- 1 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO.24117 OF 2012 (LAC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.21871 OF 2010 (LAC) IN MFA NO.24117/2012 BETWEEN 1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NAGAM LTD., REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MLBCC DIV. NO.2, NAVILUTEERTH, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE COMPANY SECRETARY, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITA, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-1. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. M. TONNE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. VEERAPPA S/O. GADIGEPPA MATTIKOPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1A. SMT. KASTUREVVA W/O. VEERAPPA MATTIKOPPA, AGE 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PARASAGAD HOSUR, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 1B. MAHANTESH S/O. VEERAPPA MATTIKOPPA, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. PARASAGAD HOSUR, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT-II, SAUNDATTI, NOW AT OPP. HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, U.B. HILLS, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) & R1(B); SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, HCGP FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.82/2000, DATED 15-02-2010 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI IN LAC NO.82/2000, DATED 15-02-2010, AWARDING DAMAGES OF RS.1,00,000/- AND SEVERANCE ALLOWANCE AT RS.50,000/- ALONGWITH STATUTORY BENEFITS. IN MFA NO 21871 OF 2010 BETWEEN 1. VEERAPPA S/O. GADIGEPPA MATTIKOPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1A. SMT. KASTUREVVA W/O. VEERAPPA MATTIKOPPA, AGE 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, PARASAGAD HOSUR, TQ. SABVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. - 3 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 1B. MAHANTESH S/O. VEERAPPA MATTIKOPPA, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, AT. PARASAGAD HOSUR, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT, SOUNDATTI. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MLBC, SUB-DIVISION, NO.2, NAVILTHIRTHA, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGUAM. 3. COMPANY SECRETARY, KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITA, COFFEE BOARD, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S. M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHRIKANT J. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15-02-2010 PASSED IN LAC.NO.82/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) SAUNDATTI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. These appeals arise out of judgment and award passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti in LAC No.82 of 2000 dated 15.02.2010. 2. MFA No.24117 of 2012 is filed by KNNL (respondent Nos.2 & 3 before the Reference Court); MFA No.21871 of 2010 is filed by claimant in LAC No.82 of 2000. 3. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award passed in LAC No.82 of 2000 and hence both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 4. Facts in brief of the case of both the parties are as under: It is a case of the claimant, that he is the owner of the property bearing Block No.397/3+6 of Hosur village in Saundatti Taluk, totally measuring 11 acres and 20 guntas. Respondent No.3 intended to acquire 1 acre 10 guntas and 3 guntas in the said land referred above for the purpose of irrigation project. A notification was issued, under Section - 5 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act, 1894”), and it was published on 24.09.1998 and thereafter final notification was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. Respondent No.3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”) passed an award bearing No.LAQSR 43/97 dated 29.04.2000. The SLAO has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.28,400/- per acre along with Rs.20,904/- for a bore well, Rs.21,476/- for a pump set house and Rs.5,05,983/- for a well. Dissatisfied by the said award, the claimant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 to refer the matter to the Civil Court for assessment of market value. 5. The claimant filed application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for determination of the market value of the land; damage and severance allowance. The said application was referred to the Court and the Civil Court registered it as LAC No.108 of 2000. The Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 08.08.2002 enhanced market value of the land at rate of Rs.96,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. - 6 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 6. The second reference application filed by the claimant is to assess the damages and severance allowances, it was sent to the Civil Court, and that was registered in LAC No. 82/2000 i.e., the present case, wherein the claimant has contended that out of 1 acre 10 guntas and 3 guntas of the land acquired by the respondent No.3, a big open well is situated in 3 guntas of land. It was capable of irrigating entire property in Sy.No.397 totally measuring 37 acres and 4 guntas, in addition to providing water facility to adjoining Block No.414 measuring 10 acre 15 guntas. Due to acquisition of the said well, the remaining portion of the property in Block No.397/3+6 was severed from the acquired portion of the land. The remaining portion has no source of water for agriculture, and it became a dry land, which resulted in considerable reduction in the price of the remaining portion of the land. Therefore, he sought for damages and severance allowance amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- per year. 7. It is also claimed in the reference application that the SLAO has not awarded other statutory benefits, as - 7 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 provided under the Act, 1894 and sought for awarding the same. He also sought for severance allowance at the rate of 40% of the market value of the property belonging to the claimant, acquired under the above said notification. 8. The respondents filed objection, and they contended that all the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration at the time of passing the award by the SLAO and just and reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded and it does not call for any interference by this Court and claimants are not entitled for enhancement of the compensation. 9. From the trial Court records, it appears that, earlier the said reference application was considered and decided by the judgment and award dated 21.02.2004 and that was challenged by appellant herein before this Court in W.P.No.3168 of 2005 (LAC-RES) on the ground that the appellant was not made as a party, though it is a beneficiary of the acquisition of the land, and it was not heard before passing of the award. The said writ petition - 8 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 was allowed by order dated 03.08.2005 and the matter was sent back to the Reference Court to implead KNNL as a party and dispose off the matter in accordance with the law. 10. The matter was heard afresh and the claimant examined 1 witness as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. Respondents examined 2 witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and marked 25 documents as Exs.R1 to R25. 11. After hearing both the parties and appreciating materials available on record, the Reference Court by impugned judgment and award dated 15.02.2010 partly allowed the reference application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894 and assessed the damages at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- and severance allowance as Rs.50,000/- and also ordered that respondents are liable to pay all the statutory benefits available under the Act, 1894. 12. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court, claimant filed appeal in MFA No.21871 of 2010 and thereafter respondent- - 9 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited filed appeal in MFA No.24117 of 2012. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides and anxiously considered the trial Court records. 14. There is no dispute that two reference applications were filed by the claimant claiming compensation; which is already stated above one is for determination of the market value of the land and other factors situated in the said land; and second is for determination of damages and severance allowances i.e., the present reference application No.82 of 2000. It appears before reference Court same was contended and reference Court considering the same decided the damages and severance loss. It appears encashment of compensation of the well was not urged before reference court; still lot of materials were produced before reference Court to assess the compensation of the well. - 10 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 15. The trial Court has not decided value of the well, or re-considered the market value of the land acquired under the Notification. The trial Court in sum and substance decided the compensation to be paid to the claimant for damages as well as severance allowance of the acquired land from the remaining portion of the property. Therefore, the vehement contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited (for short, ‘KNNL’) that at the time of assessment of the market value of the land, it was considered as an irrigation land therefore once again awarding of the compensation by determining the market value of the well constructed or situated in the said acquired land, is not at all necessary and it is not permissible. 16. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy and others Vs.Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Unit-IV, LMD, Karimnagar, A.P. and others reported in (1994)6 SCC 456, has no much relevance for deciding the dispute in this case. - 11 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 17. The only question arises for determination is “whether damages and severance allowances awarded by the Reference Court needs enhancement?” 18. My findings on the above said question is partly affirmative for the following reasons. 19. It is the contention of the claim petitioner that after acquisition of property, wherein big size open well was situated, remaining portion of 10 acres of land in the said survey number has no source of water and it became a dry land. Its market value has been reduced tremendously and even the yield in the said land is very much affected. With these reasons, he prayed for damages and severance allowance. 20. He had examined himself as PW1. In the evidence, he has reiterated facts as the case. 21. It is his contention that after acquisition of the land wherein open well was situated, he has spent Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for digging up each borewell and he dug 4 borewells and he had also dug up an open - 12 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 well by spending more than Rs.1,50,000/-. He has spent more than Rs.66,000/- for laying down pipeline. He has not produced any document, receipt, voucher etc., for digging borewell or open well in his land. 22. He denied the suggestion that, that cannot be compensated. He was awarded compensation for acquisition as well. Claimant substituted water source of the well by digging open well as well as borewells. That cannot be reimbursed in this petition. 23. During the evidence, he has not stated about reduction in yield from the said land. He could have produced materials to show that after severance, he sustained loss of yielding from the remaining portion of the land, belonging to him. The photographs and certificate given by the Village Accountant in respect of open well are produced at Exs.P3 to P13. According to Ex.P3, the water available in the open well could irrigate an area of 10 to 15 acres. The said document did not support the contention of - 13 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 the claimant that the water available in the said, well could irrigate to an area of 37 acres. 24. Respondents examined two witnesses, RW1 & 2 to rebut the evidence of PW1. RWs.1 and 2 stated much about the well, its construction east etc. As already stated above, it is not the subject matter in the present land acquisition case. Therefore most part of the said evidence is not relevant to ascertain damages as well as severance allowance. 25. RTC of property is produced at Ex.R1 to R8. Total extent of land in Sy.No.397/3+6 is 11 acres 20 guntas standing on the name of claimant which is not in dispute. The respondents have also produced estimated value of the well, photographs of well etc., they are not of much importance to the present case since the said facts are not in dispute. 26. From the materials placed on record, it is proved by the claimant that due to acquisition of land portion of the land in Sy.No.397/3+6 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and - 14 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 3 guntas wherein open well is situated, there was no water source for cultivation of remaining portion of the land and it became dry. When the land was irrigated, definitely income would be more as well as its value would also be more compared to dry land. It is stated by the claimant that he dug up 4 borewells and 1 open well by spending few lakhs of rupees but the said fact is not proved by documentary evidence. Even if borewell and well is dug up, it may not get same quantity of water. It may be true that the said land is nearer to the submerged area by construction of irrigated project and ground water source may be rich. All these difficulties arose because of acquisition of important portion of said land wherein open well was situated. 27. Looking to the photographs produced by both the parties and evidence of both the parties, it appears to be big size well. The estimation produced by the respondents itself shows that claimants of the said well is 13.10 meters and its surrounding wall was constructed with sized stones. Water level was also around 6 meters. Therefore acquisition of that portion and severance of the - 15 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 said land into two portions quite naturally affects the market price of remaining portion of the land as well as water source for remaining portion of the land. Considering all these facts, reference Court award compensation which is on lower side and it needs enhancement. And claimant is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- for severance allowance, in all Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the reference Court. 28. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. Appeal in MFA No.24117/2012 is dismissed. ii. Appeal in MFA No.21871/2010 is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti in LAC No.82 of 2000 dated 15.02.2010 is modified. iii. The amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court towards damages and severance - 16 - MFA No.24117/2012 C/W. MFA No.21871/2010 allowance is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- with all the statutory benefit as ordered by the reference Court. iv. Draw award accordingly. v. Send copy of the judgment to the trial Court along with TCR. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Vnp-para 1 to 20 KGK-para 21 till end / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6