- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10363 MFA No. 5608 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5608 OF 2012 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CHANNEL DIVISION, TUMKURU. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI NALA DIVISION, TUMKURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RANSA VASANTHI.D.L, HCGP) AND: 1. GUNDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED 56 YEARS, B. SRINIVAS S/O LATE GUNDAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS C. NAGARAJU S/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED 27 YEARS, (DELETED BY HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 16.07.2019, AS DEED) ALL ARE R/O AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR …RESPONDENTS (R1(A) AND R1(B) ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 16.17.19 R1(C)) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10363 MFA No. 5608 of 2012 THIS MFA FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO. 72/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by the appellant (respondents) in LAC No.72/2007 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.04.2011 passed in LAC No.72/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short) seeking to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10363 MFA No. 5608 of 2012 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Reference Court. 4. The claimants (respondents herein) are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.167/1 situated at Gottikere village, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk and the said land has been acquired by the appellants for the formation of Hemavathi channel. The SLAO has fixed compensation of Rs.72,000/- per acre. 5. Upon reference made by the respondents/claimants, the Reference Court has determined the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- per acre. The said order is challenged by the SLAO and Chief Executive Engineer in this appeal. 6. Before the Reference Court there is no evidence that what is the yield of the land, how much crop per year are reaping and what is the price of the crops are not produced. Therefore, the Reference Court has not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10363 MFA No. 5608 of 2012 determined the market value under the capitalization method. 7. The respondents/claimants have produced Ex.P-4-certified copy of judgment in LAC No.68/2007 passed by the very same Reference Court. Ex.P-3-RTC extract, which proves the fact that the land is dry land in the said LAC No.68/2007 pertains to Sy.No.98/1 and 167/1 were acquired for the very same project of Hemavathi Channel under the very same preliminary notification as in the present case. In the said LAC No.68/2007 the claimants were also standing on the same pedestal of the respondents herein. In the above stated judgment and award in LAC No.68/2007, the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- per acre and the said judgment had attained finality without there being any challenge. Therefore, when the respondents herein and the claimants in LAC No.68/2007 are standing on the same pedestal and the lands acquired were for the very same project of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10363 MFA No. 5608 of 2012 Hemavathi Canal under the same preliminary notification therefore, the respondents also cannot be discriminated. Hence, the respondents are entitled compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- per acre, which is correctly held and determined by the Reference Court. Therefore, there is no good ground made out to admit the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26