- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.757/2016 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. DATTATREYA S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 1(a) PRAVEEN D. WADAWADAGI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 1(b) VENKATESH D WADAWADAGI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE DATTATREYA AND R/AT DHARAWADA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.002, ELINA BEHIND VV CONVENTION HALL UTTARAHALLI ROAD CHANNASANDRA BANGALORE-560098. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 SHIMOGA CITY SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGA SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V. PRAKASH ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2 SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.110/2004 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA. MODIFY THE AWARD AND JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGA IN LAC NO.110/2004, AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 01.04.2011 passed in LAC No.110/2004 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. 2. Sri.Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.47/- per sq.ft. It is submitted that the appellant’s land situated within Shivamogga City limits and abutting NH-206, has high non-agricultural potential, being surrounded by residential and commercial developments and government offices. Though the reference Court assessed the market value at Rs.100/- per sq.ft., it has wrongly awarded only Rs.47/- per sq.ft. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 further argued that the Reference Court did not consider the earlier decisions of this Court, which had given higher value for similar lands acquired for the same project between Rs. 105 and Rs. 150 per square ft., and the reference Court in other cases had given even higher compensation for other similar lands. Hence, the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the similar benefit and seeks to allow the appeal. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the case of NINGOJI RAO AND OTHERS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER 1and in the case of SMT.NINGAMMA AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER2 3. Per contra, Smt. Prathibha R.K., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.V. Prakash Angadi learned counsel for respondent No.2 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has 1 MFA.No.7123/2014 and connected matters dtd:13.01.2020 2 MFA.No.3559/2013 dtd:08.10.2013 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 determined the market value based on the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. It is also submitted that the appellant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the lands in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned AGA for respondent No.1, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 5. The pleadings and evidence on record indicate that the appellants land measuring 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.29/1 situated at Gadikoppa Village, Kasaba hobli, Shimoga Taluk was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, dated 21.01.2000, for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon reference, the Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.47/- per sq.ft., after deducting 53% as development charges. Being aggrieved, the claimant have filed the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NINGOJI RAO and in the case of SMT.NINGAMMA referred supra and seeks to re- determine the market value. The learned counsel for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 Respondent also does not seriously dispute that the judgment relied on by the appellant are arising out of the same locality and for same purpose. We have meticulously perused the reasons assigned in the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench and noticed that the subject matter of the lands involved in the aforesaid judgments and the present appeal are acquired is similar and identical and the said judgment has attained finality. 7. We are aware of the fact that, in the Ningoji Rao and connected matters referred supra, the preliminary notifications were issued on 11.08.2000, 21.12.2000, and 21.01.2002. In that matter, after considering the nature of the land and its potential, this Court determined the market value at Rs.105 per sq.ft. Similarly, in the Smt. Ningamma case referred supra, where the preliminary notification was issued on 18.07.2002 and the market value was fixed at a higher rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft., having regard to the prevailing conditions and comparable lands acquired for the same - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 project. In the present case, the preliminary notification was issued earlier on 21.01.2000. Having perused the said judgment, we find that the lands involved therein and the appellants land in the present case are similar in nature, location, and potentiality, and were acquired for the same purpose, hence It would be unjust and inequitable to treat the appellants dissimilarly in the matter of compensation. 8. Considering the aforesaid factors and keeping in mind that similarly placed land looser cannot be treated dissimilarly when the subject matter of the property is similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, we are of the view that when the timeline of notification and the market conditions prevailing at the relevant time are compared with the above decisions, it becomes clear that adopting the rate of Rs.105 per sq.ft. would be just, reasonable, and consistent with the established precedents of this Court. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to have the market value re-determined at Rs.105 per sq.ft., against the lesser amount of Rs.47 per sq.ft. awarded by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48790-DB M.F.A. No.757/2016 the Reference Court. It is needless to observe that the appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits in accordance with law. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with costs. The market value of the land measuring 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.29/1 situated at Gadikoppa Village, Kasaba hobli, Shimoga Taluk is re- determined at Rs.105/- per square feet with interest and statutory benefits as per law. The impugned judgment and award in this appeal is modified to the aforesaid effect. The claimants are not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 1672 days in filing the appeal. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29