- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100121 OF 2022 (LA) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM, G.R.B.C. KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. … APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM, HIDAKAL-591 107. 2. SRI BHIMAPPA S/O RAMAPPA RAJAPUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. SRI MAHADEV S/O HANAMANTH HALLUR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. SRI BASAVANATAPPA S/O GURUPADAPPA YALIGAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 4. SMT. BASAVVA W/O BASAVANTAPPA YALIGAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; R3 – NOTICE SERVED.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2020, PASSED IN LAC APPEAL NO.158/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK AND CONFIRM THE AWARD DATED 25.04.2015 PASSED IN L.A.C.NO.264/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, AT GOKAK AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT 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 beneficiary Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL), challenging the judgment and award dated 07.11.2020, passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, in LAC Appeal No.158/2019 (First Appellate Court), thereby the First Appellate Court has determined the compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- per acre in case of wet land and Rs.2,94,000/- per acre in case of dry lands. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 2. Heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the trial Court records and the appeal papers. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants are owners of the agricultural land bearing No.714/1, 714/2, 714/3+4+5/A, 714/3+4+5B and 714/6 of Koujalagi (Budani Bujark) village and 01 acre 12 guntas of land is acquired for the purpose of Sri Rameshwar Lift Irrigation Project under the preliminary notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in Gazette on 30.04.2009 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation of Rs.40,068/- per acre. On reference, the reference Court has dismissed the reference application and confirmed the market value determined by the SLAO. Being aggrieved by this, the claimant has preferred appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The First Appellate Court has re-determined the compensation and enhanced to Rs.4,40,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.2,94,000/- per acre for dry lands. Questioning this, the beneficiary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 Karnataka Neeravavi Nigam Limited (KNNL) has preferred this second appeal by raising various grounds. 4. The following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this appeal. i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the market value determined by the First Appellate Court at Rs.4,40,000/- per acre for wet land requires any interference by this Court? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant beneficiary proves that the lands acquired are dry lands and therefore the market value determined by the First Appellate Court is not correct? 5. It is not disputed that the respondents/claimants are owners of the lands acquired for the project of Sri Rameshwar Lift Irrigation Project. The preliminary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 notification is published in a Gazette on 30.04.2009. The SLAO has determined the compensation of Rs.40,068/- per acre. The question to be considered in the present appeal is whether the lands acquired were wet lands or dry lands. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent/claimant that the land is not dry land, but it is wet and he places reliance on Ex.P.4. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant/beneficiary argued that it is not wet land, but it is dry land. Both are placing reliance on the record of rights produced respectively as Ex.P.4 and Ex.R.1 to R.5. The lands acquired are Sy.No.714/1, 714/2, 714/3+4+5/A, 714/3+4+5B and 714/6 of Koujalagi (Budani Bujark) village. Ex.P.4 is the RTC extract produced by the claimants, which proves the fact that the land is wet land showing the cultivation of crop sugarcane, groundnut, maize and sunflower. But there is no documentary evidence to prove that the other lands are wet lands. Ex.R.1 to R.5 are the RTC extracts which are pertaining to Sy.No.714/1, but there is no mentioning about what type of the land it is, what are the crops grown, etc., except showing that the claimants - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 are the owners of the land. Therefore, only the land bearing Sy.No.714/2 is proved to be the wet land and in the absence of evidence to prove that other lands are wet land, they are to be considered as dry land at minimum level. 7. The First appellate Court has committed error in observing that since the land bearing Sy.No.714/2 is wet land has sources of water shown as ‘Well’, then there is every possibility of irrigating the land bearing Sy.No.714/1 and other lands also. Whether the land is dry or wet land, there could not be presumption, but there must be evidence to withdraw presumption; proving of land is not an abstract thing. When the claimant is able to produce RTC extract pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.714/2, then why the claimant has not produced the RTC extracts pertaining to the other lands proving that the other lands are wet lands. Therefore, it is proved that only the land bearing Sy.No.714/2 is wet land and other lands are considered as dry lands. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 8. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of price list of sugarcane crop from the year 2005-06 to 2012-13. The claimant’s lands were acquired in the year 2010 as above discussed. As per Ex.P.10, the price for sugarcane is Rs.2,200/- per tonne during the year 2009-10. Therefore, this price is to be considered for determination of market value of the land. If 50% of the same is deducted towards cultivation cost, then it would be Rs.1,100/- per tonne. If 40 tonnes of sugarcane is considered per year, then the yield must be Rs.44,000/- per year and if we adopt the multiplier 10 as per principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and others, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708, Rs.4,40,000/- per acre for wet land is rightly considered by the First Appellate Court so far as the land in Sy.No.714/2 is concerned. 9. The First Appellate Court, only on a preliminary basis, has also held that for the land bearing Sy.No.714/1, the market value of Rs.4,40,000/- per acre, is not correct. As there is no evidence to prove that the land bearing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 Sy.No.714/1 is a wet land, then obviously it can be considered as dry land. Also, for other lands, there is no evidence to prove that other lands are wet lands. Hence, the First Appellate Court is correct in holding that other lands are dry lands. For dry lands, the market value is determined at Rs.2,94,000/- per acre, which is found to be correct. For determining compensation for dry land, 1/3rd of compensation awarded to the wet land shall be deducted, then it comes to Rs.2,93,334/- per acre. Accordingly, it is round off to Rs.2,94,000/- per acre. Therefore, the reference Court has committed a complete error in dismissing reference application. Therefore, the First Appellate Court is correct in enhancing the market value of lands. 10. Hence, as discussed above, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- per acre for wet land bearing Sy.No.714/2 and Rs.2,94,000/- per acre for other lands. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the reference Court is set aside. The judgment and award passed by the First Appellate Court is modified to the extent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 above stated. Accordingly, I answer substantial question of law No.(i) in the ‘affirmative’ and No.(ii) in the ‘negative’. 11. There is a delay of four years in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Court by the claimants. Though for determining market value of the land, appeal is entertained and delay is condoned, but the claimants are not entitled to interest for delayed period of four years in preferring appeal before the First Appellate Court, questioning the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii) The judgment and award passed in LAC Appeal No.158/2019 on the file of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, is modified holding that the market value of land - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8653 MSA No. 100121 of 2022 bearing Sy.No.714/2 is confirmed as Rs.4,40,000/- per acre for wet land. The market value for dry land and other remaining lands as determined by the First Appellate Court of Rs.2,94,000/- per acre, is confirmed excluding the land bearing Sy.No.714/1. iii) The claimants are entitled for statutory benefits and costs denying interest for the period of four years in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Court. iv) The appellant is directed to deposit amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. v) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 8. PMP-para 9 to end. CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 127