- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.5144/2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: B.V. DIVAKAR S/O VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/OF. BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-II, HASSAN-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 3. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION BELUR, HASSAN DIVISION-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 51(1) OF LAC ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.331/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN. MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.331/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN AND ETC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2015 passed in LAC No.331/2014 by the Court of the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 3. The brief facts leading to filling of this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.05 situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal. 4. Sri.Chethan B., learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the lands in question without considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands arise out of the preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009. This Court in MFA Nos.8760/2018, 8703/2018, 8873/2018 and 3870/2021, enhanced the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and the acquisition of the lands in these appeals - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 also arise out of the same notification. Hence, he seeks to re-determine the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits in these appeals. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. 6. Sri. B.R. Prashanth, Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and they were not arrayed as party to the proceedings before the Reference Court and only in the appeal, they have been impleaded. Hence, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Reference Court to enable the parties to adduce evidence. It is submitted that the claimant shall establish the market value by leading evidence and they cannot rely on the judgments of this Court and seek for higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, the learned High Court Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 8. The undisputed facts are that the claimant's land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.05 situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired vide preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on 23.12.2011 by determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.77,200/- per acre with all statutory benefits. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 9. It is not in dispute that the acquisition in this case is for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The acquisition in this case are the lands situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. The contentions of the respondent No.3 that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Reference Court as they were not parties before the Reference Court and they intend to adduce the evidence and that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the claimant cannot be a basis to enhance the compensation, are taken note of for the purpose of rejection only. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of LAKSHMEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS1 and SANNEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS2 has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM 1 MFA No.8703/2018 dt. 25.09.21 2 MFA No.8760/2018 dt. 24.09.21 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 AND ANOTHER3 and held that when the acquired lands are more or less situated nearby, when the acquired lands are identical and similar and acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more compensation to some of the land owners and less compensation to the others. The Bench has also recorded that the said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR4 and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the aforesaid case, the preliminary notification was issued in the year 2009 and the acquisition was for the same purpose as in the case on hand. In the instant appeal, preliminary notification for acquisition is of the year 2009 and the nature of land and their potentiality are similar to that of the subject matter of the lands covered in the aforesaid appeals. Hence, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid 3 (2010) 5 SCC 747 4 (2017) 4 SCC 717 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 decision, we are of the considered view that the land loser in this appeal is also entitled to similar benefits. The Reference Court in LAC Nos.128/2015 to 132/2015 and LAC No.45/2016 c/w LAC No.126/2015 vide judgment dated 02.08.2016 has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The judgments of the Reference Court clearly indicate that the subject matter of the acquisition arise from the preliminary notifications dated 14.03.2008, 11.02.2009, 06.05.010 and 06.07.2007 and the acquisition was for the purpose of the same project as in the instant case. The subject matter involved in one of the LAC was from the same Hobli also. Hence, the contention of the respondent No.3 that the matter requires remand has no merit. 10. Another Reference Court in LAC No.90/2016 c/w LAC Nos.87/2016 and 88/2016 vide judgment dated 26.09.2022 has enhanced the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. The aforesaid judgments of the Reference Court indicate that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 the acquisition was for the same project. It is also not in dispute that the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra and the judgments of the Reference Court referred supra have attained finality and there is no challenge to the said judgments either by the State Government or by the respondent No.3-beneficiary of the acquisitions. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent No.3-beneficiary was arrayed as a party in the aforesaid appeal and the proceedings before the Reference Court. Without challenging the aforesaid judgments, the respondent No.3 cannot now contend that the matter requires remand as they have accepted the re- determination of the compensation in respect of the lands covered under the aforesaid judgments acquired for the same purpose at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. 11. This Court is conscious that the acquisition proceedings are initiated in the year 2009 and the claimant is the farmer who lost his land to the extent of 25 guntas and if the matter is remitted back, it would cause - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 further delay in getting the compensation. It is trite law that the order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice. Hence, no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to determine the market value of the lands in question as already the Reference Court and this Court on appreciation of the various factors re- determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. 12. Considering the fact that the lands covered under this appeal and the lands covered in the aforesaid judgments are identical and similar, acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, it would be unfair to discriminate the land owners. Hence, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed by re-determining the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5474-DB M.F.A. No.5144/2018 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The market value of the land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.05 situated at Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits. iii. The claimant is not entitled to the interest for the delay period of 1073 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1