- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.713/2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. SRI. PAPEGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 3. SRI. SUBBEGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. HONGERE VILLAGE SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.,) AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II OFFICE AT D.C. OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN-572101. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET AIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8TH JUNE 2015 IN LAC NO.153/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION UP RS.22,67,437/- AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 appellants-claimants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.06.2015 passed in LAC No.153/2012 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 2. Heard Sri.Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Prashanth B.R, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.32,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the land of the appellants measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli Village, Shanthi Grama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Lift Irrigation Project. It is further submitted that the Reference Court, in LAC Nos.58/2016 and connected matters, arising out of acquisition of land for the same purpose, has awarded the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The land involved in those cases and the land in the case on hand, are similar in nature and having same potentiality. It is also submitted that this Court in MFA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 No.6900/2017 and connected appeal, has considered the various aspects and re-determined the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and the acquisition of land in the said case was for Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal in terms of the said judgment. 4. Per contra, Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the appellants-claimants are required to establish the market value of the acquired land by cogent and legally acceptable evidence and not just by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Reference Court and seek for compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that respondent No.2 was not a party in the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, those judgments cannot be relied and compensation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 cannot be determined on the basis of the said judgment. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 6. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the State Government has issued preliminary notification dated 19.01.2007 followed by the final notification dated 19.03.2008 to acquire various extents of land including the land in question i.e., land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, for the purpose of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project. The claimants in order to prove the case before the Reference Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 examined PW-1 and got marked two documents as Exs.P- 1 & P-2. The respondents have not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court. Considering the material available on record, the Reference Court determined the compensation at Rs.32,000/- per gunta with all benefits under the provisions of the LA Act. It is also not in dispute that the Reference Court in LAC No.58/2016 and connected matters vide judgment dated 13.06.2016, has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all benefits under the provisions of the LA Act. The preliminary notification in the aforesaid judgment was issued on 21.09.2006. Similarly, the Reference Court in LAC No.160/2014 has awarded compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all benefits under the provisions of the LA Act and in the said case the preliminary notification was issued on 27.08.2009, which is two years subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification in the case on hand. Hence, the appeal is required to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgments. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 7. This Court, in the case of Sri.A.B.Lakshmegowda vs. State of Karnataka and another in MFA No.6900/2017 and connected appeal, considering the various aspects and taking note of the fact that the land acquired is for the same project and having same potentiality and the land involved in the notification are similar in nature, allowed the appeals and re- determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Taking note of the aforesaid judgment and two other judgments of the Reference Court referred supra, we are of the considered view that the appellants are also entitled to similar compensation. In view of the fact that the acquisition in the case on hand and the cases refereed supra, is for the same project and lands having same potentiality. Hence, we are of the considered view that the land loser whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose and having same potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in awarding the compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants-claimants are entitled - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8399-DB M.F.A. No.713/2018 for compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the LA Act. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed with costs ii. The market value of the land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.26/1 of Addihalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits. However, the appellants-claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 864 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31