201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.,)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
HASSAN - 573201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
M.F.A. No.457/2019
C/W M.F.A. No.3803/2017
HC-KAR
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D. HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN - 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA)
**********
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2016
PASSED IN LAC NO.379/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN AND ENHANCED THE
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
IN M.F.A. NO.3803/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
HASSAN-573201.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN-573201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
M.F.A. No.457/2019
C/W M.F.A. No.3803/2017
HC-KAR
AND:
ST. PHILOMINA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
AND P.U. COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SISTER JASMIN @ JASINTHA KOREYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ST. PHILOMINA
GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND P.U.COLLEGE
HOLENARASIPURA ROAD
HASSAN-573201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.,)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN LAC NO.379/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2016 PAVED IN LAC
NO.379/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 06.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
M.F.A. No.457/2019
C/W M.F.A. No.3803/2017
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
MFA.No.3803/2017 is filed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Land Acquisition Officer, Hassan
and another. MFA.No.457/2019 is filed by the claimant.
Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and
award dated 23.04.2016 passed in LAC.No.397/2014 by
the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Reference Court').
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these
appeals are that the claimant is the owner of the school
building in khata bearing No.721 measuring 11823.6 sq.
ft. situated at Holenarasipura Road, Hassan. The State
Government issued the preliminary notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') on 30.12.2005 with an intention
to acquire the land which was followed by a final
declaration. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
on 20.02.2010 by determining the market value of the
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
acquired land and building at Rs.49,63,914/-. The
claimant sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act.
The claimant adduced the oral and documentary evidence
by examining two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and got
marked documents at Exs.P1 to P29. The respondents did
not adduce any evidence. The Reference Court, under the
impugned judgment, re-determined the market value of
the land at Rs.2000/- per sq. ft. with statutory benefits
and interest and awarded compensation of Rs.18,39,759/-
towards the cost for construction of new building. Being
aggrieved, these appeals are filed.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate
for the appellant submits that the Reference Court,
without properly appreciating the evidence on record has
determined the market value at Rs.2000/- per sq. ft.
mainly relying on the judgment and award passed in
LAC.No.45/2010, which is impermissible. It is submitted
that the distance between the land in question and land
involved in LAC.No.45/2010 is more than 60-70 meters.
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
Hence, the same cannot be the basis to determine the
market value for awarding compensation. It is further
submitted that the lands covered in these appeals are
situated in Holenarasipura Road and the lands covered in
LAC No.45/2010 is situated at B.M.Road. It is also
submitted that no acceptable evidence was placed before
the Reference Court to enhance the market value.
However, the Reference Court has erroneously enhanced
the compensation. It is contended that the award of
compensation is also contrary to law. The Reference Court
failed to take note of the fact that the claimant has carried
out construction without leaving any set back and the
award of compensation to the structure by the land
acquisition officer is proper which needs to be confirmed.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal of the State.
4. Sri.Girish B.Baladare, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/claimant submits that the Reference
Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and
has awarded meager compensation. It is submitted that
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
the acquired land is for expansion of Highway which itself
make it clear that the cost of the land is very high and
further, the Reference Court erred in awarding 50% of the
value of the structure as the cost of construction has
substantially increased from the date of acquisition,
demolition till putting up of the construction. It is further
submitted that the Reference Court ought to have
considered Ex.P12 and ought to have awarded
compensation at Rs.7000/- per sq. ft. He seeks to
enhance the compensation of the land and structure by
dismissing the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State,
the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and
meticulously perused the material available on record
including the Trial Court record. We have given our
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by
both the sides.
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
6. The point that arises for our consideration in
this appeal is :
"Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court calls for any
interference?"
7. The answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
(a) The pleadings and evidence on record indicate
the land and building of the claimant situated in khata
bearing No.721 measuring 11823.6 sq. ft. at
Holenarasipura Road, Hassan, was acquired under Section
4(1) of the Act under the preliminary notification dated
30.12.2005 followed by the final declaration of the State
government. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award on 20.02.2010 by determining the market value of
the acquired land and building at Rs.49,63,914/-. The
claimant sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act.
The claimant adduced the oral and documentary evidence
by examining two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and got
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
marked Exs.P1 to P29. The respondents-State did not
adduce any evidence. The Reference Court, under the
impugned judgment, re-determined the market value of
the land at Rs.2000/- per sq. ft. with statutory benefits
and interest and awarded compensation of Rs.18,39,759/-
towards the cost of construction of new building.
b) The evidence of PW-1 indicates that the land is
acquired for widening of the road and in the acquired land,
there existed a school building from the last 60 years and
the said property is situated within the heart of the Hassan
city. It is deposed that the compound wall and the portion
of the structure has been demolished for widening of the
road. It is further deposed that 1560 sq. ft. of the built up
area has been demolished and 11823.6 sq. ft. of land has
been acquired. It is also deposed that the acquired land is
situated within 60-70 mtrs. from the heart of Hassan city.
The claimant got marked Exs.P1 to P29. Exs.P1 to P10 are
the undisputed documentary evidence on record, award
notice, acquisition notification, khata extract,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
measurement statement, sketch, photographs. Exs.P12 to
P27 are the certified copies of the judgments passed by
the Reference Court in similar cases and photographs.
Exs.P28 and P29 are the building valuation list and the
general award.
c) Learned counsel for the claimant has contended
that the Reference Court ought to have awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per sq. ft. by
considering Ex.P12. A perusal of Ex.P12 indicates that the
Reference Court enhanced the compensation of the
acquired land and awarded the same at Rs.7,000/- per sq.
ft. Ex.P12 also indicates that the land was acquired by the
respondents-State under the preliminary notification dated
18.11.2005 and the said land is situated on B.M.Road,
Gandhibazar, Hassan. In the case on hand, the
preliminary notification was issued on 30.12.2005. It is
not in dispute that the acquisition in the case on hand and
the acquisition in the case at Ex.P12 are of the same year
and the distance between the two lands is approximately
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
60-70 mtrs. as is evident from the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the claimant. The Reference
Court, though provided an opportunity to the respondents-
State to disprove the assertion of the claimant with regard
to the market value, the respondents-State failed to
discharge the burden by adducing the evidence. We have
also taken judicial note of the fact that the property is
close to Hassan Bus Stand, Court complex, etc. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of
LAKSHMEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER AND OTHERS1 and SANNEGOWDA 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
MFA No.8703/2018 dt. 25.09.21
MFA No.8760/2018 dt. 24.09.21
(2010) 5 SCC 747
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
land owners to pay more compensation to some of the
land owners and less compensation to the others. Hence,
this Court, considering the reasoning of the Reference
Court in LAC No.28/2010 dated 04.10.2014 at Ex.P12, is
of the considered view that the acquired property in this
appeal and the property covered in LAC No.28/2010 are
having similar potentiality, situated within the city limits
and are required to be treated alike by awarding similar
compensation.
d) The learned Additional Government Advocate
contends that they have filed an application for production
of the additional documents and along with the said
application, they have produced a number of documents
and if those documents are considered, the appeal of the
State is required to be allowed. We have perused the
application filed by the State under Order XLI Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The affidavit
accompanying the said application does not fulfill the
essential ingredient of Rule 27 of Order XLI of the CPC. Be
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
that as it may, the documents produced along with the
application are the sale deeds of the years 2003 and 2015-
16. A perusal of the schedules to the said sale deeds
indicate that they are of the different area of the same
Hassan town. We are of the considered view that this
Court cannot be expected to consider such sale deeds and
arrive at a conclusion in determining the market value of
the land in question. Hence, the additional evidence
produced by the appellant-State would not help them in
any way, more so when there is a judgment and award of
the Reference Court with regard to the similarly situated
land acquired in the same year. Hence, the contention
advanced by the appellant-State does not merit
consideration.
e) The Reference Court has determined the
compensation of Rs.57,50,000/- for the structures
demolished and out of the said amount, 50% was
deducted towards depreciation and awarded the remaining
amount. The said reasoning of the Reference Court is
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
based on the building valuation list at Ex.P28 and after
considering the oral evidence of PW-2 and taking note that
the structure is 60 years old, we do not find any error or
perversity in the finding recorded by the Reference Court
insofar as the award of compensation with regard to the
structure is concerned.
8. For the preceding analysis, we are of the
considered view that the appellant-claimant is entitled to
the compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per sq. ft. as
against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Reference Court.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
MFA No.457/2019 is allowed-in-part with costs. The
impugned judgment and award dated 23.4.2016 passed in
LAC No.379/2014 by the Reference Court is modified by
re-determining the market value of the land at Rs.7,000/-
per sq. ft. with all statutory benefits and interest. The
impugned judgment and award insofar as award of
compensation for structure/building is upheld.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9087-DB
HC-KAR
MFA No.3803/2017 is dismissed.
Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2
