- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8982 OF 2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. NANJUNDAPPA, S/O APPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT BACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK 7 DISTRICT. PIN CODE-573 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P. NO.2, HASSAN, PIN CODE-573 201. 2. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 201. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI NIRAVARI NIGAM, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 02.02.2015, PASSED IN LAC. NO.15/2014. ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. 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) 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 02.02.2015 passed in LAC.No.15/2014 by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (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 No.1 and Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 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 and in the instant case, the purpose of acquisition is the same and the acquired land situated in the same Hobli. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the appellant in 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 Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has determined the market value based on the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference by this Court. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 was not arrayed as party before the Reference Court but for the first time he has been made party in the present appeal. It is further submitted that the judgment of 1 MFA No.6899/2017 dt. 22.10.2024 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 land in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference by this Court?" 6. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the appellant's land measuring 16 guntas in Sy.No.58/1 2 (2018) 13 SCC 96 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 situated at Bachihalli Village, Hassan Taluk was acquired vide preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 30.10.2009 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.55,800/- and Rs.54,600/- per acre respectively. The appellant 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.P31 and Ex.P32-the judgment and award passed in LAC No.133/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 of this Court. 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 of this Court, considering the decision of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the instant case, the preliminary notification is issued on 30.10.2009, the nature of the lands involved in the present case, the lands covered in the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court are similar and are acquired for the same purpose and situated in the same Hobli. 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 instant 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 lands 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. Mere not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15285-DB MFA No. 8982 of 2018 arraying respondent No.3 as party before the Reference Court does not come in the way of the appellant's case for enhancement in view of the above fact and circumstances. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The market value of the lands measuring 16 guntas in Sy.No.58/1 situated at Bachihalli Village, 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 1281 days. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1