- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.90 OF 2025(LA) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573211 …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-II, DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BUILDING, HASSAN-573201 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN -573201 3. SMT. SAVITHRI W/O DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O KADAVINAKOTE VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, H.N. PURA TALUK HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573211 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2- ABSENT; SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED IN LAC(APPEAL) 100/2021 ON THE FILE Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 OF 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2020 PASSED IN LAC NO.12/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. Present Miscellaneous Second Appeal is by the beneficiary challenging the award passed by the Reference Court as well as the First Appellate Court determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta for the acquired land for the purpose of construction of a bridge road for Hemavathi river, which was subject matter of LAC No.12/2019. 3. Admitted facts in the present case are as under: Land belonging to respondent No.3-Smt.Savithri, situated at Kadavinakote/ Kadavinakote Hantha village, Halekote Hobli, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 Holenarasipura Taluk to the extent of 3¼ guntas in Sy.No.5/12 was acquired for the purpose of construction of a bridge-exit road or outer ring road across Hemavathi river by issuing preliminary notification on 28.06.2007. 4. Being not satisfied with the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be filed by the third respondent and similarly placed claimants before the Reference Court. The reference application filed by the respondent No.3 was numbered as LAC 12/2019 which was tried in common along with reference applications filed by several other claimants in LAC No.39/2019 and other matters. 5. After entertaining the objections, the Reference Court, among different methods of determination of just compensation, decided to adopt the method of following the orders passed in already decided claim petitions by the Reference Court (parity method). 6. On consideration of the land acquired for the same project in the same village, Reference Court determined the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 compensation in a sum of Rs.37,332/- per gunta as against the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. Needless to emphasize that, before re-determining the compensation, learned Judge in the Reference Court took into consideration the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Khadar and others vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others reported in (2015)2 KCCR 1943 and in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Fakirappa Mugubasappa and others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2371. 8. The beneficiary was a party before the Reference Court. However, beneficiary did not chose to challenge the re- determination of the compensation by the Reference Court by filing an appeal or cross objection. 9. It is the claimant who filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court contending that amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court is on the lower side in view of the decided cases and the appeal was duly adjudicated by the First Appellate Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the various Orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, followed the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024 and further re- determined the compensation amount at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits. 11. It is pertinent to note that against the Order of the Reference Court or against the order of the First Appellate Court, appellant/beneficiary did not file appeal before this Court at the first instance. 12. However, it is the contention of Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/beneficiary that in the appeal filed by the claimants before this Court in MFA Nos.4325/2021 c/w 4260/2021 (appeals filed by some other claimants), beneficiary was not notified and Government Pleader/Additional Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the beneficiary as well and they had no chance to agitate the matter on merits before the Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.4325/2021 c/w 4260/2021which were further carried in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024 arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5592-5593/2024. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court while entertaining the review petition (Diary No.48595/2024), passed the order which reads as under: “1. Delay condoned. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and perused the record. 3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in light of our order dated 03.05.2024 passed in C.A. Nos.6047-6048/2024, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. 4. It goes without saying that the petitioner-Corporation shall be at liberty to adduce and rely upon appropriate exemplar and sale instances before the High Court to distinguish the judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by this Court in C.A. Nos.6647-6048/2024. 5. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in above terms. 6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 14. Taking advantage of the said observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the review petition filed by the beneficiary, present Second Appeal came to be filed by the beneficiary belatedly before this Court on the following grounds:  “The impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2024, passed Court of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Hassan, in LAC (Appeal) No.100/2021, is erroneous and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same is liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court.  It is submitted that, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has wrongly entertained the Appeal of the LR's of Claimant and thereby wrongly arrived to enhance the higher compensation without any basis to determine the same by referring the other cases without there being any justification to arrive at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Therefore, the Judgment and Award passed by the Court of the V Addl. District And Sessions Judge, at Hassan, in LAC (Appeal) No.100/2021, is erroneous and without having any substantial materials to determine the higher compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the Judgment and Award impugned in this Appeal is liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court with costs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025  That the learned Judge of the reference Court at Para-13 of its judgment has categorically stated that the Ex. P10-Sale deed dated 31.08.2009, relied on by the Claimants have stated that, the value of the land is to be considered based on the said sale deed. But on careful perusal of the said sale deed, it is very clear that, the properties stated therein are admittedly vacant site properties being fallen within municipal area of Holenarasipura Town Limits. But the acquired lands in the present cases are admittedly agricultural lands and no material is forthcoming to show that the acquired lands have got the same potentiality and same value of the properties covered under sale deed at Ex. P10. Therefore, the said sale deed is not a relevant piece of material to determine the market value in respect of the acquired land in the present cases. Accordingly, the Reference Court has determined the value of the properties at Rs.37,332/-.  However, the First Appellate Court without looking into the finding given by the Reference Court at Para-14 of its Judgement and Award, has determined the higher compensation on mechanical basis and as such the Judgment and Award passed by the First Appellate Court, and thereby redetermined the higher compensation is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is to be modified by this Hon'ble Court, by setting aside the Judgment and Award passed by the First Appellate Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025  It is submitted that the First Appellate Court has wrongly determined the compensation without having materials to the effect and further relying on the other Judgments and Awards pertaining to other area and location of the lands has wrongly come to the conclusion that the Claimants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, is highly erroneous and the same is exorbitant, as there is no such value in the said area where the lands are acquired for the purpose of construction of bridge exit road or outer rings road across Hemavathi River. That being so, the Judgment and Award passed by the First Appellate Court to pay higher compensation, which is under challenge is liable to be modified by this Hon'ble Court with costs.  It is submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 12% by both the Courts below is also very high towards the agricultural properties. It is submitted that, looking from any angle the Judgment and Award passed by the First Appellate Court is highly excessive and not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in awarding compensation and as such interference of this Hon'ble Court is very much warranted.  The Appellant would crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge additional grounds at the time of addressing the arguments on the Appeal. The instant appeal is not filed within the period of limitation. That being so, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 a separate application seeking condonation of delay is filed along with instant Appeal. The certified copy of the Judgment and Award of the First Appellate Court is produced and also the copy of the Judgement and Award passed by the reference Court is also produced.” 15. Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/ beneficiary, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024 is not final, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there is an opportunity for the appellant to reagitate the issue by placing additional evidence on record and thus, sought for allowing the appeal by remitting the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 16. The said submission on behalf of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Sri Sunil S Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 17. He contended that affording second opportunity for the appellant would not arise at all inasmuch as, before the Reference Court or before the First Appellate Court beneficiary - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 being made as party, did not chose to independently oppose the reference application or the appeal filed by the claimant. 18. He would further contend that approach of the Reference Court in following the pre decided land acquisition case where lands were acquired for the same project in the same village under same notification which was subject matter of LAC No.9/2018 which ultimately culminated in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has re- fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, the appeal is meritless and needs to be dismissed by upholding the Order of the First Appellate Court. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the land is acquired for the same purpose, of the same village and by same notification which was subject matter of LAC No.9/2018. 21. Learned Judge in the Reference Court taking note of the compensation awarded in pre decided land acquisition case for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 the same project under the same notification and land pertaining to same village thus cannot be faulted with, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Abdul Khadar supra and Fakirappa Mugubasappa supra. 22. In fact, it is settled principles of law which cannot be deviated in the case on hand for more than one reason. 23. Firstly, beneficiary did not independently chose to oppose the reference application before the Reference Court nor did not chose to file any appeal before the First Appellate Court contending that determination of compensation in a sum of Rs.37,332/- in respect of the acquired land of the claimant, cannot be now permitted to raise any grievance before this Court, that too, in the Second Appeal for the first time. 24. Secondly, nothing prevented the beneficiary to address effective argument before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to determination of the compensation by the High Court in MFA Nos.4325/2021 c/w 4260/2021 is excessive or, independently file any appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 Order of the Division Bench in the aforementioned Miscellaneous First Appeal. 25. Assuming for a moment for the sake of arguments that appellant’s interest was not protected by the learned Additional Government Advocate or the learned High Court Government Pleader in the absence of specific notice being issued to the appellant/beneficiary, having failed to challenge the order passed in MFA Nos.4325/2021 c/w 4260/2021 which was subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024, what prevented the beneficiary from filing a separate appeal after they have been notified in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024 and urge all these aspects of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not even explained in the present Appeal. 26. Thus, merely taking advantage of the Order of the Review Petition and re-agitating the matter before this Court, in the absence of any challenge before the First Appellate Court, very Second Appeal filed by the beneficiary itself is not maintainable. 27. Be that what it may. On merits, since acquisition of the land of the claimant has taken place for the same project, i.e., - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 for construction of bridge road under same notification pertaining to same village and method of adoption of determination of compensation is based on the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024, the First Appellate Court re-determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in respect of the land measuring 3¼ guntas of the claimant is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court only on the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Review Petition seeking review of Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024. 28. Lastly, method of determination of compensation being not sale sampler method though claimant wanted that sale sampler method is to be adopted and compensation to be awarded, grievance of the appellant that sale sampler method is not properly applied in the case of hand cannot be countenanced in law at any stretch of imagination. 29. Thus, from above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the appeal are hardly sufficient to interfere with the Order of the First Appellate Court awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38643 MSA No. 90 of 2025 gunta in line with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6047-6048/2024. 30. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76