- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 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. 11 OF 2020 (LA) BETWEEN: RAMAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 1. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE D.H.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, APPELANT NO.1 DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE APPELLANT 2 TO 4 AS LEGAL HEIRS WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. HANUMEGOWDA S/O D.H.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. BYLAPPA S/O D.H.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. LOKESH S/O D.H.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 DIBBUR VILLAGE - 572 106, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMKUR - 572 101. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMKUR - 572 103. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2017 PASSED IN RA.No.83/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2015 PASSED IN LAC.No.193/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard, S. T. Govindaraja, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Gopala Krishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. Appellants are the legal representatives of the original claimant Sri. B.H. Ramaiah, whose land is acquired for the purpose of construction of Hemavathy Canal to the extent of one acre 12 guntas vide notification bearing No.LAQ-SR-77/1992-93 in the Official Gazette dated 29.04.1993. Final Award came to be passed on 23.05.1995. 3. Being aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.09.1995, original claimant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, claimant placed on record certified copy of the sale deed which was exhibited as Ex.P1 and two RTC extracts in respect of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 acquired property which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P2 and P3. 4. Learned Judge in the Reference Court, based on the JMC report, recorded a categorical finding that only eighteen trees were found in the acquired land though in the claim petition, compensation is sought for fifty coconut trees based on the entry in column No.7 of the RTC extract. 5. However, learned judge in the Reference Court noted that claimant himself has claimed only thirty eight coconut trees which were in existence in the acquired land and not fifty coconut trees. 6. Therefore, learned Judge in the Reference Court granted compensation to thirty eight coconut trees by enhancing the compensation in a sum of Rs.43,766/- with consequential benefits. 7. Learned Judge in the Reference Court also noted that the claimant failed to place material evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 on record for existence of bore well and pump set which is claimed in the claim petition. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A. No.83/2015. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and after raising necessary points, re-appreciated the material evidence on record and recorded a categorical finding that as per the JMC report only eighteen trees were in existence. 10. Nevertheless, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court taking note of the averments made by the claimant himself that there exists only thirty eight coconut trees in the acquired land, granting of compensation to the thirty eight coconut trees itself is just and proper and therefore dismissed the appeal of the claimant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in his appeal on the following grounds : GROUNDS : That the lower courts below as well as the 1st respondent have erred in passing the impugned judgement and Award which are highly illegal and irregular and in all probabality opposed to law and natural justice and therefore they are liable to be set aside. That the I respondent as well as on the reference court and I Appellate court completelyerred in not observing that the land in question, acquired for the public purpose of the Hemavathi Channal is situated very near to the Tumkuru City about 1 KM away from it and the adjac ntlandnearby are being converted for non agricultural purpose for the residential sites and the value of thelands are very high and very valuable age. and the market value of the land was and is very high uncomparable to the frequent award by the courts below and therefore the Judgement and Award passed by the court below are liable to be set aside. 5 That Reference court as well as the I Appellate have failed to take into consideration of the potential value of the land acquired and the deceased appellant was raised the paddy, jowar and Ragi etc and earn Rs.30,000/- per year - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 at that time and the land was well irrigated and consisted of a bore well and pumpset and further failed to pass the award at the escalated price at the rate of 10 multiplier and they erroneously passed the Award which is highly low, meagre and in-adequate andso the award is liableto be enhanced by setting aside the Judgement and Award. That the courts below have failed to evaluate the Award in a proper and justifiable way in applying the 10 multiplier, although the sale deed dated: 18-6-1999 in Ex. P1 pertaining to the adjacent land measuring 1.35 acres of land in Sy.No.4 at Dibbur village which was sold for 3 lakhs and 75,000/- and it was ignored by the I appellate court on the ground that it was of the year 1999-2000. However the method of valuation ought to have been considered by the courts below in the following structure. Rs.30,000x 1x10 less 50% of the expenditure towards labour charge and other incidental expenses. Rs.15,00,0 (15 lakhs) plus 30% solatium = 60,000/- Plus 12% interest 1,87,200/-. Total Rs.17,47,200/-. Therefore it is just and necessary to pas the Award to meet the ends of justice, otherwise the appellants will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. As such the judgement and Award of the courts below are liable to be modified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 That the courts below have erred in not passing the full award for the value of the 50 coconut trees but fixed the compensation for only 38 trees which is highly low, inadequate and not proper and liable to be increased and the Award and Judgement are liable to be modified to this extent also in addition to the extent stated above. That even otherwise the judgment and Award are illegal, improper, arbitrary, capricious and opposed to the law and natural justice and they are liable to be set aside by modifying them. 12. Sri. T. Govindaraja, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts failed to note the probative value of the entry made in the RTC extract at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 wherein in column No.7, fifty coconut trees were in existence and not thirty eight coconut trees and therefore the compensation is needs to be awarded for fifty coconut trees and sought for passing suitable Award. 13. Per contra, Sri. Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the submission on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 behalf of the appellants and supports the impugned judgment. 14. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, JMC report specifically shown existence of only eighteen coconut trees in the acquired land. 16. However, the learned Judge in the Reference Court took note of the fact that claimant himself has claimed compensation only in respect of thirty eight coconut trees which is inclusive of eighteen coconut trees mentioned in JMC report and therefore granted compensation to thirty eight trees. 17. Thus, Reference Court granting compensation to the thirty eight coconut trees is rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 18. As such, contentions now urged before this Court by the counsel for the appellants for fifty coconut - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39287 MSA No. 11 of 2020 trees cannot be re-agitated in this second appeal having regard to the scope of the appeal. 19. Insofar as the enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land is concerned, admittedly, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. 20. Nature of the land and situation of the land is considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and there was no scope for further enhancement as well. 21. Hence, the following : ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 ct:BHK