- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2025 (LA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2025 (LA) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2025 (LA) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2025 (LA) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2025 (LA) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2025 (LA) ,MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2025 (LA) IN MSA No. 95/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. 4. SRI RAVIKUMARA S/O LATE H.N. HIRANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL 422/2019 ON THE FILE OF 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.5/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IN MSA NO. 96/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. NANJAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. SWAMY AGED BOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. 5. SMT. RUKKAMMA @ RAKMANAMMA W/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O HUNDIGANA VILLAGE JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN TALUK - 573 103. 6. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. KUMARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O. NADDIOGUNDA VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS SHANIVARASHANTHE HOBLI SOMAWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235. 7. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O KAMATHI VILALGE ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL 432/2019 ON THE FILE OF 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.9/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IN MSA NO. 98/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. 4. SRI. NINGEGOWDA S/O. LATE. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.2.2025 PASSED IN LAC(APPL) NO.425/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC.16/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITIONS FILED UNDER SEC.18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT., FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS IN MSA NO. 101/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. 4. SRI. KALEGOWDA S/O. LATE. CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOAPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) NO. 429/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IN MSA NO. 102/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 4. SRI. H.D. CHANDREGOWDA S/O. LATE. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOAPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN LAC. APPEAL NO.424/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.20/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA. PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. IN MSA NO. 104/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA BENGALURU - 1. H.S. MOOLIGIRIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR. 4. SRI. H.M. RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOAPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN LAC. APPEAL NO.430/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.7/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA. PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS IN MSA NO. 105/2025 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M/S. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.R.P. HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASASOUDHA, BENGALURU - 1. DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR 4. SRI. H D CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211 ...RESPONDENTS - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS (BY SRI. GOAPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MSA FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 IN LAC(A) NO.427/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.V.R.Balaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The present second appeals are filed by the beneficiary challenging the award passed by the reference Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 3. Facts in the nut shell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 3.1. The land of respondent No.4 was acquired by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the purpose of construction of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project in the year 2007 by virtue of the notification marked at Ex.P.1, pursuant o same final notification came to be passed vide Ex.P.2 and general award came to be passed vide Ex.P.3. Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per acre of the land. 3.2. Few land losers in respect of the same project, had earlier filed the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which were subject matter of LAC Nos.203/2014, 152/2012 and 109/2015. 3.3. Judgments in those reference cases were placed before the Trial Court vide Exs.P.4 to 6. Sketch of Haradanahalli village was placed on record by the claimant vide Ex.P.7. Likewise, sketches of villages viz., kalluguduganahalli, Muttige, Naganahalli, Huluvare and Hassan Taluk were placed on record vide Exs.P.8 to 12. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS Sketch of Holenarasipura was placed on record vide Ex.P.13. 3.4. From Exs.P.7 to 13, one can easily identify that the land of the claimant which has been acquired for the purpose of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Channel Project, was in the vicinity of the lands which were subject matter of Exs.P.4 to 6. 3.5. Claimants while deposing before the Court, since all the claim applications were clubbed along with LAC Nos.17/2014 and 16 connected cases, placed on record jointly the Form-B, payment voucher, award notices etc., which were marked at Exs.P.14 to 84. Ex.P.85 is the sketch of Hasuvinabetta Kavalu and having satisfied the award amount which were subject matter of Exs.P.4 to 6, certified copies of the order sheet in the Execution Petition No.305/2016 were placed on record vide Exs.P.86 and 87. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 3.6. In other words, claimant’s claim that the award passed by the reference Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court were satisfied by the respondents including the present appellant which were subject matter of Exs.P.4 to 6. Therefore, the claimants requested the Court, under the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and 16 other claimants who were also examined in LAC No.17/2014, sought for payment of the similar compensation amount that was awarded vide Exs.P.4 to 6 at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in other words, Rs.14,00,000/- per acre. 3.7. The awards passed by the reference Court and the First Appellate Court were subject matters of MFA No.4325/2021 and connected MFA No.4260/2021. 3.8. Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of the parties in detail, allowed those appeals and modified the award by granting sum of Rs.74,664/- per gunta as against fixing of the compensation of Rs.37,332/- per gunta by the Land Acquisition Officer. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 3.9. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said Miscellaneous First Appeal was challenged by the claimants before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6047-6048/2024. 3.10. Hon’ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter, allowed the appeals of the claimant and granted Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta as the compensation for the acquired lands by allowing the appeals filed by the claimants. 3.11. Against the said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Executive Engineer of Kaveri Neeravari Nigama – beneficiary, filed a review petition in SLP (Civil) No…… Dairy No(s).48595/2024. 3.12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the said review petition filed by the beneficiary, passed an order which reads as under: “1. Delay condoned. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 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.6047-6048/2024. 5. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in above terms. 6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 4. Taking advantage of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the beneficiary has now filed the present second appeal challenging the order of the reference Court and the First Appellate Court on the following almost common grounds: The impugned Judgment and Award dated 01.02.2025, passed by Court of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Hassan, in LAC (Appeal) - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS No.422/2019, and also the Judgment and Ward dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Reference Court, at Holenarasipura, in LAC.No.5/2014, along with other connected matters are erroneous and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same are liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that, the learned Judges of both the Courts below have wrongly has wrongly interpreted the Judgments and award passed by the other Courts in LAC and LAC (Appeals) have wrongly referred the Judgment and Award passed in in LAC.No.271/2014, LAC.219/2014 to LAC.No.222/2014, came to conclusion that, the Claimant/Respondent No.4 herein is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta of land, but those lands which are acquired are in the remote place not are comes under the Shanthnigram Hobli, Hassan Taluk. But the property acquired at Haradanahalli Village, comes within Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, which is away from more than 25 Kilometers from Shanthigaram and as such both the Courts were strongly erred in concluding that the Claimant/Respondent No.4 herein is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- per guntas of land and as such the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts are liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court, and in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS consequence the above Appeal may be allowed by this Hon'ble Court. That the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts are manifestly wrong Judgments and Awards for the very reason that, the Reference Court in LAC.No.33/2014, has awarded Rs.32,000/-, per gunta of land, which was acquired for the same Project/Kamasamudra Lift irrigation Project. But in the instant case both the Courts have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Therefore, both the Courts below have strongly erred in passing Judgment and Award without following the statistics of the Sale deeds which took place at the concerned Sub- Registrar for the acquired land. That being so, the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same are liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court and in consequence the above Appeal may be allowed by this Hon'ble Court. That the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court at Holenarasipura, in LAC.No.5/2014, and also the Judgment and Award passed by the Court of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Hassan, in LAC (Appeal) No.422/2019, are agricultural properties and the acquired properties are not even in - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS the municipalities limits and are in the remote Village and as such the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts are erroneous and without having any substantial materials to determine the higher compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, and as such the same are 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. That the learned Judge of the reference Court and First Appellate Court have strongly erred in awarding compensation without applying their judicial mind, have utterly failed to determine the value of the property though the properties acquired are purely agricultural land and which are in a remoted area and not even comes within the municipality limit. 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 some potentiality. The Sale deeds pertaining the Haradanahalli Village are too less and even then, both the Court have exorbitantly determined the market value of the Property of Haradanahalli Village of Holenarasipura. That being so, the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts are liable to be set- aside by this Hon'ble Court, and in consequence this - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant Appeal. That the reference Court and the First Appellate Courts have determined the higher compensation on mechanical basis and as such the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts below by redetermining 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 both the Courts below. That the reference Court and the First Appellate Court have wrongly determined the compensation without having materials to the effect and further relying on the other Judgments and Awards pertaining to other areas and location of the lands has wrongly conclude 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. That being so, the Judgment and Award passed by both the Courts to pay higher compensation, which is under challenge is liable to be modified by this Hon'ble Court with costs. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 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 Reference Court as well as the First Appellate Court are 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the acquired lands were situated far away from the lands which were subject matter of Exs.P.4 to 6 as is suggested to P.W.1 by the learned Additional Government Pleader wherein the land acquired is far away from the Shanthigrama village. Therefore, the yardstick that has been chosen by the learned Judge in the reference Court to award the compensation is based on the awards passed in other reference cases marked at Exs.P.4 to 6 which has resulted in grave miscarriage of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS justice and sought for admitting the appeals for further consideration. 6. He would also contend that the sale deeds executed by the other land owners at the relevant point of time, is not taken into consideration and he wants to place additional evidence before this Court and requests the Court to remit the matter to the reference Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity for the beneficiary to place additional evidence on record. 7. He would also contend that the photocopies are placed before this Court along with the memo which would make it clear that the determination of compensation by the reference Court mechanically upheld by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and an opportunity to be provided for the beneficiary to urge all possible grounds including the proper method of applying the Sale Sampler before the reference Court and sought for allowing the appeals. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since it is the exclusive arena of the beneficiary, Government has only facilitated the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Channel Project and therefore, suitable orders to be passed. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/claimants submits that in the appeals filed by some of the claimants before this Court in MFA No.4325/2021 and connected appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, based on the reappreciation of the material on record, awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.74,664/- per gunta as against sum of Rs.37,332/- per gunta fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. In fact, the claimant did appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6047-6048/2024 and Hon’ble Apex Court reassessed the material on record and following the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta, which is the subject matter of Exs.P.86 and 87 by the acquisition - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS authority and beneficiary, similarly placed claimants who are in the vicinity and lost the lands, must have been awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta and therefore, the appeals filed by the present appellant needs to be dismissed. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, following are: A. The admitted facts: a. The lands of the claimants in LAC No.17/2014 and other 16 claimants have been acquired for the purpose of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project. Exs.P.1 and 2 are the preliminary and final notification and Ex.P.3 is the general award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. b. Similarly placed claimants filed the appeals before the reference Court in LAC No.203/2014, 152/2012 and 109/2015 (Exs.P.4 to 6), were allowed and compensation - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS were fixed at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta after due enquiry. c. Awards of such claimants were satisfied by the Government/beneficiary in the Execution Petition No.305/2016 (Exs.P.86 and 87). d. Sketch of the villages which are in the vicinity of the subject matter of the lands in Exs.P.4 to 6 were placed on record vide Exs.P.7 to 13. e. Reference Court based on the admitted factual aspects, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in the case on hand. f. First Appellate Court confirmed the award of the reference Court. B. The disputed facts: a. Beneficiary disputes the award of the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SLP (Civil)…… Dairy No(s). 48595/2024 as referred to supra. b. Claimants contend that the award of compensation is based on Capitalization - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS Method whereas the beneficiary is requesting the Court to apply the Sale Sampler Method. 13. In view of the aforesaid admitted and disputed aspects of the matter, it is now the task of this Court to find out whether the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the review petition as aforesaid, would be of any benefit to the beneficiary in getting the appeals admitted and getting the matter referred to the reference Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 14. The aforesaid points are to be answered against the beneficiary for more than one reason. 15. Firstly, the beneficiary was a party before the reference Court who did not independently contest the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the claimants. 16. Secondly, there is no oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the beneficiary before the reference Court. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 17. Thirdly, it is not the case of the beneficiary before the reference Court or before the First Appellate Court that the Capitalization Method adopted by the reference Court for determining the adequate compensation in respect of the acquired land was incorrect and the Sale Sampler Method must have been adopted for determination of the adequate compensation. 18. Fourthly, for the reasons best known, beneficiary did not independently cross-examine the claimants who were examined as P.W.1 to 17. On the contrary, learned Additional Government Pleader who cross-examined P.W.1 to 7, has questioned that the acquired lands are far away from the Shanthigrama village whereas those villages were part of the Shanthigrama Hobli. 19. Fifthly, sketch of the villages marked at Exs.P.7 to 13 and sketch of Hasuvinabetta Kavalu village marked at Ex.P.85, would make it clear that the acquired lands of - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS the claimants were in the vicinity of the subject matters of the lands involved in Exs.P.4 to 6. 20. In the teeth of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the beneficiary, only on account of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the review petition filed by the beneficiary, wherein the subject matter of the acquired lands were in respect of LAC Nos.9/2018 and 17/2018. 21. Admittedly, by the time, the reference applications were decided by the reference Court in LAC Nos.9/2018 and 17/2018, the beneficiary had already satisfied the awards passed in Exs.P.4 to 6 in the Execution Petition No.305/2016 marked at Exs.P.86 and 87. 22. When once the award is satisfied by the beneficiary, the appellant/beneficiary cannot be permitted to allow to contend that in respect of the similar claimants, the award of compensation is incorrect. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS 23. Further, as could be seen from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellant was given permission to rely upon the appropriate exemplar and sale instances before this Court to distinguish the judgment which are in respect of LAC Nos.9/2018 and 17/2018, this Court cannot accept the contentions of the appellant. 24. Since the award passed by the Trial Court is based on the Capitalization Method, observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect, would not be applicable to the case on hand. 25. Hence, the beneficiary cannot take advantage of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the review petition as referred to supra. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, having regard to the fact that the appellant did not choose to place any oral or documentary evidence on record nor is in a position to properly cross-examine the claimants and adopting improper cross-examination made by the learned - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS Additional Government Pleader, cannot be now permitted to take advantage of its own wrong in finding fault with the judgment of the reference Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 27. Mere production of the photocopies of the sale deeds and other documents would not ipso facto make out a case for the appellant to distinguish the consistent orders passed by the reference Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court and also confirmed by this Court on this Hon’ble Apex Court in granting Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta for the acquired lands in respect of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation Project. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, invariably this Court has to hold that the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are hardly sufficient to set aside the awards passed by the reference Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the aforesaid matters. 29. Consequently, the following: - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38158 MSA No. 95 of 2025 C/W MSA No. 96 of 2025 MSA No. 98 of 2025 AND 4 OTHERS ORDER Appeals are meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:BHK