- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 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. 2716 OF 2020 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BHADRA WILD LIFE SANCTUARY, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP) AND: 1. SUBRAMANYA PRASAD S/O LATE N. ANANDARAO, R/O OPP: SRI. RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MUTT, BASAVANAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DEAD BY LRS., SMT. SUMITRA PRASAD, W/O LATE SUBRAMANYA PASAD, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. NIRIKSA NADIG D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 3. SACHIDANANDA NADIG S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NEAR ASGAR RICE MILL, MAIN ROAD, GOWRIKALUVE, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 15.10.2019, PASSED IN LAC NO.10/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.10/2010 dated 15.10.2019 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) 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 respondents/claimants. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 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 18 guntas belonged to respondents and was acquired by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAO' for short) for the purpose of Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary. The award was approved by the Government vide Notification No.Kar/E/T/Bha.swa.chi.2002 dated 24.06.2002 and this was communicated to the respondents vide No.LAQ 42/2001-02 dated 26.06.2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The said property originally belonged to one Late Subramanya Prasad. The LAO awarded a sum of Rs.96,064/- 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 respondents filed the reference in LAC No.10/2010 before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru for enhancement of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 3. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, the respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 56 documents as Exs.P1 to P56. The appellants did not adduce oral evidence; however, two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, Reference Court partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents and awarded the compensation and passed the order which reads as under: "The reference made by the Land Acquisition officer U/s 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act is partly allowed without costs. The petitioners are entitled for Rs.67,92,764/- with respect to the acquired land by deducting the amount already received by the claimants. The claimants are 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 passed as provided u/s 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act. The claimants are entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced market value as per section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The claimants are entitled for interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount during the first year from the date of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 preliminary notification and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till the date of realization of enhanced compensation amount as per section 28 of Land Acquisition Act. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of this judgment and payment of 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 AGA for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The primary contention of the learned AGA is that the Reference Court grossly erred while enhancing the compensation by relying on Ex.P8-price list produced by the respondents. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation merely based on the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1. The respondents failed to prove the authenticity of the price list- Ex.P8. As a matter of fact, PW.1 in her cross-examination categorically admitted that, after acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.26/p, they received the entire compensation amount of Rs.23,54,914/- awarded by the competent authority. He further - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 contended that, on basis of the spot mahazar drawn by the concerned officer, alternative land was granted in Handi Grama measuring 12 acres and a plot measuring 60 x 90 to Late Subramanya Prasad. To substantiate this contention, he relied on the additional documents produced by him. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 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 interference by this Court. 8. He further contended that the Reference Court on perusal of the report filed by the Court Commissioner who inspected the spot and reckoned the number of seege tress, bamboo shoots and coffee shrubs on the acquired land and passed the compensation award; this was further established and proved in the evidence of PW.1. By considering the same, the Reference Court passed the award. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point arising for our consideration is: "Whether the Reference Court is justified in enhancing the compensation by partly allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in LAC No.10/2010 dated 15.10.2019?" 10. It could be gathered from records that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26/p measuring 12 acre 18 guntas of Hipla Village belonged to one Late Subramanya Prasad i.e., the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of the respondents No.2 and 3 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 and predominantly relied on the report filed by the Court Commissioner. 11. The appellants failed to produce any such credible documents to prove that the respondents were granted rehabilitation award. However, the report placed by the Court Commissioner establishes that there were standing trees and bamboos along with coffee shrubs. The Trial Court, after - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9579-DB MFA No. 2716 of 2020 meticulously examining the report placed by the Court Commissioner and the evidence deposed by PW.1, enhanced the compensation. 12. 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 Handi Village, nevertheless, this was 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.: 3