- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2724 OF 2020 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BHADRA WILD LIFE SANCTUARY, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP) AND: KUM. NIREEKSHA NADIG D/O N. SUBRAMANYA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NEAR RESIDENCE OF ASGAR RICE, MILL MAIN ROAD, GOWRI KALUVAY, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY, CHIKKAMAGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 20.11.2019, PASSED IN LAC NO.9/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT-1984. 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 RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment passed in LAC No.9/2010 dated 20.11.2019 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagaluru, whereby the Reference Court, partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent. 2. The abridged facts apposite for consideration are as under: The property bearing Sy.No.26/p of Hipla Village, Jagara Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk measuring an extent of 12 acre 19 guntas belonged to the respondent was acquired by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 'the LAO' for short) for the purpose of Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary. The award was approved by the Government vide Notification No.Kar/E/7/Bhu.Swa.Chi.2002 dated 24.06.2002 and this was communicated to the respondent vide No.LAQ 41/2001-02 dated 25.06.2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The said property originally belonged to the father of respondent-Late Subramanya Prasad. The LAO awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits stipulated in Section 23(1A) of the Act. However, while determining the compensation, the LAO failed to consider the guideline value determined by the Government for coffee land and also failed to award compensation for the standing trees and bamboos on the acquired land. As such, the respondent filed the reference in LAC No.9/2010 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru for enhancement of compensation. 3. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, the respondent-claimant examined herself as PW.1 and additionally examined one more witness on her behalf as PW.2 and marked 54 documents as Exs.P1 to P54. The officer of the appellant was examined as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent and awarded the compensation and passed the order which reads as under: "The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act-1984 is hereby partly allowed with costs. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.70,11,600/- with respect to acquired land and trees. Since the petitioner is already received Rs.14,17,100/-. The petitioner is entitled for remaining balance of Rs.55,94,500/-. The claimant is entitled for additional market value at the rate of 12% on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of preliminary notification till the date of award as provided U/s 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act. The claimant is entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced market value as per Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. As per Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner is entitled to an interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced market value for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum after expiry of period of 1 year till the date of payment after deducting the amount already paid to the petitioner by the opponent under the provisions of Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984. The respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within the period of 90 days from the date of this judgment and payment of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 compensation will be subject to any deduction of any encumbrance in respect of the acquired property." Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the State preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent. 6. The primary contention of the learned AGA is that the Reference Court grossly erred while enhancing the compensation without appreciating the evidence and documents on records in right perspective. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation merely based on the affidavit filed by the respondent. As a matter of fact, PW.1 in her cross- examination categorically admitted that after acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.26/p she received the entire compensation amount of Rs.14,17,160/- awarded by the competent authority and was additionally compensated by granting land in Kelaguru Grama to an extent of 10 acres and 60 x 90 plot. To substantiate his contention, the AGA adduced additional documents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Reference Court following a meticulous perusal of the comprehensive evidence and documents placed before it, passed a well reasoned judgment and awarded the compensation which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. He further contended that though the Reference Court directed the Range Forest Officer and the ADLR to inspect the land in dispute to submit a report regarding the standing trees on the land, however, they failed to submit the report and as such, the Reference Court based on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 arrived at the conclusion that the LAO grossly erred while passing the award without duly considering the fact that there stood trees, bamboo shoots and coffee shrubs. As such, the Reference Court passed a reasonable award. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point arising for our consideration is: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 "Whether the Reference Court is justified in enhancing the compensation by partly allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in LAC No.9/2010 dated 20.11.2019?" 10. It could be gathered from records that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26/p measuring 12 acre 19 guntas of Hipla Village belonged to one Late Subramanyra Prasad i.e., the father of the respondent and that the said land was acquired for the purpose of Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary. Further, it is not in dispute that the said land was a coffee plantation. The Reference Court while allowing the claim petition re-appreciated the entire evidence available on record. Albeit, RW.1 placed Ex.R1 and R2, however, he failed to produce any such credible documents to prove that the respondent was granted the rehabilitation award. Further, his evidence establishes that the Commissioner report adduced before the Reference Court discloses the standing trees and bamboo shoots on the disputed land. 11. Though the learned AGA vehemently contended that the additional documents adduced by him depicts that the respondent was rehabilitated by granting agricultural land and plots in myriad parts of the said village, the same was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2724 of 2020 considered by the Reference Court while enhancing the compensation. Against this backdrop, we find no good ground to interfere in the award passed by the Reference Court. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0