- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201149 OF 2017 (LAC) BETWEEN: RAMANNA S/O TAMMANNA HABAGOND DECEASED BY LRS., 1. SIDDAPPA S/O RAMANNA HABAGOND AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRDON, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 2. BABURAI S/O RAMANNA HABAGOND AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHIRDON, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 3. SHIREWA D/O RAMANNA HABAGOND AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHIRDON, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 AND: 1. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ASST. COMMISSIONER, INDI – 586 209. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPUR – 586 101. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY DR. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, A.A.G. AND SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, INDI, DATED 20.12.2013 IN L.A.C. NO.6 OF 2010 AND FIX MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.4,00,000/- PER ACRE AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS AND OTHER RELIEF, WHICH THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 20.12.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, in LAC no.6/2010, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was filed by claimant-land loser seeking for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that under Preliminary Notification dated 08.02.2007, an extent of 8 acres of irrigated land in Sy.No.144 of Shiradon village, Indi Taluk, was acquired for public purpose for formation of Shiradon Tank. In award passed by SLAO on 22.08.2008, compensation of Rs.57,000/- per acre was fixed. Dissatisfied with award, claimant had sought reference. Reference Court in LAC no.6/2010 along with other connected references determined market value of lands at Rs.3,44,500/- per acre along with statutory benefits and interest. Not satisfied with determination, claimant has preferred this second appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 4. Though claimant had led evidence before Reference Court for enhancement on capitalization method as well as exemplar method, learned counsel for appellants submitted that claimant, at present was pressing claim for enhancement based on exemplar method by relying only on Exs.P22 and P23. It was submitted that Exs.P22 and P23 were judgment and award passed in LAC no.50/2011 along with connected matters by II-Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bijapur on 25.06.2013 answering reference for determination of value of irrigated and dry lands of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli villages. It was submitted said villages were nearby villages wherein similar crop pattern and yield was noted and preliminary notification for acquisition in said case was issued on 29.11.2008 which would be contemporaneous. It was submitted that Reference Court in said matter had re-determined compensation in case of irrigated lands at Rs.5,51,250/-, Rs.5,38,250/- and Rs.5,30,250/- in respect of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli villages. It was submitted that appellants would be satisfied even if valuation for Honnalli village is granted. 5. On other hand, Dr.Archana P.Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General for Sri Maqbool Ahmed, learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 Additional Government Advocate submitted that Shiradon village was not immediate neighboring village of either Honnalli, Hunshyal or Jambagi. It was further submitted that there was no material or evidence to establish that lands in said villages were similar in nature as that in present case. It was submitted that claimant having failed to produce any material such as Sub-Registrar Guidance value, contemporaneous sale deeds, etc., cannot seek to rely on assessment of compensation in respect of lands in other villages. It was further submitted that since valuation in exemplar award was based on jaggery production, she sought to rely on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hirabai and others v. LAO Cum Asst. Commissioner1 to contend that Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, had not only deducted 50% towards cost of cultivation but had also deducted further 40% for conversion of sugar cane into jaggery. Hence, there would be no scope for enhancement and sought for dismissal. 6. In reply, learned counsel for appellants submitted that in course of his examination-in-chief, claimant had 1 (2010)10 SCC 492 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 specifically stated about similarity of lands in Shiradon village with that of Hunshyal, Jambagi and Honnalli villages. He had also stated about award of SLAO and enhancement of compensation by reference Court under Exs.P22 and P23. Since claimant was relying upon net determined market value, there would be no scope for any reduction by referring to methodology adopted in Hirabai’s case (supra). It was also submitted that after deduction of cultivation cost, there would be no scope for further deduction. And except making suggestion about dis-similarities of lands, there was absolutely no evidence on part of respondents to substantiate their contention. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 8. From above, it is seen that respondents have accepted award only. Claimant is in appeal for enhancement. Therefore, points that would arise for consideration are: (a) Whether award of reference Court is inadequate? (b) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as per Exs.P22 and P23? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 9. This is claimant’s appeal for further enhancement. Acquisition of claimant’s land for formation of Tank, passing of award by SLAO fixing of market value @ Rs.57,000/- per acre, claimant filing reference application and enhancement of market value to Rs.3,44,500/- per acre by reference Court are not in dispute. Date of Preliminary Notification in instant case is 08.02.2007. Therefore, determination of market value has to be as on date of Preliminary Notification. In his application for reference filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, claimant had stated market value of acquisition lands were more than Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. He also stated that his lands were irrigated with 5 HP motor pumpset and pipeline and claimant was growing commercial crops therein. To substantiate same, claimant produced Ex.P7, record of rights of acquired lands for year 2001 and 2002, wherein crops grown are recorded as sugarcane, cotton and etc. He has also produced certified copy of judgment and award passed in LAC no.50/2011 and connected matters as Exs.P22 and P23. Perusal of Ex.P22 would reveal that crops grown in lands of Jambagi, Hunshyal and Honnalli and crops grown in acquired lands in present case were sugarcane. But 4(1) notification for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 acquisition was issued on 29.11.2008, which would nearly one year nine months after lands acquired in question. It is settled principle of law that fixation of market value of lands can be on any of methods i.e., expert opinion method, sales statistics method and capitalization of income method apart from exemplar. 10. In instant case, claimant has chosen to rely upon exemplar method i.e., award passed for acquisition of lands in LAC no.50/2011 and connected matters. Reference Court therein considering crop grown in said lands as sugarcane deducted 50% towards cultivation cost. Since claimant’s therein had stated that they were producing jaggerry, price of jaggery was considered by deducting further amount for cost of jaggery production and market value for irrigated land in Hunshyal was arrived at Rs.5,51,250/-. By same method, market value of lands in Jambagi was arrived at Rs.5,38,250/- and Honnalli was arrived at Rs.5,30,250/-. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (D) by L.Rs and others V. State of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 Karnataka and another2, has stated that even later award if in respect of neighboring villages could be considered, after verifying that same is not based on artificial escalation of value, by de-escalating @ 5% per annum. Preliminary Notification in present case is about a year and nine months prior to exemplary. There is no specific evidence about which village among three villages was proximate to Shiradon village. Therefore, it would be safer to consider valuation fixed for Honnalli village. Thus, computation of market value in present case would be Rs.5,30,250/- less 7.5% which comes to Rs.4,90,481/-. Claimant has restricted his claim to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. Same would not bar this Court from awarding higher compensation if entitled to, but by directing payment of Court fee for balance amount. 12. Point for consideration is therefore answered in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed with costs. 2 AIR 2015 SC 2908 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2835 MFA No. 201149 of 2017 (b) Claimant is held entitled for market value of land @ Rs.4,90,481/- per acre. (c) Registry to draw decree only after payment of deficit Court fee. (d) It is seen that while condoning delay in filing appeal as well as while filing application for bringing legal representatives of deceased appellant on record, this Court had denied interest for total number of 2251 days. Therefore, claimant would not be entitled to interest for said period. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB,MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 Ct;Vk