- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2015 CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2015, MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2015 IN MSA No. 68/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANCHALE KRISHNAPPA S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GOUTHAMAPURA VILLAGE, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISTIION OFFICER, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.4, R.B.L. B.E.,DIVISION, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISTION ACT., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT, SAGARA IN M.A. NO.37/2012 DATED 13.12.2013 AND JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SAGARA IN L.A.C. NO.20/2011 DATED 20.04.2012 BY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.3,00,000/- PER ACRE FOR WET LAND AND ETC., IN MSA NO. 69/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PARVATAMMA W/O. DASANA BAIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT GOUTHAMAPURA VILLAGE, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.4, B.R.L. B.E., DIVISION, BHADRAVATHI TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISTION ACT., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT, SAGARA IN M.A. NO.41/2012 DATED 13.12.2013 AND JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SAGARA IN L.A.C. NO.23/2011 DATED 18.07.2012 BY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.3,00,000/- PER ACRE FOR WET LAND AND ETC., IN MSA NO. 70/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI HOOVAPPA GOWDA S/O RUDRAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 R/AT KUDIGERE VILLAGE, THYAGARTHI POST, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.4, B.R.L. B.E., DIVISION, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISTION ACT., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT, SAGARA IN M.A. NO.40/2012 DATED 13.12.2013 AND JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SAGARA IN L.A.C. NO.29/2011 DATED 18.07.2012 BY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.3,00,000/- PER ACRE FOR WET LAND AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. H.V. Manjunatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gopala Krishna Soodi, learned Additional Government for the respondents. 2. These three appeals are filed by the claimants being not satisfied with the enhancement of the compensation to the acquired land for the project namely 'Ambligoda Dam'. Lands of the claimants were submerged in view of enhancement of the height of the dam. Tahsildar in the draft Award, fixed the rate at Rs.1000/- per gunta. 3. The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.2,175/- per gunta. First Appellate Court enhanced the same to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 Rs.87,000/- per acre. While so enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.87,000/-, Reference Court did consider that the claimants in all these appeals did not place any positive evidence to seek for enhancement and based on the compensation fixed in respect of other lands which are acquired, Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.87,000/- per acre with consequential benefits. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants filed these appeals before this Court. 5. During the course of hearing of these appeals, at the request made by the counsel for appellants, by Order dated 14.12.2023 this Court permitted the appellant to place additional evidence on record. 6. For the sake of clarity, Order dated 14.12.2023 is culled out hereunder; The appellants in these appeals, who are loosers of lands for an irrigation project, are aggrieved by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 fixation of the market value of the land for the purposes of awarding compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered the guidance value fixed under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for the purposes of determining the market value of the lands. He contends that the properties acquired lay within Gowthamapura, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. He contends that the properties acquired had a non-agricultural potential, which is not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court as well as the First Appellate Court. He therefore, contends that if the non-agricultural potential is considered, then the market value of the properties would be not less than 40% more than guidance value. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that no evidence of whatsoever nature was produced before the reference Court to establish that the properties had a non-agricultural potential. He invited the attention of the Court to Exs.P1 to P5, which were the price lists for paddy for the year 2005-06 and 1998 to 2012 and the yield certificate of the paddy. He therefore, submits that the appellants have not adduced any evidence before the reference Court in respect of the claim that the properties acquired are capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that these properties lay within a village and the lands surrounding the properties acquired were predominantly used for non- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 agricultural purposes, he submits that an opportunity may be granted to the appellants to adduce further evidence to establish that the lands acquired were capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes. In view of the fact that the appellants have lost their valuable lands, they are bound to be granted just compensation and since it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that these acquired lands were capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes, in which event, the appellants may be entitled to higher compensation. Thus, having regard to the beneficial nature of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, this Court considers it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the appellants to lead further evidence before the reference Court regarding feasibility of the lands acquired being used for non-agricultural purposes. The reference Court may assess the evidence and submit its report about the possible impact on the market value of the lands acquired and place the report before this Court by or before 04.03.2024. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records to the reference Court. The reference Court is directed to place a report, as stated above, along with the Trial Court records before this Court by 04.03.2024. List these appeals on 04.03.2024." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 7. Pursuant to said order, appellants appeared before the First Appellate Court and placed additional evidence. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after recording the evidence, filed reports pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2023. Relevant portions of the reports in the respective appeals are culled out hereunder : LAC NO.20/2011 3. After this Court has received the record from Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued notice to both the parties. On service of notice the petitioner and respondent No.2 appeared through their counsel. Respondent No.1 has been represented by learned AGP. Petitioner has adduced evidence as PW-1 and marked documents viz. Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-14. Ex.P-6 is the valuation report by government registered valuer by name Shri.D.K Siddeshwara Prasad, Ex.P-7 is the Map of Dishank, Ex.P-8 is the true copy of resolution of Government of Karnataka, Ex.P-9 is the Letter including annexures issued by Assistant Executive Engineer of Karnataka State Highway development project, Sub-division Shikaripura, Ex.P10 and 11 are the R.T.C extracts, Ex. P-12 is the true copy of Public Notice Issued by the Project Director, Karnataka - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 State Highway development project Bangalore. Ex.P-13 is the true copy of the sketch of National Highway issued by Assistant Executive Engineer State Highway, Ex.P-14 is the sub-registrar value with respect to schedule property. The petitioner has also examined Shri. D.K Siddeshwara Prasad Government registrar valuer as PW-2 as one of the witness. 4. PW-1 in his evidence has deposed that the acquired land is adjacent to Shikaripura-Anandapuram National Highway 766 C and that the acquired land is only 20 km away from Shikaripura Taluk head quarters and only 08 km distance from Anandapuram Hobli head quarters and that as it is having National Highway Road connection it is very much useful for non agricultural purpose. PW-1 has also stated in his chief-examination that the Hotel, Nursery, Factory, Poultry form, Residential building, Fishing, Petrol Bunk, rearing of cattles, Rice and Flour Mill, Oil mill, Provision store, Fertilizer Shop for Agricultural purpose are situated very close to the acquired land. PW-1 has also mentioned that Jal Jeevan Mission established by the Government is situated near to the acquired land. During the course of cross-examination of the claimant by the respondent No.1 by learned AGP, he has categorically admitted that no water resources are there for his land and that he has volunteered and deposed that there is pond near by the property. But no document has been produced by the claimant to show that there exists pond near by suit schedule property. Though he stated during the cross-examination that there - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 exist pump house and fruit bearing plantation, no document produced to show the same. He has further categorically admitted that he has not produced any photographs and video or any document to show the same. The claimant during the course of cross- examination has deposed that he has established shops at 1 acre 21 guntas of land except the land which was acquired. But no document were produced to show the existence of said shops. During the course of cross- examination by respondent No. 2 the claimant who is PW- 1 has categorically admitted that he has not produced any document to show the loss he suffered due to stagnation of water since 01.07.1998 as alleged by him. He has also admitted that he has not produced any document to show that water has been stagnated. 5. One Government registered valuer Sri.D.K Siddeshwara Prasad was examined as PW-2 and has relied on his valuation report which was marked at Ex.P- 6. PW-2 in his evidence has deposed that the acquired land is adjacent to Shikaripura-Anandapura National Highway 766 C and that the acquired land is only 20 km away from Shikaripura Taluk Head Quarters and only 08 km distance from Anandapuram hobli head quarters and that as it is having National Highway Road connection it is very much useful for non agricultural purpose. PW-2 has also stated in his chief-examination that the Hotel, Nursery, Factory, Poultry form, Residential building, Fishing, Petrol Bunk, rearing of cattles, Rice and Flour Mill, Oil mill, Provision store, Fertilizer Shop for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 Agricultural purpose are situated very close to the acquired land. PW-2 has also mentioned that there is Jal Jeevan Mission established by the Government is situated near to the acquired land. During the course of cross- examination of PW-2 he has categorically admitted that he has not mentioned the survey number of properties which are located near by the said property. Further during the course of cross-examination he has categorically admitted as land acquisition process was done on 23.08.2006, Ex.P-8 and 14 valuation cannot be applied for that period. 6. The petitioner is mainly relaying on Ex.P-6 that is the property valuation report made by Sri D.K Siddeshwara Prasad Government registered valuer said Government registered Valuer has arrived at the conclusion that the property valuation is Rs.34,70,131- 00/-(Thirty Four Lakh Seventy Thousand One Thirty One Rupees Only). As per column 10(ii)(e) he has mentioned that, based on prevailing rates in the area he has arrived to the conclusion by the taking 3,00,000 to 4,00,000 per gunta. But, no documentary evidence is placed on record to show the prevailing rates in the area. How he has taken Rs. 3,00,000 to 4,00,000 per gunta is not at all made out. In the absence of the document to show that the prevailing rate is Rs. 3,00,000 to 4,00,000 per gunta it is not safe to merely rely on the report of PW-2. Very interestingly the claimant has not produced any sale deeds of adjacent land owners. In the absence of any material to show that the prevailing rates in the area is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 Rs. 3,00,000 to 4,00,000 merely on the say of registered government valuer, cannot be accepted. 7. Though the Hon'ble High court has given opportunity to the claimant, no documents are produced to show that the lands surrounding the property acquired were pre-dominently used non agricultural purpose. Though PW-1 and PW-2 has deposed that there exist Hotel, Nursery, Factory, Poultry form, Residential building, Fishing, Petrol Bunk, Rearing of Cattles, Rice and Flour Mill, Oil Mill, Provision store, Fertilizer Shop for Agricultural purpose, no documentary evidence is produced to substantiate the same. Even no neighboring land owners were also examined to show the potential of the land acquired. Though PW-1 and PW-2 has deposed that the acquired land is adjacent to Shikaripura- Anandapuram National Highway 766 C, the distance between the acquired land and National Highway is not at all made known. Even in the report which is marked at exhibit P-6 the distance between the acquired land and the National Highway is not at all mentioned. Hence, it is difficult to believe the version of claimant that the National Highway is adjacent to Shikaripura-Anandapura National Highway 766 C. The Dishank map which was marked at Ex.P-7, depicts that the property of claimant is far away from the road shown. 8. Further, connecting roads to the acquired land is not at all made out by the evidence of PW-1 and 2. Admittedly by PW-1 and PW-2 the acquired land is 20 km - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 for away from Shikaripura Taluk Head Quarters and 8 Km for away from Anandapuram Hob Head Quarters. Even the report at Ex.P-6 as well shows that th acquired land is at the distance of 8 km from Anandapuram and 23 km from Shikaripura. Moreover, no sketch has been prepared Access of the road to reach out the to show the location. acquired property is also not made known. Hence, it is difficult to believe the version of claimant that the acquired land can be used for non-agricultural purpose. 9. Though the burden was on the claimant to show the electricity and other facilities which are necessary for land to be used for non-agricultural purpose, the claimant has failed to prove the existence of the same. Further, what is possibility of future extension is also not at all made out by the evidence of claimant. 10. Though it is the contention of the claimant that there exist Jal Jeevan Mission project near by the acquired land, the said Jal Jeevan Mission is used for the general Public for drinking water purpose. The existence of Jal Jeevan Mission itself will not make the property for non-agricultural purpose. Moreover how far this Jal Jeevan Mission is in existence from the acquired land is also not made out. Even, as per the dishank marked at Ex.P7, the Jal Jeevan Mission is located far away from the acquired land. Hence in the absence of material to show the distance of Jal Jeevan Mission from the acquired land it is not possible to believe that the Jal Jeevan Mission is adjacent to the acquired land. Moreover though PW-1 has - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 deposed that he has established shops in his 1 acre 21 guntas of land except the land acquired, no documentary evidence is placed on record to show the existence of said shops. Even no photographs or video graphs is also available to show that the adjacent lands are used for the commercial purposes. Conclusion: Hence on evaluation of the evidence on record, as there are no document to show that the property is connected to any road, as there are no sale deeds of adjacent land owners to show that the lands adjacent to acquired land are being used for non agricultural purposes, as there are no documents available on record to show that the claimant has established shop in the 1 acre 21 guntas of land except the land acquired and as the distance from Taluk Head Quarters and Hobli Head Quarters is too far away from the acquired land and as there are no document available on record to show that the National Highway and Jal Jeevan Mission are adjacent to the acquired land and as there are no oral or documentary evidence by the adjacent land owners to show that the adjacent lands were used for non- agricultural purposes, it can be said that the land acquired was not having potential to be used for non-agricultural purposes. 12. 12. I humbly submit that in my opinion, the claimant has failed to establish that the property acquired - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 is having potential to be used for non-agricultural purposes." LAC NO.23/2011 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred in Civil Mis.Appeal No.41/2012 before the Fast Track Court, Sagar the same was contested by the respondents herein and ultimately the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the orders passed by this court in LAC No.23/2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in aforesaid M.S.A. The grounds urged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was that, the Land Acquisition Officer had considered the guidelines value fixed under section 48 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands. She has further contended that, the property which has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer was having non- agricultural potential, the same has been completely ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court as well as Appellate Court. She has further contended that, if the non-agricultural potential is considered, then the market value of the property would not be less than 40% more than the guidelines value. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. High Court Government Pleader who represented the respondents herein had denied the same and contended that, the land acquired - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 was agricultural land, the same has been convincingly held by the Reference court as well as Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner herein. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the petitioner herein to show that the acquisition land was having non- agricultural potential and thus, there is no merit in the arguments canvassed by the petitioner. 5. After hearing arguments, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has opined as under- "In view of the fact that the appellants have lost their valuable lands, they are bound to be granted just compensation and since it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that these acquired lands were capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes, in which event, the appellants may be entitled to higher compensation. Thus, having regard to the beneficial nature of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, this Court considers it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the appellants to lead further evidence before the reference Court regarding feasibility of the lands acquired being used for non-agricultural purposes. The reference Court may assess the evidence and submit its report about the possible imp;act on the market value of the lands acquired and place of the report before this Court by or before 04.03.2024." Accordingly, the record was sent back to this court. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 6. The record was received by this court on 16.01.2024 and notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before this court and lead evidence regarding the feasibility of the land acquired being used for non- agricultural purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before this court on 30.01.2024 and after taking couple of adjournments, positively adduced evidence on 09.02.2024. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in-lieu-of- her further examination-in-chief averring that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and Reference Court is on the lower side and both of them have failed to notice the fact that the Land acquired had a potential value of a non-alienation (N.A) land. The acquired land is situated abutting to the State Highway 766C, and 20 kilometers from Shikaripura town and 08 kilometers from Anandapura village. She has further stated that the acquired land is suitable for formation of Hotel, Nursery, Bricks Industry, Poultry, Fish farming, Residential plots, Petrol bunk, Cattle-ship farming, flour shops and fertilizer factories. It is also stated that neighboring lands are already converted to non- agriculture purpose and there is a vast improvement in the locality and thus, it is clear that the acquired property is also suitable for non-agriculture purpose as noted above. She has stated that the Government has acquired some land in Gouthamapura village and formed a water plant namely Jalajeevan Mission (JJM in short) by making huge investments and the same is located near the suit schedule property and thus it is clear that the acquired - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 land is also having same potential value of non- agriculture purpose. PW-1 was fully cross-examined by the respondents and thereafter, she was discharged. 7. The petitioner also examined Government Registered valuator namely D.K.Siddeshwar Prasad as PW-2. He filed affidavit-in-lieu-of-examination-in-chief and got marked the valuation report as per Ex.P1. In his valuation report he has stated that the acquired property is situated near to Anandapura-Shikaripura NH 7660 and if it is converted for residential/commercial/industrial purpose, as per the Sub-Registrar guideline rate, the value of per gunta will be Rs.1,41,645-00. However, the actual prevailing market rate at present will be not less than Rs.2,47,867-00 and thus, in total the actual prevailing market value at present of 0-06 Guntas of land will be Rs.14,87,199-00 and the petitioner is entitled for the same as compensation. In his cross-examination by the respondents he has stated that the acquired land is not abutting to the State Highway and rather it is situated half a kilometer inside from the State Highway. He has admitted that he has not placed any documents along with valuation report to show that the neighbor/abutting lands to the acquired land are converted to non- agricultural purpose and existence of any residential/commercial/ industrial/medicine institutions or activities in neighborhood lands and the possibility of future extension whether nearby town is developing. He has stated that he has not seen any recent sale deeds pertaining to land of the village in question to ascertain - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 what are the actual prevailing market rates in respect of the lands. He further admitted that the petitioner also not furnished any sale deeds to him to find out the real prevailing market rate. He has further admitted that the valuation fixed by him applies only to the land converted for non-agricultural purpose and not for agricultural purpose. 8. The respondents did not lead evidence despite opportunity granted to them and thus Respondent evidence was closed and thereafter the case was posted for arguments. 9. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the records. 10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the acquired property is situated abutting to the Shikaripura-Anandapura State High way 766C and thus the acquired property has potential value of non- agriculture purpose which can be used for residential/ commercial/ industrial areas and medical institutions. The same is evident from the testimony of the Government Registered Valuator/ PW-2 D.K.Siddeshwar Prasad and valuation report Ex.P1 placed on record. He has further argued that, some land in the same village is acquired by the Government for installation of J.J.M plant for the supply of water to 127 colonies of Shivamogga District by making investment of 6610.50 lakhs and the said land near to the acquired land of the petitioner. The acquired - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 land is also having same potential and thus the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per the valuation made for non-agriculture purpose and not for the valuation made for agriculture purpose. 11. Rebutting the same, Ld. counsel for the respondents has argued that the land acquired is not situated abutting to the State High way and rather it is situated very much in the interior as it is clear from the evidence of the PW-2 and Dishanka map which is a part of the valuation report Ex.P1. The acquired land was situated in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land. From the evidence of the petitioner as well as PW-2 it is clear that there is no access road to the acquired land from the State Highway and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land was suitable for the formation of the Commercial, Residential plots, Industrial areas or Medical institutions is unsustainable. The petitioner as well as her witness PW-2 has not placed any documents on record to show that the neighborhood lands have been converted to non-agriculture purpose and they have been used for non agricultural purpose i.e., Commercial, Residential plots, Industrial areas or Medical institutions etc. activities. The evidence on record clearly shows that the lands abutting to the State High Way itself is not developed and still it is an agriculture lands. Only after such lands are developed and constructions come up, the development would proceed further in the interior. That being so, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land is fit for non-agriculture purpose is highly - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 palpably false and it has been alleged only for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. The land which is acquired is situated 20 kilometers from Shikaripura town and 8 kms., from Anandapura. The land was purely agricultural land and there was no activity as such in the area. It had no potential as such. With acquisition and construction of water cannel, in fact the land owners have been benefitted had they got assured irrigation facilities. The value of remaining land had also increased being wet land. The award fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable and it requires no interference. 12. It is also further argued that the land said to be occupied for formation of J.J.M project by the Government is of the year 2018 and the said acquisition is made for the formation of the water plant for supply of drinking water to the colonies in Shivamogga and other parts of the district and the same cannot be termed as commercial activity and the same is located near the Anandapura village and abutting to State Highway. More so the said land is situated far away from the acquired land of the petitioner and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land was also having similar potential of land acquired by the Government for formation of project is highly unbelievable and liable to be rejected. 13. It is also argued that, the PW-2 has valued at Rs.2,47,867-00 per gunta as actual prevailing market value of the acquired land in the year 2024. However, no documents have been placed along with record to show - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 that on what basis the valuator has come to the said conclusion. Admittedly, from his evidence it is clear that he has not verified any recent Sale deeds to know the actual market value prevailing in the locality. The said sale deeds would have been the best documents to form an opinion either by the valuator or Court. In the absence of the said sale deeds, no evidentiary value can be attached to the valuation report furnished by the valuator. The material placed on record by the petitioner is not sufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner that the acquired land was having potential for non-agriculture purpose and thus, she is entitled for compensation as per the market value fixed from non-agriculture purpose. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties. 15. The short question that arises for consideration before me is as to whether the land of the petitioner acquired has potential value for non-agricultural purpose or not. It is primarily one of the fact depending upon several facts as its conditions and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonable capable of being put, it suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institution, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of the future extension, whether the nearby Town is a developing or prospering town with prospectus - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighborhood thereof. In the instant case, the burden was on the petitioner to show that the land acquired was having a potential for non-agricultural purpose. She has claimed that the land acquired is abutting to the Shikaripura-Anandapura State Highway NH 766C and the neighboring lands are already converted for non-agriculture purpose and the same has been used for commercial, residential, industrial purpose etc., and thus, the acquired property was also suitable for the said purpose. The same has been flatly denied by the respondents. Firstly, the petitioner has contended that, the suit property is situated abutting to State Highway. On the contrary, the respondents have claimed that the suit property is situated very much interior from the State Highway. No sketch showing the exact location of the acquired land is placed on record. However, the valuator/PW-2 has placed Dishanka/google map along with the valuation report. The same is the part of the valuation report and thus, there is no hindrance to rely upon it. The perusal of the said map in detail reflects that valuator has noted that 15 minutes is required to reach the property of the petitioner by walk from the State Highway by walk. When it is googgled it shows that 11-12 minutes is required to reach one kilometer by walk. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the property of the petitioner is situated more than one kilometer from the State Highway. Even otherwise, PW-2 in his cross- examination has categorically admitted that the property - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 of the petitioner is situated more than a half kilometer from the state highway. The google map as well as the evidence of PW-2 when read in conjunction it is evident that the property of the petitioner is not located or abutting to the State Highway and rather it is located very much interior, to say more particularly more than one kilometer from the state highway. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired property is situated abutting to the state highway is false and baseless. 16. But having noted so, it may further be noted that there is no approach or access road from the state highway to reach the property of the petitioner which is evident from the google map placed on record by the witness of the petitioner. When the land of the petitioner is not situated abutting to the state highway and even there is no access road to reach the property of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner that the land acquired was feasible for non-agriculture purpose i.e., commercial, residential and industrial purpose as alleged in the petition is unsustainable and lacks merits. 17. Be that as it may, the petitioner has claimed that there is a vast improvement in the neighborhood and the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture purpose and many commercial activities have undergone and even there are formation of residential plots, factories, etc., however in order to substantiate the said fact no acceptable evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner witnesses. The petitioner ought to have - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 produced some documents on record to show that the neighboring lands have been converted for non- agriculture purpose or ought to have examined neighbor land holders to show that some development taken place in and around the acquired land. At least, the petitioner ought to have produced some photographs showing the acquired property located in prominent location and there has been vast development in and around the acquired land. However, for the best reasons known to the petitioner, she has not placed any documents to convincingly establish the fact that the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture purposes and vast development taken place in and around acquired land. Even the petitioner witness i.e., PW-2 has nowhere stated either in his evidence or valuation report showing the development taken place in and around the acquired land. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence as cited above, this court only upon the oral assertions of the petitioner as well as her witnesses cannot arrive at a conclusion that the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture use and there has been vast improvement taken place in and around the acquired land or locality. 18. Moving further, the google map placed on record clearly reflects that the lands abutting to the state highway itself are not improved, as all the lands remained as agricultural lands. This very document clearly falsifies the claim of the petitioner that development had taken place in and around the acquired land and thus her land has to be considered as the land fit for non-agriculture - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 purpose. I am in full agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that, a glance at the google map furnished on record shows that the land of the petitioner is situated very much in the interior from state highway. It is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped lands. A person who want to establish the commercial activities such as petrol bunk, hotels, residential plots and other commercial activities would prefer to use or purchase the land abutting to the road and not the land which is not having any access or approach road or located far away from the road. The development of the lands which are nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road can reasonably be expected to take place much earlier. Only after such lands are developed and construction come up the development would proceed further in the interior. It would not unreasonable to visualize that a considerable time would elapse before development could reach the block of undeveloped lands located interior. Besides the land which is situated interior does not fetch the same value as the land which is nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road. As noted above there is no development of lands which are nearer to the state highway, firstly the said lands has to be developed and later the land in the interior including the land of the petitioner has to be developed which requires more that 2-3 decades by taking the Judicial notice of the slow progress of development in the Sagar Taluk for the past 10-20 years and thus, in my opinion there will no development of the petitioner land in the near future. In view thereof, in my - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 opinion the land of the petitioner which is situated interior and far away from the highway is an undeveloped land and it does not have potential of non-agricultural purpose and it was fit only for agricultural purpose. 19. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that, the Government has acquired the land in the same village for the formation of J.J.M project for supply of water to 127 colonies in Shivamogga district by making huge investments of 6610.5 lakhs and the said land is situated very much near to the acquired property and as such, it can be held the acquired property was also fit for the said purpose and it can be considered as non- agriculture purpose. In order to answer the same it is once again necessary to rely upon the google map. The J.J.M project is visible in the google map, the same reflects that it is situated abutting to the state highway and nearer to the Anandpaura. The said acquired land by the government for the formation of water plant is located far away from the property of the petitioner. In my opinion, considering the distance of the petitioner property from the state highway the distance of the petitioner property from the J.J.M plant will not be less than 6 kilometer. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner is having some potential to the land acquired by the government for formation of the water plant and thereby she is entitled for similar compensation provided to the land holders of the said land lacks merits. It is also relevant to state that no documents have been placed on record to show that what - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 compensation has been received by the land owners of the property acquired by the government for formation J.J.M plant that is to say whether the compensation provided as per the market value of the agricultural land or non-agricultural land. In the absence of the same, this court cannot come to a conclusion that, the land owners of the J.J.M plant had received compensation for their land as non- agriculture purpose. In my opinion, the formation of the J.J.M plant cannot be considered as commercial activity, which enhances the value of the neighbor lands. The said project has been undertaken by the government to supply water for colonies of Shivamogga district to fulfill the scarcity of the water, which is beneficial for the society at large. Thus, there is no merit in the arguments canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the formation of the J.J.M plant is a commercial activity took place in the locality of land of petitioner acquired. It is also relevant to note that, despite the formation of the said plant no development activities taken place in and around the said water plant as neighboring lands remained as agriculture lands which is evident from the google map placed on record. 20. As far as the testimony of PW-2 D.K.Siddeshwara Prasad, Government Registered Valuator and Valuation report Ex.P1 is concerned, the PW-2 has only stated in his report that if the land acquired is considered for non-agriculture purpose the value of the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 one gunta as per Sub-Register guidelines will be Rs.1,41,645-00. However, the actual market value prevailing in the locality is Rs.2,47,867-00 per gunta. This report holds good only when the petitioner has proved that her land is feasible for non-agriculture purpose. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove on record on the preponderance of probabilities that her land was having potential for non- agriculture purpose being located in prominent location and there has been development in and around of the said land, thus, no value can be attached to the said report. Furthermore, it is relevant to observe that nothing is coming forward on record to show that on what basis the valuator has formed an opinion that the actual prevailing market rate was Rs.2,47,867-00 per gunta at present. The Valuator himself has admitted that he has not seen or collected recent sale deeds to form an opinion about the actual market rate in the recent times. The recent sale deeds would be the best evidence to know the actual market rate of the lands sold in the locality in the nearer times. In the absence of the said sale deeds relied by the Valuator, his opinion that actual prevailing market value prevailed in the locality is Rs.2,47,867-00 is also unbelievable and liable to be rejected. 21. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that the burden was upon the petitioner to show that the land acquired was having potential for non-agriculture purpose, but she has miserably failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. The evidence on record - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 clearly manifests that the suit property is located far away from the state highway and it is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land and there is no development in and around the acquired land. The land was purely agriculture land. There was no so much activity as such in the area. It had no potential as such. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that with the acquisition and construction of water cannel, in fact the petitioner has been benefited as she got assured irrigation facility. The value of the remaining land had also increased. No substantial loss has been occurred to the petitioner. 22. As a sequel of the above discussions, I respectfully submit to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that in my opinion, that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that her land was having potential for non- agricultural purpose on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. In my opinion, the land was purely agriculture land. LAC NO.29/2011 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred in Civil Mis.Appeal No.36/2012 before the Fast Track Court, Sagar, the same was contested by the respondents herein and ultimately the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the orders passed by this court in LAC No.29/2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 Court of Karnataka in aforesaid M.S.A. The grounds urged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was that, the Land Acquisition Officer had considered the guidelines value fixed under section 48 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands. He has further contended that, the property which has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer was having non-agricultural potential, the same has been completely ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court as well as Appellate Court. He has further contended that, if the non-agricultural potential is considered, then the market value of the property would not be less than 40% more than the guidelines value. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. High Court Government Pleader who represented the respondents herein had denied the same and contended that, the land acquired was agricultural land, the same has been convincingly held by the Reference court as well as Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner herein. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the petitioner herein to show that the acquisition land was having non- agricultural potential and thus, there is no merit in the arguments canvassed by the petitioner. 5. After hearing arguments, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has opined as under- - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 "In view of the fact that the appellants have lost their valuable lands, they are bound to be granted just compensation and since it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that these acquired lands were capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes, in which event, the appellants may be entitled to higher compensation. Thus, having regard to the beneficial nature of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, this Court considers it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the appellants to lead further evidence before the reference Court regarding feasibility of the lands acquired being used for non-agricultural purposes. The reference Court may assess the evidence and submit its report about the possible imp;act on the market value of the lands acquired and place of the report before this Court by or before 04.03.2024." Accordingly, the record was sent back to this court. 6. The record was received by this court on 16.01.2024 and notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before this court and lead evidence regarding the feasibility of the land acquired being used for non-agricultural purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before this court on 30.01.2024 and after taking couple of adjournments, positively adduced evidence on 09.02.2024. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in-lieu-of-his further examination-in-chief averring that the compensation - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and Reference Court is on the lower side and both of them have failed to notice the fact that the Land acquired had a potential value of a non-alienation (N.A) land. The acquired land is situated abutting to the State Highway 766C, and 20 kilometers from Shikaripura town and 08 kilometers from Anandapura village. He has further stated that the acquired land is suitable for formation of Hotel, Nursery, Bricks Industry, Poultry, Fish farming, Residential plots, Petrol bunk, Cattle-ship farming, flour shops and fertilizer factories. It is also stated that neighboring lands are already converted to non-agriculture purpose and there is a vast improvement in the locality and thus, it is clear that the acquired property is also suitable for non- agriculture purpose as noted above. He has stated that the Government has acquired some land in Gouthamapura village and formed a water plant namely Jalajeevan Mission (JJM in short) by making huge investments and the same is located near the suit schedule property and commercial/ industrial/medicine institutions or activities in neighborhood lands and the possibility of future extension whether nearby town is developing. He has stated that he has not seen any recent sale deeds pertaining to land of the village in question to ascertain what are the actual prevailing market rates in respect of the lands. He further admitted that the petitioner also not furnished any sale deeds to him to find out the real prevailing market rate. He has further admitted that the valuation fixed by him applies only to - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 the land converted for non-agricultural purpose and not for agricultural purpose. 8. The respondents did not lead evidence despite opportunity granted to them and thus R/E was closed and thereafter the case was posted for arguments. 9. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the records. 10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the acquired property is situated abutting to the Shikaripura-Anandapura State High way 766C and thus the acquired property has potential value of non- agriculture purpose which can be used for residential/ commercial/ industrial areas and medical institutions. The same is evident from the testimony of the Government Registered Valuator/ PW-2 D.K.Siddeshwara Prasad and valuation report Ex.P1 placed on record. He has further argued that, some land in the same village is acquired by the Government for installation of J.J.M plant for the supply of water to 127 colonies of Shivamogga District by making investment of 6610.50 lakhs and the said land near to the acquired land of the petitioner. The acquired land is also having same potential and thus the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per the valuation made for non-agriculture purpose and not for the valuation made for agriculture purpose. - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 11. Rebutting the same, Ld. counsel for the respondents has argued that the land acquired is not situated abutting to the State High way and rather it is situated very much in the interior as it is clear from the evidence of the PW-2 and Dishanka map which is a part of the valuation report Ex.P9. The acquired land was situated in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land. From the evidence of the petitioner as well as PW-2 it is clear that there is no access road to the acquired land from the State Highway and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land was suitable for the formation of the Commercial, Residential plots, Industrial areas or Medical institutions is unsustainable. The petitioner as well as his witness PW-2 has not placed any documents on record to show that the neighborhood lands have been converted to non-agriculture purpose and they have been used for non agricultural purpose i.e., Commercial, Residential plots, Industrial areas or Medical institutions etc. activities. The evidence on record clearly shows that the lands abutting to the State High Way itself is not developed and still it is an agriculture lands. Only after such lands are developed and constructions come up, the development would proceed further in the interior. That being so, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land is fit for non-agriculture purpose is highly palpably false and it has been alleged only for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. The land which is acquired is situated 23 kilometers from Shikaripura town and 8 kms., from Anandapura. The land was purely agricultural land and there was no activity as such in the - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 area. It had no potential as such. With acquisition and construction of water cannel, in fact the land owners have been benefitted had they got assured irrigation facilities. The value of remaining land had also increased being wet land. The award fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable and it requires no interference. 12. It is also further argued that the land said to be occupied for formation of J.J.M project by the Government is of the year 2018 and the said acquisition is made for the formation of the water plant for supply of drinking water to the colonies in Shivamogga and other parts of the district and the same cannot be termed as commercial activity and the same is located near the Anandapura village and abutting to State Highway. More so the said land is situated far away from the acquired land of the petitioner and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired land was also having similar potential of land acquired by the Government for formation of project is highly unbelievable and liable to be rejected. 13. It is also argued that, the PW-2 has valued at Rs.3,54,095-00 per gunta as actual prevailing market value of the acquired land in the year 2024. However, no documents have been placed along with record to show that on what basis the valuator has come to the said conclusion. Admittedly, from his evidence it is clear that he has not verified any recent Sale deeds to know the actual market value prevailing in the locality. The said sale deeds would have been the best documents to form - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 an opinion either by the valuator or Court. In the absence of the said sale deeds, no evidentiary value can be attached to the valuation report furnished by the valuator. The material placed on record by the petitioner is not sufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner that the acquired land was having potential for non-agriculture purpose and thus, he is entitled for compensation as per the market value fixed from non-agriculture purpose. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties. 15. The short question that arises for consideration before me is as to whether the land of the petitioner acquired has potential value for non-agricultural purpose or not. It is primarily one of the fact depending upon several facts as its conditions and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonable capable of being put, it suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institution, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of the future extension, whether the nearby Town is a developing or prospering town with prospectus of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighborhood thereof. In the instant case, the burden was on the petitioner to show that the land acquired was having a potential for non-agricultural - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 purpose. he has claimed that the land acquired is abutting to the Shikaripura-Anandapura State Highway NH 766C and the neighboring lands are already converted for non- agriculture purpose and the same has been used for commercial, residential, industrial purpose etc., and thus, the acquired property was also suitable for the said purpose. The same has been flatly denied by the respondents. Firstly, the petitioner has contended that, the suit property is situated abutting to State Highway. On the contrary, the respondents have claimed that the suit property is situated very much interior from the State Highway. No sketch showing the exact location of the acquired land is placed on record. However, the valuator/PW-2 has placed Dishanka/google map along with the valuation report. The same is the part of the valuation report and thus, there is no hindrance to rely upon it. The perusal of the said map in detail reflects that valuator has noted that 15 minutes is required to reach the property of the petitioner by walk from the State Highway by walk. When it is googgled it shows that 11-12 minutes is required to reach one kilometer by walk. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the property of the petitioner is situated more than one kilometer from the State Highway. Even otherwise, PW-2 in his cross- examination has categorically admitted that the property of the petitioner is situated more than 500-600 feets from the state highway. The google map as well as the evidence of PW-2 when read in conjunction it is evident that the property of the petitioner is not located or abutting to the State Highway and rather it is located very - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 much interior, to say more particularly more than one kilometer from the state highway as per google map. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the acquired property is situated abutting to the state highway is false and baseless. 16. But having noted so, it may further be noted that there is no approach or access road from the state highway to reach the property of the petitioner which is evident from the google map placed on record by the witness of the petitioner. When the land of the petitioner is not situated abutting to the state highway and even there is no access road to reach the property of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner that the land acquired was feasible for non-agriculture purpose i.e., commercial, residential and industrial purpose as alleged in the petition is unsustainable and lacks merits. 17. Be that as it may, the petitioner has claimed that there is a vast improvement in the neighborhood and the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture purpose and many commercial activities have undergone and even there are formation of residential plots, factories, etc., however in order to substantiate the said fact no acceptable evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner witnesses. The petitioner ought to have produced some documents on record to show that the neighboring lands have been converted for non- agriculture purpose or ought to have examined neighbor land holders to show that some development taken place - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 in and around the acquired land. At least, the petitioner ought to have produced some photographs showing the acquired property located in prominent location and there has been vast development in and around the acquired land. However, for the best reasons known to the petitioner, he has not placed any documents to convincingly establish the fact that the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture purposes and vast development taken place in and around acquired land. Even the petitioner witness i.e., PW-2 has nowhere stated either in his evidence or valuation report showing the development taken place in and around the acquired land. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence as cited above, this court only upon the oral assertions of the petitioner as well as his witnesses cannot arrive at a conclusion that the neighborhood lands are converted for non-agriculture use and there has been vast improvement taken place in and around the acquired land or locality. 18. Moving further, the google map placed on record clearly reflects that the lands abutting to the state highway itself are not improved, as all the lands remained as agricultural lands. This very document clearly falsifies the claim of the petitioner that development had taken place in and around the acquired land and thus his land has to be considered as the land fit for non-agriculture purpose. I am in full agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that, a glance at the google map furnished on record shows that the land of the petitioner is situated very much in the interior from - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 state highway. It is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped lands. A person who want to establish the commercial activities such as petrol bunk, hotels, residential plots and other commercial activities would prefer to use or purchase the land abutting to the road and not the land which is not having any access or approach road or located far away from the road. The development of the lands which are nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road can reasonably be expected to take place much earlier. Only after such lands are developed and construction come up the development would proceed further in the interior. It would not unreasonable to visualize that a considerable time would elapse before development could reach the block of undeveloped lands located interior. Besides the land which is situated interior does not fetch the same value as the land which is nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road. As noted above there is no development of lands which are nearer to the state highway, firstly the said lands has to be developed and later the land in the interior including the land of the petitioner has to be developed which requires more that 2-3 decades by taking the Judicial notice of the slow progress of development in the Sagar Taluk for the past 10-20 years and thus, in my opinion there will no development of the petitioner land in the near future. In view thereof, in my opinion the land of the petitioner which is situated interior and far away from the highway is an undeveloped land and it does not have potential of non-agricultural purpose and it was fit only for agricultural purpose. - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 19. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that, the Government has acquired the land in the same village for the formation of J.J.M project for supply of water to 127 colonies in Shivamogga district by making huge investments of 6610.5 lakhs and the said land is situated very much near to the acquired property and as such, it can be held the acquired property was also fit for the said purpose and it can be considered as non- agriculture purpose. In order to answer the same it is once again necessary to rely upon the google map. The J.J.M project is visible in the google map, the same reflects that it is situated abutting to the state highway and nearer to the Anandpaura. The said acquired land by the government for the formation of water plant is located far away from the property of the petitioner. In my opinion, considering the distance of the petitioner property from the state highway the distance of the petitioner property from the J.J.M plant will not be less than 6 kilometer. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner is having some potential to the land acquired by the government for formation of the water plant and thereby he is entitled for similar compensation provided to the land holders of the said land lacks merits. It is also relevant to state that no documents have been placed on record to show that what compensation has been received by the land owners of the property acquired by the government for formation J.J.M plant that is to say whether the compensation provided as per the market value of the agricultural land - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 or non-agricultural land. In the absence of the same, this court cannot come to a conclusion that, the land owners of the J.J.M plant had received compensation for their land as non-agriculture purpose. In my opinion, the formation of the J.J.M plant cannot be considered as commercial activity, which enhances the value of the neighbor lands. The said project has been undertaken by the government to supply water for colonies of Shivamogga district to fulfill the scarcity of the water, which is beneficial for the society at large. Thus, there is no merit in the arguments canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the formation of the J.J.M plant is a commercial activity took place in the locality of land of petitioner acquired. It is also relevant to note that, despite the formation of the said plant no development activities taken place in and around the said water plant as neighboring lands remained as agriculture lands which is evident from the google map placed on record. 20. As far as the testimony of PW-2 D.K.Siddeshwara Prasad, Government Registered Valuator and Valuation report Ex.P9 is concerned, the PW-2 has only stated in his report that if the land acquired is considered for non-agriculture purpose the value of the one gunta as per Sub-Register guidelines will be Rs.2,02,350-00. However, the actual market value prevailing in the locality is Rs.3,54,095-00 per gunta. This report holds good only when the petitioner has proved that his land is feasible for non-agriculture purpose. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioner has miserably - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 failed to prove on record on the preponderance of probabilities that his land was having potential for non- agriculture purpose being located in prominent location and there has been development in and around of the said land, thus, no value can be attached to the said report. Furthermore, it is relevant to observe that nothing is coming forward on record to show that on what basis the valuator has formed an opinion that the actual prevailing market rate was Rs.3,54,095-00 per gunta at present. The Valuator himself has admitted that he has not seen or collected recent sale deeds to form an opinion about the actual market rate in the recent times. The recent sale deeds would be the best evidence to know the actual market rate of the lands sold in the locality in the nearer times. In the absence of the said sale deeds relied by the Valuator, his opinion that actual prevailing market value prevailed in the locality is Rs.3,54,095-00 is also unbelievable and liable to be rejected. 21. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that the burden was upon the petitioner to show that the land acquired was having potential for non-agriculture purpose, but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. The evidence on record clearly manifests that the suit property is located far away from the state highway and it is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land and there is no development in and around the acquired land. The land was purely agriculture land. There was no so much activity as such in the area. It had no potential as such. I am in full agreement with - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that with the acquisition and construction of water cannel, in fact the petitioner has been benefited as he got assured irrigation facility. The value of the remaining land had also increased. No substantial loss has been occurred to the petitioner. 22. As a sequel of the above discussions, I respectfully submit to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that in my opinion, that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that his land was having potential for non- agricultural purpose on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. In my opinion, the land was purely agriculture land. 9. Having noted the report, learned counsel for the appellant submits that suitable enhancement may be made in this Court to put an end to the litigation taking note of the fact that the appellants have lost their right in respect of the property for all time to come as it has submerged and for the rest of the life, it is only a dream for them. - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 10. In this regard he files a memo. Copy of the memo is furnished to the learned Additional Government Advocate. 11. Sri. Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned judgement passed by the First Appellate Court especially in the light of the report filed by the First Appellate Court pursuant to the Order dated 14.12.2023. 12. However, he would agree that since these appeals are isolated matters, suitable enhancement may be made to put an end to the long drawn litigation and this Court may observe that this will not act as precedent in respect of any other claim if pending before this Court or before the Reference Court or before the First Appellate Court. In that regard, he has made an endorsement on the memo filed by counsel for the appellants. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record, admittedly the land - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 belonging to the appellants have been submerged in view of the extension of the height of the 'Ambligoda dam'. 14. In other words, for all time to come those lands would not be available to the claimants. Appropriate compensation for the acquired land was initially sought to be calculated on the basis of capitalization method. Pertinent to note that the claimants did not place any evidence on record. 15. As the litigation progressed, argument is put- forth stating that acquired lands were non agricultural potential lands and therefore the fixation of the compensation by the First Appellate Court on capitalization method is incorrect. 16. Taking note of the rival contentions, a coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the present appeals, passed an Order dated 14.12.2023 as referred to supra. - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 17. Pursuant to the said order, the claimants placed the evidence on record including the evidence of a Government Valuer. Admittedly the evidence of the claimants and the Government Valuer examined as PW-2 did not improve the case of the appellant to any extent as is opined by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by Report dated 28.03.2024 referred to supra. 18. Lands were acquired in the year 2006 and the Government Valuer has gone to the extent of saying that per gunta, the value is Rupees Three to Four Lakhs. At no stretch of imagination the land could not have been valued as is valued by the Government Valuer. 19. Further, claimants have also failed to place any plausible evidence on record to establish that the acquired land was the non agricultural potential land. The map showing the acquired land and the existence of commercial establishment shows that there is a huge distance of eight kilometres. - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 20. Even the National Highway Road 766-C is situated far away from the acquired land is the opinion formed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the Report dated 28.03.2024. 21. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant has not made out any case for enhancement. 22. Nevertheless, taking note to the fact that the matters are pending from the year 2006 and to reach finality with regard to the lis is concerned, if the compensation amount is reassessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as is claimed by the Claimants in the memo, ends of justice would be met. 23. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate made a real apprehension with regard to the enhancement sought to be made inasmuch as any other claimants were still litigating the matter with regard to the - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 aforesaid project may take advantage of the enhancement made by this Court. 24. Therefore he prays for suitable observations may be made in this Order that this would not act as precedent for the remaining claims if any. 25. Such an apprehension is well founded as taking note of the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, this Court with an intention to put an end to the long drawn litigation and also taking the fact that the claimant would be entitled to interest at 15% per annum, memo can be accepted and compensation can be reassessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre with consequential benefits in the interest of justice. 26. Accordingly, the following Order: ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed in part. - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33761 MSA No. 68 of 2015 C/W MSA No. 69 of 2015 MSA No. 70 of 2015 (ii) Compensation amount to the acquired land is re-assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre with all consequential benefits. (iii) Suitable Award be passed by the Office in this regard. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38