[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Revansiddeshwar Alagouda Jagadev vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2325
MFA No. 101407 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101407 OF 2016 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI REVANSIDDESHWAR ALAGOUDA JAGADEV
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: SATTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIPPARAGI-PROJECT, ATHANI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591304.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
HBC DIVISION, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed
by THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: High
Court of
ACQUISITION ACT 1894, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2013 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN LAC
NO.772/2011 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM
RS.2,85,715/- PER ACRE TO RS.3,44,750/- PER ACRE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2325
MFA No. 101407 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL JUDGMENT
The land loser, being aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.772/2011 has
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The land belonging to the appellant was acquired for
the purpose of Hipparagi Barrage Project under the preliminary
notification dated 21.02.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer passed
an award determining the market value at Rs.1,25,560/- per
acre. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,85,715/- per acre. Still being
aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA
No.101409/2016, wherein, in respect of lands acquired under the
very same notification, the compensation has been determined
at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the lands involved
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2325
HC-KAR
in the present appeal are similarly situated, having identical
potential and advantages. Therefore, the appellant is also
entitled to the same rate of compensation.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
appellant has produced a certified copy of the judgment passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.101409/2016,
wherein this Court, following its earlier decision in MFA
No.101402/2016, has enhanced the compensation to
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in respect of lands acquired under the
same notification. He submits that the principle of parity is
required to be applied and the appellant cannot be discriminated
against.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly
submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in MFA No.101409/2016. However, it is
submitted that the appellant is not entitled to interest for the
delayed period, as there was a delay in filing the present appeal,
which has been condoned subject to the condition that no
interest shall be paid for the delayed period.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2325
HC-KAR
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the lands involved in the
present appeal were acquired under the same preliminary
notification as in MFA No.101409/2016. It is also not in dispute
that the lands are similarly situated and possess similar
potential. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA
No.101409/2016, following its earlier judgment in MFA
No.101402/2016, has enhanced the compensation to
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
8. In view of the settled position and in order to
maintain consistency and parity, I am of the considered opinion
that the appellant is also entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits.
9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
there was a delay in filing the present appeal, which was
condoned subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be
entitled to interest for the delayed period. Hence, the appellant
shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2325
HC-KAR
for the period of delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court in LAC No.772/2011 are hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant is entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) per
acre, along with all statutory benefits.
(iv) The appellant shall not be entitled to interest for
the period of delay in filing the appeal, as already
directed while condoning the delay.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
KGK, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22
