- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.41 OF 2018 (LA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O MADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER, SRI.HRINETHRA S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O MADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, KUNIGAL ROAD, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.201/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2013 PASSED IN LAC.NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing to the respondent No.1-State as well as counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The main question involved in this MSA is for non consideration of the enhancement of compensation in R.A.No.201/2016 by the Appellate Court in rejecting the claim in respect of 28 medium arecanut trees as well as 20 small arecanut trees and though Appellate Court observed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 in paragraph No.16 regarding total trees of 136 arecanut trees, but award was passed only in respect of 88 trees and hence the present M.S.A is filed before this Court in respect of difference amount of value of 28 medium arecanut trees and also rejected the appeal and hence the present appeal is filed. 3. The counsel would contend that when the award was passed in respect of total 136 tress and the Reference Court considered the same and Appellate Court ought not to have modified the same while rejecting the appeal and ought to have enhanced the same. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-State would submit that the Appellate Court has taken note of that only 88 arecanut trees and the same is considered. The Appellate Court also enhanced the same for Rs.7,174/- per tree and made an observation that the claimant has not produced any material to establish the value of the medium and small arecanut - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 trees before this Court. The said observation is based on material. 5. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 also would contend that Appellate Court has not committed any error and taken note of the material placed on record and rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for enhancement as well as when the documents are not placed on record, not considered the same in the appeal filed by the claimants. 6. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing to the respondents, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in modifying the judgment of the Reference Court by allowing the R.A.No.201/2016 in making an observation that the claimant has not produced any material to establish the value of the medium and small arecanut trees before this Court? 2) What order? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 Point No.1: 7. Having heard the appellant’s counsel as well as the counsel appearing to the respondents, it is not in dispute that there were 136 trees and also counsel appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that the very award itself is very clear that total 136 arecanut trees and 3 coconut trees and award has been passed. It is also important to note that in L.A.C reference No.2/2012, the Reference Court also having taken note of the very existence of 136 trees awarded the enhanced compensation, but in the appeal, the Appellate Court committed an error in making such an observation that no material is placed, when the award has already been passed in the respect of 136 trees and the Reference Court also taken note of the big trees, small trees as well as the medium trees and awarded the compensation. The Appellate Court ought not to have modified the same reducing the same only for 88 trees. The very respondents have not disputed the very existence of 136 trees and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 award also passed while passing the award in respect of all the trees and also the Reference Court taken note of the same in respect of value of medium arecanut trees rate is fixed as Rs.1,300/- and for 20 small arecanut trees is fixed at Rs.600/- per tree, but Appellate Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that no material on record and the said observation is erroneous and First Appellate Court committed an error in making such observation that no material and already same was considered and award was passed by the Land acquisition officer in respect of the total trees as well as the Reference Court also taken the note of the same. When such being the case, it requires interference of this Court and modifying order of the Reference Court is erroneous and hence matter requires interference and the appellant is entitled for compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per 28 medium arecanut trees and also at the rate of Rs.600/- to 20 small arecanut trees and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24984 MSA No. 41 of 2018 also other statutory benefits. Hence, I answer the point No.1 as affirmative. Point No.2: 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following order. ORDER i) The M.S.A is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court in reference to the rejection of claim of the appellant for the value of 28 medium arecanut trees and also 20 small arecanut trees is set- aside and the same is allowed by granting the amount of Rs.1,300/- to 28 medium arecanut trees and also at the rate of Rs.600/- to the 20 small arecanut trees with all other statutory benefits. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60