- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 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.7095/2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. KATTAYA VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V. ADV.,) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P.NO.2 HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT, BELUR HASAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560009. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI NIRAVARI NIGAMA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R4 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN IN LAC NO.111/2014 DATED 06.02.2015 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO RS.1,00,000/- PER GUNTA WITH 30% SOLATIUM AND 12% PER ANNUM ON THE ENHANCED MARKET VALUE ALONG WITH INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & 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 claimant under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2015 passed in LAC No.111/2014 by the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hassan - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. 2. Heard Sri.Narasimha Murthy G.V., learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SWAMYGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER1 has enhanced the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is further submitted that in the said case, the acquisition is for the same purpose and of the same Hobli. Hence, the appellant in 1 MFA No.6899/2017 dt. 22.10.2024 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 the instant case is also entitled for the similar benefit. He seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the Reference Court has determined the market value based on the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS2. It is also submitted that the appellant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the lands in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 2 (2018) 13 SCC 96 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 6. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the appellant's lands measuring 6 guntas in Sy.No.303 and measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.203 situated at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk was acquired vide preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2008 for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 05.01.2012 fixing the market value of the lands at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The appellant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 sought the reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta placing reliance on Ex.P6-the judgment in LAC No.189/2014. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of SWAMYGOWDA referred supra and seeks to enhance the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. We have perused the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench. In the said case, the preliminary notification is dated 04.02.2009 and the acquisition is of the land in Sy.No.9/p27 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk. The acquisition is for the Yagachi Reservoir project only. The co-ordinate Bench, considering the decision of another co-ordinate Bench and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the instant case, the preliminary notification is issued on 30.12.2008, the nature of the lands involved in the present case and the land covered in the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench are similar and are acquired for the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 same purpose. Hence, we are of the considered view that the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. 7. 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 acquisition is for the same purpose, the lands are of the same Hobli and the nature of lands involved in both the cases are having similar 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 the award of the compensation. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6427-DB M.F.A. No.7095/2018 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The market value of the lands measuring 6 guntas in Sy.No.303 and measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.203 situated at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk is re- determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits. iii. The appellant is not entitled to the interest for the delay period of 1194 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0