- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7842 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, SUB DIVISION, NO.4, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 577 228. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERAPPA, SON OF NANJAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LRS., B. V. KALLESHAPPA, S/O. LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SMT. HALAMMA, W/O. UMAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 4. SRI. SHEKHARAPPA, S/O. LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SMT. BASAMMA, W/O. BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 6. AMRUTHESH S/O. LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. NANJUNDAPPA S/O. LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 8. RAJAPPA S/O. LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 9. ONKARAMMA W/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BETTATHAVAREKERE VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228. 10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, TARIKERE, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1, R-4, R-6- R8, R2, R-5, & R-9; SMT. RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP FOR R-10; V/O.DT.26.03.2025, R-1, R-2, R-4 TO R-9 ARE LRS. OF DECEASED R-3) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2022 PASSED IN LAC.NO.32/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C., TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. ETC. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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.32/2014, whereby, the Reference Court has allowed the reference partly and awarded the enhanced compensation of ₹9,46,342/- towards loss of Mango trees and Tamarind trees, in the land acquisition process. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondents No. 1 to 9 herein/claimants are the owners of the horticultural land bearing Sy.No.77, measuring 05 acres 05 guntas, situate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 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 ₹38,01,370/- and ₹2,09,715/- 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 and Tamarind trees, the respondents 1 to 9 herein/claimants, 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 claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for the land, on the ground that the compensation awarded by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 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 and Tamarind trees is concerned, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court, on the ground that the compensation awarded towards loss of Mango trees and Tamarind trees is excessive and on the higher side. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no Mango trees and Tamarind trees on the land of the claimants. Hence, the determination of compensation by the Reference Court towards loss of Mango trees and Tamarind trees is not correct. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 9/claimants submitted that, from the document produced at Ex.P-1-Tapasanapatti, which is the document of the appellant themselves, it proves that there were 150 Mango trees and 40 Tamarind trees and based on the same, the Reference Court has awarded the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 enhanced compensation at ₹9,46,342/-, which is justifiable. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 9/claimants, it can be seen that, the Reference Court, while discussing the evidence on record, held that, Ex.P-1 - Tapasanapatti which is the document prepared by the appellant themselves proves the fact that, there were 150 Mango trees on the land of the claimants. This document is not the document prepared by the respondents No.1 to 9/claimants, but it is the document 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 150 Mango trees and 40 Tamarind trees on the land in question and accordingly, Ex.P-1 - Tapasanapatti was prepared. The same was produced by the claimants before the Reference Court. This document is not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, based on this documentary evidence, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 Reference Court has come to the conclusion that there were 150 Mango trees and 40 Tamarind trees which are grown on the land of the claimants and accordingly, determined the compensation. 8. The documentary evidence at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 are the joint measurement list prepared by the appellant which also goes to prove the fact that there were Mango trees and Tamarind trees grown on the land in question. When these documentary evidence are placed on record by the claimants, it prove the fact that there were Tamarind trees and Mango trees in the land in question. 9. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the RTC extract which also proves the fact that there were Mango trees and Tamarind trees on the land in question, but the learned counsel for the appellant is disputing the quantum of trees on the land, as per the RTC extract. 10. After going through the RTC extract produced by the learned counsel for appellant, it shows that there were - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 80 Mango trees, but as per the Tapasanapatti at Ex.P-1, which is prepared by the appellant themselves, there were 150 Mango trees and 40 Tamarind trees. Therefore, from this, one thing is clearly proved that there were Mango trees and Tamarind trees in existence on the land in question which is correctly appreciated by the Reference Court. 11. Further, the claimants have stated that they had grown Badami variety of Mangoes, which is disputed by the learned counsel for appellant, stating that the Mangoes grown by claimants were ordinary type or nati type of Mangoes. On behalf of the claimants, 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 claimants other than Badami Mangoes. Absolutely there is no oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant before the Reference Court. Therefore, the Reference - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 Court has correctly held that the Mango trees cultivated in the land are 'Badami' Mango trees. 12. 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 has correctly come to the conclusion that, a Mango tree - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 would give an average yield of 125 kgs. of Mangoes per year. 13. 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. 14. 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 taken the price of Mangoes for the relevant year of 2010 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 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. 15. Further, so far as the compensation awarded towards loss of Tamarind trees is concerned, as per Ex.P-5 - letter issued by the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, every Tamarind tree would give a yield of 15 to 20 kgs. of Tamarind per year. The Reference Court, relying upon Ex.P-5, has taken the average of 15 kgs. per - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 tree as the yield for each tree, per year. Thereafter, as per Ex.P-7, which is the letter issued by the APMC, Tarikere, for the year 2010-11, the minimum amount fixed for Tamarind was ₹1000/- per quintal and the maximum amount was₹5,000/- per quintal. Therefore, in between these two amounts, the Reference Court has taken the price at ₹2,090/- per quintal. Per Kg. of Tamarind, it comes to ₹20. For 15 kgs, it comes to ₹300/- per tree and if the multiplier of '10' is adopted, then, the price of one Tamarind tree comes to ₹3,000/- (i.e. ₹300/-x'10'). From this, if 50% is deducted towards cultivation and other incidental expenses, thus it comes to ₹1,500/- per tree. Admittedly, as per the documentary evidence at Ex.P-1- Tapasanapatti, there were 40 Tamarind trees on the land in question. Therefore, for total 40 Tamarind trees, it comes to ₹60,000/- (i.e. ₹1,500/-x40 Tamarind trees). 16. Thus, for both Mango trees and Tamarind trees, the total compensation comes to ₹44,28,750/- as against the compensation of a sum of ₹34,82,408/-, awarded - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 towards trees, building and well, etc. Thus, there is an enhanced compensation of a sum of ₹9,42,342/- awarded by the Reference Court. 17. 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. 18. 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 and Tamarind trees and other trees in respect of the very same Preliminary Notification and for the very same project of 'Upper Bhadra Project' and dismissed the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14987 MFA No. 7842 of 2023 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 and does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, the pending I.A.No.1/2023 and I.A.No.1/2024 do not survive for consideration and accordingly they are disposed of as having become infructuous. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28