- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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.4089/2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., HEMAVATHI RIGHT CANAL DIVISION HOLENARASIPURA - 573 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV.,) AND: 1. RANGASWAMY S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O. DODDABIKANAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. KARNATAKA STATE BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P. - 2, HASSAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. GURURAJ R, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.36/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE PASSED IN REFERENCE LAC Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 NO.36/2016 PASSED BY HON'BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN, DATED 23.08.2016 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 Executive Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.08.2016 passed in LAC No.36/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan. 2. Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned senior advocate for Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in re-determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the claimant has failed to produce any evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. The Reference Court based on Ex.P5 has re-determined the market value which is impermissible. Hence, the impugned judgment of the Reference Court needs to be interfered. It is further submitted that the Reference Court cannot rely solely on the judgment of another case and determine the market value. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS1. It is also submitted that the claimant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. In the absence of any evidence, the Reference Court has erred in 1 (2018) 13 SCC 96 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 re-determining the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Sri. Vighneshwar Shastri, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that this Court in the case of B.V. Divakar v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others in MFA.No.5144/2018 vide judgment dated 06.02.2025 has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that in the instant case the acquisition of respondent No.1's land is under the preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009 and in the case of B.V. Divakar referred supra, the acquisition was under the same notification, of the same hobli and acquired for the same purpose. Hence, the present appeal is required to be rejected. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Reference Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment and re-determined the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 market value which is incorrect. He seeks to allow the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the State Government acquired various extents of land for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project vide preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act dated 11.02.2009 and final notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act dated 01.09.2009. Respondent No.1's land measuring 0.05 guntas in Sy.No.436/10 and 1 acre in Sy.No.384/2 of Kittane Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award dated 04.10.2011 fixing the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 market value at Rs.64,500/- per acre in respect of land measuring 0.05 guntas in Sy.No.436/10 and Rs.60,600/- in respect of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.384/2. Respondent No.1 being the owner has sought reference under section 18(1) of the LA Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta will all statutory benefits and interest. 8. The beneficiary of acquisition has filed this appeal and contends that the claimant has failed to prove the market value before the Reference Court and the Reference Court committed an error by placing reliance on Ex.P5 and further contends that judgment of another reference Court cannot be the sole basis to determine the market value in question. The Reference Court has recorded detailed reasons in paragraph Nos.14 to 17 and come to conclusion that the lands involved in this appeal and lands covered in LAC.No.15/2015 and connected matters (Ex.P5) pertains to Kittane Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk. The acquisition in the instant case and in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 the Ex.P5 is under the same notification and acquired for the same purpose. 9. We have perused the material available on record and are satisfied that the Reference Court was justified in treating the land owners covered in Ex.P5 and the land owner in the instant case equally as the nature of lands are one and the same, acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. Hence, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Reference Court in the present appeal. 10. Insofar as the decision of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS referred supra is concerned, it has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note that the nature of land involved in the referred decision of the High Court is different and distinct. In the case on hand, the Reference Court has recorded clear finding that the land covered in Ex.P5 and the present proceedings are acquired under the same notification, for the same - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 purpose and situated in the same village. Hence, the aforesaid decision relied by the appellant has no application on the case on hand. Hence, the appellant now cannot contend that the re-determination of the compensation by the Reference Court is without any basis. We are of the considered view that the land losers whose lands have been acquired under the same notification, same purpose and having same potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in the award of the compensation. In the instant case, the acquisition is of the year 2009 and the claimant has not received the enhanced compensation. Taking note of this aspect also, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court does not call for any interference. 11. This Court in the case of B.V.Divakar referred supra has considered earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Admittedly, the acquisition in the said case is under the preliminary - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6332-DB M.F.A. No.4089/2018 notification dated 11.02.2009 acquired for the same purpose and of the same Hobli. Hence, we are of the considered view that Reference Court has justified in determining the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27