- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3140/2015 (LAC) BETWEEN: VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. 1 RANGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. JANARDHAN GOWDA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. DYAVE GOWDA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 4. MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. ECHALAHALLI VILLAGE KANDLI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DIST-571201. [AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD:21.11.2025] …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVIOR PLANNING - 2 (H.R.P-II), HASSAN. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM SURFACE WATER DATA CENTRE BUILDING ANANDRAO CIRCLE BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.69/11 FROM THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN ON 09.01.2013 IN LAC NO.69/11 THEREBY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2014 passed in LAC.No.69/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan. 2. The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the Reference Court', the appellants as claimants and the respondents as the respondents for the purpose of convenience. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimants land in Sy.Nos.71, 6, 74/5, 77/1, 77/2 and 76/1 measuring 04 guntas, 26 guntas, 10 guntas, 03 guntas, 01 guntas and 05 guntas respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal. 4. Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court has not considered the pleading and evidence in its proper prospective and awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the similarly placed land losers have got higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to reconsider the evidence on record by allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and was not arrayed as a party before the Reference Court. Hence, it would be appropriate to implead respondent No.2 before the Reference Court by permitting him to adduce evidence. He seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 with a direction to permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market value of the land in question. It is further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER1 had remanded the matter back. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants fairly concedes to remand the matter to the Reference Court. 6. Smt.Manjunath Rayappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 1 MFA No.8077/2016 dated 25.09.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 9. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons: a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the lands in Sy.Nos.71, 6, 74/5, 77/1, 77/2 and 76/1 measuring 04 guntas, 26 guntas, 10 guntas, 03 guntas, 01 guntas and 05 guntas respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 b) The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants seeks for enhancement of the market value by re-appreciating the evidence on record by contending that the similarly placed land losers have received higher compensation. However, no judgment in support of his contention is produced. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is without arraying the beneficiary of the acquisition and he seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court by permitting them to adduce evidence. Considering the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. Cauvery Neeravari Nigam was not a party before the Reference Court, who is required to satisfy the award, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to reconsider the matter after providing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed-in-part with costs. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 16.01.2014 passed in LAC.No.69/2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to reconsider the reference petition on merits and in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence. It is needless to observe that respondent No.2 shall be impleaded as a party before the Reference Court. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the market value of the land in question. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 16.12.2025. The Registry shall refund the eligible Court fee. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48338-DB M.F.A. No.3140/2015 Consequently, the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17