- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5953 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, SUB DVISION NO. 4, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577228 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMMA DAUGHTER OF THYARAPPA, WIFE OF MARULASIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BETTATHAVAREKERE VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGLUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA -577228 2. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE, KARNATAKA - 577228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M. ,ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT RANSA VASANTHI, HCGP FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.12.2022 PASSED IN LAC NO.26/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Assistant Executive Engineer, Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Limited, 'Upper Bhadra Project', Tarikere, has preferred the present appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., Tarikere, in L.A.C.No.26/2014, whereby, the Reference Court has allowed the reference partly and awarded the enhanced compensation of ₹4,48,563/- towards loss of Mango trees, in the land acquisition process. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondents No. 1 herein/claimant is the owner of the horticultural land bearing Sy.No.26, measuring 02 acres 39 guntas, situated at Bettathavarekere Village, Amruthapura Hobli, Tarikere Taluk. The land in question has been acquired by the Assistant Commissioner and the Land Acquisition Officer, Tarikere, for the purpose of 'Upper Bhadra Project' and awarded total compensation of ₹16,87,966/- and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 ₹1,21,737/- in respect of the land in question, considering only the Sub-Registrar value fixed by the Government. 3. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Assistant Commissioner and Special land Acquisition Officer towards loss of Mango trees, the respondent herein/claimant, filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Tarikere, seeking reference, specifically contending that the compensation awarded in inadequate. 4. It is submitted by the appellant that the appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for the land, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate, is pending before the Court of District Judge at Chickmagalur. So far as the grant of compensation towards Mango trees is concerned, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court, on the ground that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 compensation awarded towards loss of Mango trees is excessive and on the higher side. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no Mango trees on the land of the claimant. Hence, the determination of compensation by the Reference Court towards loss of Mango trees is not correct. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submitted that, from the document produced at Exs.P2 and P3 – Joint measurement lists which are the documents prove that there were 131 Mango trees and based on the same, the Reference Court has awarded the enhanced compensation at ₹4,48,563/-, which is justifiable. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents No.1, it can be seen that, the Reference Court, while discussing the evidence on record, held that, Exs.P2- and P3 which are the documents prepared by the appellant themselves - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 proves the fact that, there were 131 Mango trees on the land of the claimant. These documents are not the documents prepared by the respondents No.1 /claimant, but the documents of the appellant themselves. The officials of the appellant, during the course of acquisition process, had visited and inspected the land and found that there were 131 Mango trees on the land in question and accordingly, Exs. P2 and P3 were prepared. The same were produced by the claimant before the Reference Court. These documents are not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, based on this documentary evidence, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that there were 131 Mango trees which are grown on the land of the claimant and accordingly, determined the compensation. 8. The documentary evidence at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 are the joint measurement lists prepared by the appellant which also goes to prove the fact that there were Mango trees grown on the land in question. When these - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 documentary evidence are placed on record by the claimant, it prove the fact that there were Mango trees in 9. It is proved that there were 131 Mango trees, also as per the Tapasanapatti at Ex.P-1, which is prepared by the appellant themselves, there were 131 Mango trees. Therefore, from this, one thing is clearly proved that there were Mango trees in existence on the land in question which is correctly appreciated by the Reference Court. 10. Further, the claimant has stated that they had grown Badami variety of Mangoes, which is disputed by the learned counsel for appellant, stating that the Mangoes grown by claimant were ordinary type or nati type of Mangoes. On behalf of the claimant, when PW-1 has given his evidence on oath that he has cultivated Badami Mango trees, in order to rebut the said evidence, the appellant has not at all produced any evidence to prove as to what are the types of Mangoes grown by the claimant other than Badami Mangoes. Absolutely there is no oral or - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant before the Reference Court. Therefore, the Reference Court has correctly held that the Mango trees cultivated in the land are 'Badami' Mango trees. 11. Further, Ex.P-5 is the letter issued by the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Tarikere, stating that the Mango trees would give fruits for 70 to 80 years and that each tree would give about 50 to 300 kgs of Mangoes per year. To rebut the contents of this document, the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence nor examined any witness. However, the claimants also were unable to produce any documents to show that they had irrigation facility to their land and were getting that much of yield. Taking into consideration the variation/changes in the atmosphere and nature and various other aspects, the Reference Court has taken the average quantum of yield of Mangoes at 125 kgs. per tree, per year, which is found to be correct. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the Reference Court - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 has correctly come to the conclusion that, a Mango tree would give an average yield of 125 kgs. of Mangoes per year. 12. Further, the Reference Court, placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) TELUGU GANGA reported in (2011)11 SCC 639 and also the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.39979/2013 in the case of Executive Engineer KPTCL and another Vs. Doddakka, adopted the multiplier of '10', for the purpose of calculating the economic life span of Mango trees. I am of the view that the same is just and proper and does not call for interference. 13. So far as the price of Mangoes is concerned, as per the documentary evidence on record at Ex.P-6, which is the letter issued by the Executive Manager, HOPCOMS, Lalbagh, Bangalore, indicating the price of Mangoes for the years from 2010-11 to 2015-16, the Reference Court has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 taken the price of Mangoes for the relevant year of 2010 at ₹46.60 per kg. Therefore, if price of ₹46.60 is multiplied by the number of kgs. of Mangoes, it comes to ₹5,825/- (i.e. 125 kgs.x46.60=₹5,825/-) per year. For ten years, if it is multiplied by multiplier '10', then, it comes to ₹58,250/-(i.e. ₹5,825/-x'10') per tree. From this, if 50% is deducted towards cultivation and other incidental expenses, it comes to ₹29,125/- per tree and if it is multiplied for 150 Mango trees, then it comes to ₹43,68,750/- (i.e. ₹29,125/- x 150 Mango Trees = ₹43,68,750/- ). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the quantum of compensation determined by the Reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. Thus, for Mango trees, the total compensation comes to ₹60,83,722/- as against the compensation of a sum of ₹16,87,966/-, awarded towards trees, building and well, etc. Thus, there is an enhanced compensation of a sum of ₹4,48,563/- awarded by the Reference Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that, the Reference Court has correctly determined the compensation by appreciating the evidence on record and hence, there is no perversity in the finding of the Reference Court. Accordingly, the Reference Court has correctly determined the compensation. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the judgment of the Reference Court. 16. Further, this Court, in M.F.A.No.6332/2021 (LAC) and connected appeals, by its judgment dated 07.02.2025, has affirmed the order of the Reference Court for awarding compensation towards Mango trees in respect of the very same Preliminary Notification and for the very same project of 'Upper Bhadra Project' and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant -Assistant Executive Engineer, Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Limited, 'Upper Bhadra Project', Tarikere. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16845 MFA No. 5953 of 2023 and does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 17. In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, the pending I.A.No.2/2023 does not survive for consideration and accordingly it is disposed of as having become infructuous. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3