IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 IN MSA NO.100089/2018 BETWEEN THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. GAJANANA S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: NORTH CANARA. 2. ANANT S/O. VENKATRAMAN @ HEGDE GAONKAR, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: NORTH CANARA. 3. RAMKRISHNA S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: NORTH CANARA. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 2 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.H.E.P., DANDELI, DIST: NORTH CANARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. DAYANAND SANGARESHI, HCGP FOR R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO. 5031/2016 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR (SITTING AT SIRSI) & ETC. IN MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 BETWEEN 1. GAJANAN S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359. 2. ANANT S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359. 3. RAMKRISHNA S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BARABALLI, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 3 AND 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.H.E.P DANDELI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581325. 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD, REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND SANGARESHI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MSA CROB IN MSA NO.100089/2018 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2018 IN R.A.NO.5031/2016 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, ITINERARY AT YELLAPUR AND AND ETC. THIS APPEAL AND CROB PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 4 CAV JUDGMENT 1. M.S.A. No. 100089/2018 and M.S.A. Crob. No. 100001/2021 arise out of the judgment and award dated 21.07.2018 passed by the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Sirsi in R.A.No.5031/2016. The beneficiary/ respondent No.2 in LAC No.114/2006 (old L.A.C. No. 121/1994 has preferred this appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court. 2. The claimants in L.A.C. No. 114/2006 have filed cross-objection, claiming for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 5031/2016. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and award and hence they are taken up together for disposal. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court in L.A.C. No. 114/2006. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 5 4. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1-SLAO issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 28.07.1988 to acquire several properties including Sy. No.18, measuring to an extent of 3 acres 2 guntas of Baraballi village of Yellapur taluk. The said land along with other lands were acquired for Kali Hydro Electrical Project i.e., construction of Koadasalli Dam. After issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), a joint measurement was also made in respect of the proposed land, to be acquired and in the said joint measurement report, it is stated that the lands belonging to claimants were barren lands and no crops were standing in the said land. Thereafter, final notification of acquisition was issued under Section 6 of the Act. The SLAO passed an award dated 18.03.1992, determining the market value of the acquired land for payment of the compensation. The SLAO determined the MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 6 market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.25/- per gunta. 5. Dissatisfied by the said award, the claimants have filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to refer the matters to civil Court for determination of market value. 6. The SLAO referred the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the market value and it was registered on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur in L.A.C. No. 114/2006 (old L.A.C. No. 121/1994) and after establishment of new Senior Civil Judge Court at Yellapur, the matter was transferred and re-numbered as L.A.C. No. 114/2006. 7. Before the Reference Court, the parties have led evidence. Claimants examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and they marked 10 documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. Respondents/SLAO did not lead any evidence nor marked any documents on their behalf. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 7 8. The Reference Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating materials available on the record, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits i.e., interest and solatium, accepting that it is barren land. Dissatisfied by the said judgment and award dated 30.07.2016, claimants preferred an appeal before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, UK, Karwar sitting at Sirsi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) and it was registered in R.A. No. 5031/2016. 9. The First Appellate Court after hearing both the parties held that it is irrigated land. Areca trees are situated in the said land 600 areca trees are situated in an acre of land. Yield of said areca tree is 2.25 kg per tree. Market value of areca nut per kilogram is Rs.50/-. Applied multiplier as 10. On the basis of said figures assessed the market value as Rs.7,500/- per gunta. Accordingly, the said R.A.No.5031/2016 was allowed by judgment and MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 8 award dated 21.07.2018. Being aggrieved by the said findings both claimants as well as respondent No.2 preferred this appeal and cross objections. 10. Heard the arguments of learned advocate for both the parties. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that the Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and rightly determined the market value of the property as Rs.40,000/- per acre, that was just and reasonable. 12. The First Appellate Court without properly appreciating the evidence and materials on record erroneously held that value of the property per gunta is Rs.7,500/-, which is erroneous. There is no evidence to prove that there were 600 areca trees in an acre of land in the acquired property belonging to claimants. The JMC report reveals that there were no areca trees and it was a barren land. Contrary to the said inspection report by the MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 9 JMC, the First Appellate Court held that there were areca trees and each areca trees would yield 2.25 kgs of arecanut. The said finding is without any basis. Therefore prayed to set aside the said judgment and upheld the orders passed by the reference Court. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that the First Appellate Court has properly considered the merits of the case and held that there existed areca trees in the acquired property and the First Appellate Court also held that in an acre of land 600 areca trees are situated but while assessing yield, it had taken 2.25 k.g. per tree and committed error. 14. The learned advocate for claimants further stated that the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 2050/2006 C/w. M.F.A. Crob. No. 206/2007 by the judgment and award dated 28.06.2011, in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Vs. Gopal Krishna Gaokar, laid down the law. The present appeal is covered MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 10 by the law laid down in the said case. The First Appellate Court partly followed it but while assessing yield, taken it as 2.25 Kg. per tree instead 4.00 Kg. per tree, which needs to be corrected in the cross-objection. 15. In the reference application given by all the three claimants at Exs.P1 to P3, they have repeatedly stated that their land was a irrigated land and they also filed their objection to the notice given by the SLAO. 16. The following questions arise for determination: i. Whether the learned First Appellate Judge is justified in holding that 600 areca trees are grown in an acre of land? ii. Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in not taking yield as 4 kg per tree as held in earlier judgment of this Court? iii. Whether interference in the said finding is required? MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 11 Point No.1: 17. The main contention of the appellant is that in JMC report it is reported that it was barren land but the learned First Appellate Judge on the basis of RTC held that areca trees are grown in the acquired property. The said finding is erroneous. 18. In the evidence of PW1, said fact was stated. No objections were filed by the respondents to the said claim petition. In the evidence of PW1, he has repeatedly stated that areca trees are situated in the acquired land. No rebuttal evidence was led by the respondents except denying the evidence of PW1 and suggesting that they are barren lands. Therefore, there is no rebuttal evidence to the pleading as well as evidence of PW1. PW2 is a Court Commissioner and expert. He visited the disputed property and submitted detailed report consists of 106 pages. He has stated about situation of areca trees and yield from MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 12 such trees. In his cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discard his evidence. 19. Respondents did not enter witness box and on oath stated their case. They have not given any opportunity to the claimants to cross-examine them and bring out the truth. 20. As noted by the learned First Appellate Judge in Ex.P6 of the year 1991-92, 2 acres 36 guntas consist of areca trees and 5 guntas consist of banana plantation. Ex.P8 is from the year 1982-83 to 1987-88. It shows that 1 acre 20 guntas consists of coconut trees and 1 acre 5 guntas consist areca trees and 5 guntas consist of banana plantation. The members of JMC have seen the RTC. They have referred above RTC but they have not given any explanation about inconsistencies of revenue records. Under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it has got presumptive value. Of course it is a rebuttable presumption. Respondents have not rebutted the said MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 13 presumption. Therefore, learned First Appellate Judge rightly held that lands belonging to the claimants acquired by the Government consist of areca trees as well as coconut trees and banana plantation. 21. This is a miscellaneous second appeal. There is no need to re-appreciate the evidence in detail since the First Appellate Court has reversed the order of Reference Court and hence, the above facts are discussed. The First Appellate Judge rightly held that the acquired land consist areca and coconut trees and it does not call for interference. 22. In MFA No.2050/2006 (referred supra) similar facts came up for discussion. In the said case, relying on expert report and also relying on the judgment of the Apex Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that in an acre of land 600 areca trees can be grown and yield of each tree is 4.00 kg. and price of areca was Rs.52 per Kg, and multiplier applicable is ‘10’. More or less the facts in MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 14 both case are similar. In this case also land is situated in Baraballi Village of Yellapur Taluka. Both are irrigated lands wherein areca trees are grown. In the referred case, the land is situated in Joida taluka of Uttara Kannada District, the land in that case was acquired in 1993. Hence, the facts in the present case are covered by the law laid down in M.F.A. No. 2050/2006. Hence, finding of the First Appellate Court in this regard do not call for interference. 23. The First Appellate Court partly followed the law laid down in M.F.A. No. 2050/2006, but while assessing the yield, held that yield in the present case as 2.25 Kg. per tree instead of 4.00 Kg. per tree. The said finding is erroneous. 24. The First Appellate Court relied on the cross- examination of PW2 and observed that the land in question is a slope land and hence the yield is less. The First Appellate Judge misread the evidence. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 15 25. In the cross-examination, PW2 was asked regarding yield from trees grown in a group by fall of areca fruits from the trees. In that circumstance, he has stated that from such trees yield would be 2.50 Kg. per tree. The same was accepted by the First Appellate Court. His answer was not in respect of planted trees. Hence, it calls for interference and there is no error in the said finding. For the above said discussion, I answer question No.1 partly in the affirmative. Question no.2. 26. It is the vehement contention of learned advocate appearing for the claimants that in M.F.A. No. 2050/2006, the Division Bench of this Court held that yield per tree could be taken as 4 kg. But in this case, the First Appellate Judge misread the evidence of PW2 and erroneously held that yield of per tree is 2.25 kg. instead of 4.00 Kg., which is erroneous. The learned counsel for the MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 16 respondents submits that according to the respondents there are no areca trees and hence the question of yield does not arise. Moreover even if it is considered by this Court that, areca trees are situated, then the claimants land is unfertile land and it is situated in sloppy area of the hill. According to evidence of PW2, in such case, yield will be less. The same was considered by the First Appellate Court. Therefore the judgments in earlier cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 27. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is acceptable. In M.F.A. No. 2050/2006 yield of arecanut trees is taken as 4 kg per tree and said finding is based on earlier judgment of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court and expert opinion. 28. Submission of learned counsel for the claimants that First Appellate Court misread the evidence of PW2 is acceptable. The respondents asked hypothetical question to PW2 regarding the yield of areca trees frown naturally MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 17 by fall of areca fruits from tree. The said question was vague. Secondly, it is not referred to Land in the present case. Therefore the said evidence given by PW2 cannot be considered as admission in favour of respondents. Moreover no such case was made out by the respondents; on the contrary respondents all the while contended that it is a barren land and there is no areca trees grown in the said land. Under the circumstances, it cannot be considered as admission in favour of respondents. The said finding by the First Appellate Judge regarding yield is incorrect and erroneous. It has to be taken as 4 kgs per tree and accordingly market value needs to be calculated. 29. The submission of the claimants is noted by the learned First Appellate Judge. Claimants have stated that there is no need to assess and award compensation in respect of coconut trees. Hence not considered. 30. In M.F.A. No. 2050/2006 which is relied by the learned First Appellate Judge, the Division Bench of this MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 18 Court considered the judgment of the Apex Court holding that multiplier applicable is 10 and 50% of the income has to be deducted towards cultivation expenses. 40 guntas is equivalent to 1 acre. If 600 arecanut trees could be grown in an area of one acre, then in a guta of land average 15 trees could be grown. In the above paragraph yield per tree is taken as 4 kg. Market price of arecanut is also taken as Rs.50/- per kg. 50% of the income derived from the said crop is to be deducted towards cultivation expenses; applicable multiplier is 10. Therefore the market value of the land per gunta is Rs.15,000/- (15x4x50%x½ x10). 31. As per Ex.P6 arecanut were grown in an area of 2 acres 36 guntas. The said RTC is of the year 1991-92 i.e., a year prior to acquisition. The total extent of area acquired belonging to the claimants by the respondents is 3 acres 02 guntas. Market value of 3.02 guntas shall be determined. Accordingly the order passed by the First Appellate Court needs interference. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 19 32. For the above said discussions, I answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative. 33. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following: ORDER i. M.S.A. No. 100089/20178 is dismissed. ii. M.S.A. Crob. No. 100001/2021 is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 21.07.2018 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sirsi sitting at Yellapur in R.A. No. 5031/2016 is modified. iii. Market value of acquired land per gunta is determined is Rs.15,000/- and claimants are also entitled for all the statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. MSA NO.100089/2018 C/W. MSA CROB NO.100001/2021 20 iv. If any amount deposited by the appellants, shall be transmitted to the Reference Court for disbursement. v. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE kgk CT-AN