- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4786 OF 2024 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI LAKKEGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN DISTRICT & TALUK - 573 128 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE AND SMT. USHA LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HRP - 2, HASSAN - 573 210 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - 2 YAGACHI PROJECT BELUR - 573 115 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.9/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST DIVISION JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The appellant who is the claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 07.07.2020 passed in LAC No.9/2018 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (for brevity "the Reference Court"), whereby the Reference Court has allowed in part the claim petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the claimant/appellant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The claimant was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.71 measuring 25 guntas situated at Parasanahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District. The land in question had been acquired by the respondent for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project through preliminary notification and after issuance of final notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer - respondent No.1 had passed the award dated 31.03.2011 by fixing the market value of the land in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 question at Rs.30,000/- per acre by treating it as dry land. Being dissatisfied by the said award, the claimant- landowner of the respective property sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Subsequently, on assessing the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the Reference Court passed the impugned order by partly allowing the claim of the claimant-landowner and awarded compensation at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with statutory benefits. 5. Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the claimant-landowner has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.K.R.Lingaraju for the appellant, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned Sri. B.R. Prashanth for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has grossly erred while enhancing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 compensation. It is contended that the land belonging to appellant bearing Sy.No.71 measuring 25 guntas is situated in Parasanahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District, and had been acquired by the respondents along with several other lands for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. Thereafter, award has been passed by fixing the market value of Rs.30,000/- per acre. Subsequently, on the reference being made by similarly situated landowners, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Though the appellant during trial has produced the copy of the judgment and award passed in similar matters i.e., in LAC.No.21/2017 and sought for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, the Reference Court on wrong assumption has fixed the compensation at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. As such, the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court by fixing the market value as enhanced by the Reference Court in similar matter i.e., in LAC.No.43/2019. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and contends that the Reference Court has rightly not considered the judgment passed in LAC.No.21/2017 since in the said case, the claimant therein has produced the relevant documents to prove the potentiality of the acquired land and as such, in said case, enhancement has been made, whereas in the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce any relevant documents in respect of potentiality of the acquired land and also failed to produce any document to prove that the acquired land is situated within 6 kms. radius from the National Highway. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. On careful perusal of the record, it is clear that the appellant has produced the copy of the judgment and award passed in LAC.No.21/2017 during trial, wherein the Reference Court in respect of land situated adjacent to the land in question and acquired for the same Yagachi Reservoir Project, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. However, the Reference Court has not considered the said judgment on the ground that the date of notification issued - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was different and as also on the ground that the appellant has not produced any relevant documents to prove the potentiality of his land on par with the land involved in LAC.No.21/2017. 10. On perusal of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.11.2007, it is seen that the land of the appellant's father Kempegowda i.e., land bearing Sy.No.71 measuring 25 guntas at Sl.No.1 and the land of one Eshwar Gowda, son of Gopala Gowda i.e., land bearing Sy.No.41/3, who has preferred LAC.(A)No.43/2019 (copy of which is produced before this Court), at Sl.No.16, have been acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose by the respondent-State. Further, on perusal of judgment and award dated 21.10.2024 passed in LAC.(A)No.43/2019, it is seen that the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. 11. Further, it is seen that the Reference Court, after considering the judgment in LAC.No.21/2017, wherein the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, in the instant case has observed that since the preliminary notification - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 in the said case was different and that the claimant in the present appeal has not produced any documents in relation to potentiality of land in question and the distance between the land in question and the National highway to claim enhancement on par with the land involved in LAC.No.21/2017, the claim of the appellant cannot be considered. 12. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if an opportunity is extended to the appellant, he would produce all the relevant documents before the Reference Court. 13. In view of the above, we are of the view that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant to produce the relevant documents before the Reference Court, since in LAC.(A)No.43/2019, in which, the land was situated in the same village i.e., Parasanahalli Village and was acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER I i) The appeal is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39084-DB MFA No. 4786 of 2024 ii) The judgment and award dated 07.07.2020 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.9/2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. iii) The appellant is directed to appear before the Reference Court on 03.11.2025 without expecting any further notice. iv) It is made clear that both the parties are at liberty to produce documents and lead evidence. v) If the Reference Court considers that any fresh issue arises, it may frame issues and thereafter record the evidence of the parties. vi) The Reference Court shall also consider the judgment and award passed in LAC(A).43/2019 while disposing of the matter. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to refund the Court fee as applicable to the appellant on proper identification. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 10.10.2025.