- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103387 OF 2015 (LAC) BETWEEN SRI MAHADEV S/O. NINGAPPA HOSATTI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HEBBAL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S.BYAKOD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. LINGARAJ S.MARADI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT-I, BAGALKOT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MBC DIVISION-1 GADDANKERI, BAGALKOT. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.17,00,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL STATUTORY BENEFITS BY SEATING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC NO.309/2010 DATED 04.02.2015 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, C.M. POONACHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941, challenging the judgment and award dated 04.02.2015, passed in LAC No.309/2010, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol2, wherein, the reference application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act by the appellant/claimant has been dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that land of the appellant/claimant of an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.144/1 of Hebbal village, Mudhol Taluk was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer3 for the purpose of construction of Canal, vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was issued on 28.09.2006. The 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘reference Court’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SLAO’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 award was passed on 29.09.2007, whereunder, the SLAO, awarded a compensation of ₹1,44,771/-. Seeking for enhancement of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act in LAC No.309/2010 before the reference Court. The reference Court, by its judgment dated 04.02.2015, dismissed the application and confirmed the award passed by the SLAO. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. Lingaraj S. Maradi for the appellant/claimant, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Madanmohan M. Khannur for respondents No.1 & 3 and learned counsel Sri. S.M. Kalwad for respondent No.2. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the reference Court erred in dismissing the reference application, merely because, in the application, the claimant had stated that he used to grow sugarcane, cotton, sunflower and onion crops, whereas, in the evidence, it is contended that sericulture is being grown. It is further contended that the reference Court ought to enhance - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 the compensation awarded for the land of the claimant which has been acquired. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 justifies the order passed by the reference Court and submits that since there was variance between the pleadings and proof, the reference Court was justified in dismissing the reference application. 6. Learned AGA places relevant facts on record. 7. The submissions of learned counsels for both the parties have been considered and the material on record including the records of the reference Court have been perused. 8. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the reference Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the claimants? 9. The factual matrix regarding acquisition of land of the claimants and passing of the award by the SLAO is undisputed. It is further undisputed that the claimants filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking for enhancement of compensation. It is forthcoming from the copy of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 application (Ex.P1) that the claimant had averred that the crops raised in the acquired land are sugarcane, cotton, sunflower and onion. It is forthcoming that the claimant had filed I.A No.1 before the reference Court for amendment of claim petition to implead respondent No.3. While filing the amended petition, the claimant has stated that the agricultural activity carried out in the acquired property is sericulture. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that he was carrying out sericulture operations. He has also produced revenue records, which demonstrate that he was carrying out sericulture operations in the acquired land. 10. The reference Court while considering the same has recorded a finding that there was variance in the averments made in the application and in the evidence adduced by the claimant. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that strict rules of pleadings ought not to have been applied by the reference Court. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By LR’s and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra4, which reads as follows: 4 2011 AIR SCW 5749 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 “16. A landowner, particularly a rural agriculturist, when he loses the land may not know the exact value of his land as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. When he seeks reference he may be dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation but may not really know the actual market value. Many a time there may not be comparable sales, and even the courts face difficulty in assessing the compensation. There is no reason why a land owner who has lost his land, should not get the real market value of the land and should be restricted by technicalities to some provisional amount he had indicated while seeking the reference. As noticed above, the Act does not require him to specify the quantum and all that he is required to say is that he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded and specify generally the grounds of objection to the award. Under the scheme of the Act, it is for the court to determine the market value. The compensation depends upon the market value established by evidence and does not depend upon what the land owner thinks is the value of his land. If he has an exaggerated notion of the value of the land, he is not going to get such amount, but is going to get the actual market value. Similarly if the landowner is under an erroneous low opinion about the market value of his land and out of ignorance claims lesser amount, that can not be held against him to award an amount which is lesser than the market value. When the Act does not require the landowner to specify the amount of compensation, but he voluntarily mentions some amounts, and subsequently, if the market value is found to be more than what was claimed, the land owner should get the actual market value. We fail to see why the landowner should get an amount less than the market value, as compensation. Consequently, it follows that if the landowner seeks amendment of his claim, he should be permitted to amend the claim as and when he comes to know about the true market - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 value. When the Act is silent in regard to these matters, to impose any condition to the detriment of an innocent and ignorant landowner who has lost his land, would be wholly unjust.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Although, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that there being variance between the pleadings and proof, the reference Court was justified in dismissing the petition, it is relevant to note that, admittedly, land of the claimant having been acquired, he is entitled to seek for adequate compensation towards the value of land. The compensation having been assessed by the SLAO and the claimant being aggrieved by the same, has made a reference application as contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Act. 12. The object of filing the reference application is, to determine the market value of land, for award of adequate compensation having regard to the nature of activity, for which, the land was being used. No doubt the claimant has mentioned in the reference application that he was growing sugarcane, cotton, sunflower and onion crops. However, he has produced various records take Yield Certificate of Sericulture (Ex.P3), Silk Sale Receipts (Ex.P5 to Ex.P8) and other documents. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 13. Strict rules of pleadings are not applicable in the reference proceedings under Section 18(1) of the Act, having regard to the fact that the enquiry as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act is for the purpose of determining the actual market value of land and the claimant in the present case, being an agriculturist, who lost his land, ought not to be bound by strict legal principles. As long as the claimant is able to demonstrate the nature of use, to which, land was being used and keeping in mind the fact that, in the enquiry contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, the acquiring authority would also have an opportunity to cross-examine the claimant with regard to material produced seeking such enhancement, it is just and proper that in the present case the matter be remanded to the reference Court to determine the quantum of compensation. 14. Having regard to the nature, scope and object of an enquiry under Section 18 of the Act, the reference Court erred in dismissing the reference application merely on the ground that the nature of crop mentioned in the reference application was different from the nature of crop that was stated at the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 time of evidence. Hence, question framed for consideration is answered in ‘negative’. 15. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed; b) The judgment and award dated 04.02.2015, passed in LAC No.309/2010, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, is set aside; c) The parties shall appear before the reference Court on 03.06.2025 without requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard; d) Pursuant to the appearance of the parties, the reference Court shall determine the market value of the land in question and also determine the quantum of compensation and conduct further proceedings in accordance with law; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6674-DB MFA No. 103387 of 2015 e) All contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2