- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 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. 8077 OF 2016 (LAC) BETWEEN: T S LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SHETTYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HRP HASSAN & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN - 573 201. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM SURFACE WATER DATA ENTRY BUILDING ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R1-SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.03.09.2011 PASSED IN LAC.NO.45/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 03.09.2011 passed in LAC No.45/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (for brevity "the Reference Court"), whereby the Reference Court has allowed the claim petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in part. 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.18 measuring 5 Acre and 2 guntas situated at Sunnakalluhosuru village. The land in question had been acquired by respondent No.1 for rehabilitation to the landowners, who have lost their lands in Hemavathi Reservoir Project and awarded compensation of Rs.3,80,931/- in RBC LAQ.No.41/2006-07. The claimant has received the award amount under protest subject to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 adjudication of his claim over the acquired land by the Civil Court. Being dissatisfied by the said award, the claimant- landowner of the land in question 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.9,000/- 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.Narendra Gowda for the appellant, learned counsel Sri. B.R. Prashanth, for respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 remained unrepresented 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:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 compensation. It is contended that the land belonging to appellant bearing Sy.No.18 measuring 5 Acre and 2 guntas situated at Sunnakalluhosuru village, had been acquired by respondent No.1 along with several other lands for the purpose of rehabilitation to the landowners, who have lost their lands in Hemavathi Reservoir Project. Thereafter, award has been passed by fixing the market value of Rs.53,900/- per acre. 8. Further it is contended that respondent No.1 has granted only Rs.3,80,931/- as compensation. The claimant was growing 30 – 40 quintals of Ragi, 4 – 5 quintals of Horse Gram in the acquired land. The claimant has dugged 2 bore- wells by spending Rs.80,000/-. Further it is contended that the claimant's land is situated beside State Highway and it is very near to Holenarasipur Town, and also the Government has formed the lay-out, where each site measuring 30x40 is worth of Rs.3,00,000 – 4,00,000. It is also contended that the Government has started Polytechnic College and Murarji Desai Residential School near the land, and the claimant's - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 entire family is depending upon the earnings of the acquired land. 9. It is contended that, subsequently on the reference being made by similarly situated landowners, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at Rs.1,00,880/- per acre i.e., 37,332/- 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.306/2006 and sought for enhancement of the compensation, but the Reference Court on wrong assumption has fixed the compensation at Rs.9,000/- per gunta. As such, he prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court by enhancing the compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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. 306/2006 since in the said case, the land has been acquired - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 for the construction of bridge across the Hemavathi River at Holenarasipura Town and as such, enhancement has been made, whereas in the instant case, the appellant has produced the Sale Deed dated 09.11.2005 wherein 2 guntas has been sold for Rs.18,000/-. Hence, in respect of potentiality of the acquired land the compensation has been rightly enhanced. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. 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.306/2006 during trial, wherein the Reference Court granted compensation of Rs.37,332/- per gunta in respect of land situated adjacent to the land of the petitioner. 12. It is submitted that, even though the land in question had been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation to the land owners, who have lost their lands in Hemavathi Reservoir Project, but the market value taken for consideration for the award of compensation is lower and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 same is liable to be enhanced taking in to the higher value per acre due to the reason that, land which acquired is highly potential and crop yielding land wherein the appellant was growing 30 – 40 quintals of Ragi, 4 – 5 quintals of Horse Gram in the acquired land and dugged 2 bore-wells by spending Rs.80,000 and the acquired land is attached to Holenarsipura Town Zone and also government is forming layout in the appellant's land. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if an opportunity is granted to the appellant to produce additional evidence by remitting the matter to the Reference Court he would be able to produce the relevant documents to prove the same. 13. In view of the above aspects, we are of the view that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 03.09.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.45/2010 is set aside and the matter is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39358-DB MFA No. 8077 of 2016 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. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4