- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 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.4344/2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR SRI. RAMACHANDRAN, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. JAYAKUMAR S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. VENKATESH S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. LOKESH S/O LAXMINARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT GADIKOPPA WARD NO. 35, SAGAR ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 4. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R4) THI MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.31.08.2015 PASSED ON LAC NO.136/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Shivamogga under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.08.2015 passed in LAC No.136/2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 2. Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for Sri.Ramchandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Sanganagouda G. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in re-determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.150/- per square feet. It is submitted that the Reference Court at paragraph No.14 of the judgment has taken note of the judgment passed in MFA.No.3559/2013 (LAC). The said judgment of this Court was based on MSA.No.33/2011 and the lands covered in MSA.No.33/2011 were of Ankola Village, Shimoga Taluk, and in the instant case the lands situated at Malligenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. This Court in MFA.No.7998/2014 connected with other appeals arising out of Alkola Village, Shivamogga District, considering the judgment of this Court in MSA.No.33-41/2011 and the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 judgments passed by the Reference Court in LAC.No.109/2003, and LAC.No.102/2003, has fixed the market value at Rs.105/- per square feet. Hence, the impugned judgment in this appeal is required to be interfered by re-determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.105/- per square feet. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Sangangouda G. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA.No.7998/2014 connected with other appeals relied by the appellant has no application to the case on hand. It is further submitted that the claimants' land is admittedly the converted land for residential purpose and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench referred by the appellant is pertaining to the agricultural land. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 6. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are the owners of agricultural land in Sy.No.19/P measuring 8 acres 27 guntas of Malligenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. The State Government acquired the respondent Nos.1 to 3's land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas for the purpose of construction and formation of channel coming under Upper Tunga Project. The material available on record indicate that the land in question was converted for non-agricultural purpose by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 05.10.2000. The claimants examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 Reference Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in MFA.No.3559/2013 which was marked as Ex.P5, re-determined the market value at Rs.150/- per square feet with all statutory benefits. The Reference Court has recorded the finding that the land acquired in MFA.No.3559/2019 is of the same village and for the same project. The Reference Court has also recorded the clear finding that the land comes within the vicinity of the City Municipality and it is very near to National Highway. The distance between the acquired land and the city bus stand is just 2 kms and abutting to the land there is a polytechnic college and the entire area is developed. The said finding of the Reference Court is based on the pleading and evidence available on record. Admittedly, the appellant has not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court nor produced any evidence before this Court to disbelieve the evidence on record and to arrive at a different conclusion. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Co-ordinate bench in MFA.No.7998/2014 and connected appeals has re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per square feet and the same market value is required to be re-assessed in the instant case. The aforesaid contention is required to be rejected for the simple reason that in MFA.No.7998/2014 and connected appeals disposed of on 13.01.2020 clearly indicate that the said judgment was passed considering the judgments of reference court in LAC.No.109/2003 and LAC.No.102/2003. The Co-ordinate Bench has clearly recorded the finding at paragraph No.5 that the market value of the lands covered in MSA.No.33- 41/2011 was assessed in respect of residential plot. However, the lands in LAC.No.109/2003 and LAC.No.102/2003 are agricultural lands. Hence, contrary contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. We have also meticulously perused the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA.No.3559/2013 disposed of on 08.10.2013 and MSA.No.33/2011 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6308-DB M.F.A. No.4344/2018 connected appeals disposed of on 16.08.2012 by the learned Single Judge and noticed that this Court on appreciation of the fact that the lands are converted for non-residential use and re-determined the market value at Rs.150/- per square feet. In our view, the Reference Court is fully justified in placing reliance on Ex.P5 and it has assigned detailed reasons for determination of market value. We do not find any error or perversity in the impugned judgment calling for interference in this appeal. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28