- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5963 OF 2014 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SRI. B.L. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.50 KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE-53. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HARANGI PROJECT, HUNSUR MYSORE DITRICT-571 105. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.302/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for respondent. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Trial Court passed in LAC No.302/2009 dated 08.08.2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of case of the appellant before the Trial Court that the appellant being the owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 11 guntas and 1 acre 39 guntas respectively situated at Bilikere village, Hunsur Taluk was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of formation of State Highway. The State fixed the compensation for a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acre for garden land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and the same is received under protest and an application was filed before the authority under Section 18 of the L.A.Act dissatisfied with the award and hence, the matter was referred to the reference Court. The reference - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 Court having considered the date of preliminary notification dated 09.02.2006 and also date of award and also considering the service of notice and payment of compensation and also the application filed under Section 18 of the L.A.Act on 24.01.2008 re-consider the same. The Trial Court considering particularly the document of Ex.P12 which is in respect of Chikkadanahally village of Bilikere Hobli and the said land was acquired wherein fixed the compensation of Rs.12,00,958/- and considering the acquisition of the year 2006 in respect of this acquisition is considered, for a period of 2½ years enhanced by appreciating the rate of 10% for a sum of Rs.12,00,958/- awarded an amount of Rs.15,25,818/- per acre with all statutory benefits. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the market value of the property as on the date of acquisition is more than Rs.40,00,000/- and the Trial Court committed an error and also the acquisition authority fails to consider - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 the sale inspite of document of sale deed are produced and sale statistics are also placed before the Court for having sold the property that is 1 gunta, 1½ gunta, 3 gunta and 4 gunta and property was also abutting to the Highway. 5. The counsel also would vehemently contend that property is also acquired for the expanding the State Highway and fails to take note of the said fact into consideration and only considered Ex.P12 and the same was in respect of remote village and the same is not in the village of Bilikere and the same was in the Chikkadanahally of Bilikere hobli and fails to take note of the said fact and ought to have consider the documents of sale deeds produced before the Trial Court as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The counsel brought to notice of this Court Ex.P1 sale deed dated 17.09.2009 wherein to the extent of 1½ gunta, amount was fixed the sale consideration was Rs.82,000/-. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P2 that is sale deed dated 14.02.2010 which discloses Rs.55,000/- for 1 gunta of land and so also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 brought to notice of this Court Ex.P3 an amount of Rs.83,000/- for 3 guntas of land dated 27.02.2008 and also sale deed Ex.P4 dated 12.10.2007 wherein also 2 guntas of land amount is Rs.54,000/- and sale deed Ex.P5 dated 17.07.2009, an amount of Rs.55,000/- for 1 gunta of land and so also the document Ex.P6 dated 29.09.2007 4 guntas of land and sale consideration is Rs.1,10,000/-. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P7 dated 26.04.2010 sale deed wherein also Rs.1,10,000/- in respect of 2 guntas of land and these are the sale deeds which are in respect of property of Bilikere village and hence, the counsel would contend that the Court can take average sale consideration for all these years and award the just and reasonable compensation. 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for respondent/AGA would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note of acquisition of the year 2003 particularly relying upon Ex.P12 and also counsel would vehemently contend that even enhancement is made considering 10% increasing the value of the property and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 rightly taken note of the value of the property and awarded an amount of Rs.15,25,818/- and it does not requires interference of this Court. 7. 7. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also having taken note of the material on record, particularly the documents which have been relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in fixing the rate of Rs.15,25,818/- per acre requires modification for enhancing the same? 2) What Order? Point No.1: 8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of material, it is not in dispute that preliminary notification was made on 09.02.2006 and no dispute with regard to the extent of land acquired by the State and also Court has to take note of the purpose for which the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 property was acquired and the same is for the purpose of formation of Highway. The amount was fixed at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for garden land and an amount of Rs.40,000/- for dry land. The Trial Court also while re- considering the material on record in paragraph No.12 taken note of Ex.P12, the same is in respect of Chikkadanahally and not in respect of the very same village of Bilikere Hobli. It is also important to note that the land is acquired for the purpose of formation of State Highway and hence, it is very clear that the property is abutting to the State Highway and the same ought to have been taken note of by the Trial Court. 9. Having taken note of the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the upon counsel for the appellant i.e., the sale deed of Ex.P1 is dated 17.09.2009 and the sale deed at Ex.P2 is dated 14.02.2010 and Ex.P5 is dated 17.07.2009 and same is in respect of one gunta of the land and the amount is Rs.55,000/- per guntas. The sale deed at Ex.P7 is dated 26.04.2010 and hence, Ex.P1, P2 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 and P7 are of more than three years and same cannot be relied upon. 10. However, this Court can take note of the sale deed at Ex.P3 dated 27.02.2008 i.e., within one year from the date of notification wherein Rs.83,000/- is for three guntas of land which comes around Rs.27,667/- and Ex.P4 is for two guntas and the amount is Rs.54,000/-. In respect of one guntas, which I have already relied upon at Ex.P5 is near to the within three years of acquisition in respect of the very same notification. Having considered the same, the Court has to take the average of the same, particularly Ex.P3, P4 and P5 so also Ex.P6 an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- for four guntas of land and almost all comes within the purview of Rs.27,667/-. Having considered Ex.P5 i.e., for one gunta Rs.55,000/-, if it is taken average with Ex.P3, P4, P5 and P6 it will come to Rs.36,556/- and for one acre it comes to Rs.14,62,240/-. Even considering the documents which have been placed by the appellants that is Ex.P3, P4 and P5 it comes within the lesser the amount awarded by the Trial Court. The counsel would - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 vehemently contend that the land is garden land and in order prove the said fact also, no material is placed before the Court. Even in the appeal memo also nothing is averred in this regard. No document is placed with regard to that property is having coconut trees and areca nut trees as deposed by the appellant before the Trial Court. Except stating the same, nothing is placed on record for having coconut and areca nut trees. The Trial Court also considered the same based on the document at Ex.P12 and even enhanced the same having considered the 10% increase. Hence, the contention of the appellant that lesser compensation was awarded cannot be accepted. 11. However, taking into note of the appreciation at the rate of 10% on the sum of Rs.12,00,958/- considering Ex.P12, Trial Court enhanced the same. Even considering the adding of 10% on a sum of Rs.12,000,958/- per year also comes to the conclusion that pay compensation of Rs.15,25,818/- and when such consideration was taken by the Trial Court while enhancing the compensation, it does - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 not requires any interference by this Court to enhance the same and even the same is comparing the sales statistics as relied by the appellant as well as Ex.P12. Thus, it does not requires any interference by this Court. I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court while passing the award. 12. The counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.5709/2015 dated 18.06.2021 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 16 wherein award was passed in respect of areca nut trees and also coconut trees. But in the case on hand, nothing is placed on record to show that the property consists of areca nut trees or coconut trees as deposed in the evidence of appellant. In the absence of documentary evidence, relying upon the said judgment referred supra does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer the above point as negative. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10441 MFA No. 5963 of 2014 Point No.2: 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39