- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100076 OF 2014 (LA) BETWEEN: JAMBALA MOOKAPPA S/O JAMPALA CHANNAYYA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDIKERI KAMALAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. … APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSPET. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.R. DIVISION, HOSPET. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KESHAVARADDI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2014, PASSED IN MISC. APPEAL NO.27/2011, ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSPETE, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.02/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSPETE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 13.01.2014 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hospete, in Misc. Appeal No.27/2011 and the judgment and award dated 06.09.2011, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospete, in LAC No.2/2007, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. It is stated that the claimant is owner of the land bearing Sy.No.865/(p) measuring 06 acres 08 annas, situated at Kamalapur village in Hospete taluk, which is acquired for the purpose of construction of lake, vide preliminary notification dated 13.11.2000 and final notification dated 01.03.2001. The Special Land - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has determined the compensation at Rs.38,000/- per acre. 3. Upon reference, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred appeal before the District Court in Misc. Appeal No.27/2011. But the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. Therefore, the claimant has preferred the present second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submitted that to the adjacent land which is Sy.No.866/B and Sy.No.866/A2 at Kamalapur village, acquired for the very same purpose for formation of lake, the compensation awarded is Rs.2,40,000/- per acre and it is not challenged and has attained finality. Therefore, submitted, in this case the land bearing Sy.No.865/(p) situated at Kamalapur village acquired for the very same purpose for formation of lake has been awarded at the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre which causes discrimination on the two land owners who were situated on the same pedestal. Thus, prays to enhance the compensation in this case as that of the award passed in LAC No.26/2009. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent justified the judgment and award passed by the reference Court and the First Appellate Court by saying that this is the dry land and the land in the other case is wet land. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Upon considering the lands acquired, adjacent land of the claimant is Sy.No.866/B and Sy.No.866/A2 situated at Kamalapur village which are adjacent to the claimant’s land in LAC No.26/2009 in respect of the above said lands compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. The reference Court has committed error though the claimants land is adjacent to the above stated land but there is no evidence that crop was grown. Hence considered it as a dry land. Just - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 because crop was not grown, or documentary evidence is not shown that does not mean that the nature of land is dry land when two lands are adjacent to each other. Therefore, in what way the land owners in Sy.No.866/B and 866/A2 obtained amount of compensation in the same way the claimant herein is also entitled since this land is similarly situated as that of the land in LAC No.26/2009. Therefore, the land owners, whose land is situated at the same pedestal and acquired for the very same project, hence on the ground of parity, are also entitled for the same amount of compensation. 7. In the present case preliminary notification is dated 13.11.2000 and in LAC No.26/2009, the preliminary notification is dated 20.12.1999 and therefore there is no much time gap in issuance of notifications in these two cases. Therefore, on parity, the claimant herein is also entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8587 MSA No. 100076 of 2014 excluding interest for the delay in filing the appeal, in case if any. The appeal stands allowed accordingly, with costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RHR-para 1 and 2. MRK-para 3 to end. CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 106