- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2023 (LA) BETWEEN: ROOPLA NAIKA S/O HANUMANAIKA, AGE 68 YEARS, R/A KENGATTE VILLAGE, GOVINAKOVI HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE UTP SHIMOGA - 577 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNN LTD. UTP PROJECT, HONNALI DIVISION, HONNALI - 577 217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 AGA FOR R1) THIS MSA IS FILED U/S 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL NO.34/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 DECREE DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN MA NO.27/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED U/S. 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Patil Sanganagouda Guranagouda for Sri Sangamesh G Patil and learned counsel for the second respondent Sri Prashanth B R and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Present second appeal is filed by the claimant with the following prayer - " Wherefore, the appellant respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and set aside/modify the judgment and award dated 01.12.2011 in LAC No.34/2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge Harihara and also the judgment and award passed in MA No.27/2015 dated 18.06.2020 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge at Davanagere and be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 pleased to determine the market value of the appellant land bearing Sy.No.78 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas of Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre and award all statutory benefits in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal as under: 3.1 Government of Karnataka acquired the land of the appellant to the extent of one acre 31 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.78 situated at Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk. 3.2 The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per acre in the draft award. The claimant after receiving the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer, under protest filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 3.3 Reference Court after notifying the acquiring authority held an inquiry and determined the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- per acre as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the land acquisition officer with statutory benefits. 4. Being aggrieved by the improper determination of the compensation for the acquired land, claimant filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before the first appellate Court. 5. The learned judge in the first appellate Court taking note of relevant aspects of the matter including the award that is passed in LAC 1/2004 which is placed on record by the claimant vide EX.P1 and considering the price list placed on record vide EXs.P2 and P3 are determined the compensation by enhancing the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-as against Rs.1,42,000/- determined by the Reference Court. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, claimant is before this Court on following grounds - - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 • The impugned judgments and awards passed by the courts below highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. • The market value determined by the reference court and lower appellate court are contrary to the facts and not based on relevant material and hence the same are liable to be set aside and the market value of the Appellant land be determined on the basis of the facts and material on record. • The courts below without any reason have awarded Rs. 1,42,000/- per acre and Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre without appreciating the potentiality of the land in question and hence the impugned judgment which is illegal and unsustainable, • The reference court passed the judgment in LAC No. 74/2014 and connected cases subsequent to the impugned judgment where in market value has been determined at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre for the land of Kengatti village which is same village of the appellant land. The appellant is also entitled similar compensation for his land. • The method adopted by the reference court for determination of market value of the Appellant land is contrary to the well-established rule of law and provisions of the LA Act, which is not sustainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 • The court below without discussing all the material evidence on record and without taking into consideration of evidence of PW-1 and without taking into consideration of various documents marked before the court on an unsustainable ground, without any basis, in an arbitrary manner has awarded meager compensation which is illegal and contrary to Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. • It is submitted that the reference court ought to have determined market value of the land in question at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre. • It is submitted that the lower appellate court has awarded compensation at Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre based on capitalization method. However the judgment passed in neighboring land at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre has not been placed as the appellant was not aware. Hence the appellant is also entitled the similar compensation for the land in question. • It is submitted that the reference court and also lower appellate court has failed to follow the ratio led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981, wherein it has been held that it would be unfair to discriminate between land owner to pay more to some and less to others when purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar though lying in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 different villages. The reference court awarded Rs. 10,80,000/- in LAC 74/2014 and Rs. 1,42,000/- per acre to the land of the appellant, which is illegal and unsustainable." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that Reference Court as well as the first appellate Court have not properly determined the compensation for the acquired land including the settled principles of law and both the courts wrongly determined the quantum of compensation for the acquired land by applying the capitalization method and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 8. He would also contend that in similar set of matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B Nagoji Rao vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others reported in (2017) 15 SCC 671, while considering the fixing of compensation, quality of land is to be taken into consideration by the Court and has held in paragraphs 5 to 7 as under : - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 " 5. The contention raised by the appellants is that the land value should depend upon the quality of the land and not based on the crop which has been grown in the land at the time of Section 4(1) notification. To put it in clearer terms, in the case of the appellants there is no dispute that at the time of the notification they were growing sugarcane but in the adjacent land, arecanut trees have been cultivated. In the case of lands cultivated with arecanut trees compensation granted is Rs. 10.08 Lacs per acre, whereas in the case of sugarcane the land value granted to the appellants is Rs. 2.38 Lacs per acre and in the case of some other sugarcane fields, it is Rs. 2.65 Lacs per acre. Our attention has been drawn on this aspect in respect of the adjacent land, as reflected in the order passed by a coordinate Bench. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents it is not as if in all the adjacent lands arecanut have been grown. It is also submitted that in some adjacent lands it is sugarcane and in some it is arecanut Be that as it may, as we have already referred to the above factual position of the adjacent land and particularly the evidence regarding the quality of soil not available before us, which requires verification on the basis of evidence adduced before the Reference - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 Court. As the records are available with the High Court, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration on the above aspect. In the process of such inquiry, if the High Court comes to a conclusion that the quality of the land of the appellants is that of the lands where arecanut trees have been grown, needless to say they will be entitled to similar treatment in the matter of compensation. What is material is the quality of the land and it does not necessarily depend on the crops grown at a particular time or season. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments and remit the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to both the sides to take all available contentions and refer to whatever materials and judgments in the case of adjacent lands for the purpose of establishing their point." 9. It is the further case of the appellant that based on the order passed in the case of Nagoji Rao, a Division Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the principles stated in Nagoji Rao's case and has remitted the Miscellaneous First Appeal to the Reference Court for re- determining the compensation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 10. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant sought for remitting the matter to the Reference Court for placing fresh evidence on record. 11. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposes the appeal grounds by contending that the material evidence placed on record has been taken into consideration by the Reference Court in detail and based on the material documents placed on record, re-determined the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,42,000/- which has been further re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the first appellate Court with prudence and re-determined the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- which is just and proper. Therefore no further indulgence need to be shown in determining the appropriate market value and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of record, it is crystal clear that material evidence placed on record by the claimant shows - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 that he was growing sugar cane, maize, cotton and vegetables. 14. In the case on hand, acquisition of the land for the Upper Thunga project is not in dispute so also the extent of land. In the cross examination of PW.1, he clearly admitted that he has grown sugarcane and he had an agreement with the Bhadra Sugar Factory and sugarcane yields from the lands was to the tune of 70 tonne per year. It is also elicited that per tonne the rate of sugarcane was Rs.1,500/- but to establish that he had grown sugarcane and he has supplied the same to the sugar factory, no material evidence is placed on record. 15. On the contrary, the price list that has been filed vide EXs.P2 and P3 is taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge and has determined the market value in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- based on the crop that were grown were that of maize and cotton and vegetables. 16. Under such circumstances, non-granting the compensation for the sugarcane crop is just and proper. It - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 is pertinent to note that even though the claimant has deposed before the Court that he was growing 3 crops in a year, if sugarcane is grown, which is minimum 13 months crop, no other crop could have been grown. In the absence of any documentary evidence that is placed on record that the claimant has grown sugarcane, the learned Judge in the first appellate Court re-determining the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- based on the yield of maize and cotton is just and proper. 17. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the nature of the soil and fertility of the land acquired while determining the compensation. However, if a claimant has approached the Reference Court to determine the quantum of compensation voluntarily based on the capitalization method, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagoji Rao would not be made applicable for the simple reason that the claimant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 wanted is market value to be determined based on the capitalization method and not on any other method. 18. Further, the Division Bench of this Court remitting the matter to the Reference Court is based on the principles of law enunciated in Nagoji Rao where the claimant did not seek the determination of quantum of compensation by capitalization method. 19. In the case on hand, claimant having sought for the grant of compensation based on the capitalization method and placed material evidence on record, the Reference Court and the learned Judge in the first appellate Court adopted the same method, especially in re- determination of the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- by the first appellate Court as against Rs.1,42,000/- determined by the Reference Court does not call for any further interference. 20. Thus, the appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed,. hence, the following - - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023 ORDER The appeal is merit less and the same is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal on merits, I.A.2/2023 would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK