- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2002/2024 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM UPPER TUNGA PROJECT DIVISION SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV.,) AND: SMT. GOURAMMA DEAD BY LR'S. 1. RAMASVAMY S/O SURYANARAYAN RAO R/O. RANGANATH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS BASAVANAGUDI SHIVAMOGGA. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT BALARAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.4/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE PASSED IN REFERENCE LAC NO.4/2022 PASSED BY HON'BLE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA, DATED 01.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant - The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, Upper Thunga Project Division, Sagar Road, Shivamogga, challenging the judgment and award dated 01.08.2023 passed in LAC No.04/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. 2. Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contends that the Reference Court has committed a serious error in re-determining the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 market value of the land at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Reference Court has mechanically relied solely on its earlier decisions in LAC Nos.02 and 07/2001, without examining whether the lands involved therein were comparable in nature, location or potential. It is submitted that a judgment rendered in other cases, cannot constitute substantive evidence and cannot by itself form the basis for enhancement of compensation. It is further submitted that in the absence of cogent and independent evidence adduced by the claimant to establish the prevailing market value, the reference Court was wholly unjustified in enhancing the compensation. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside and accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, Sri Guruprasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant submits that the acquisition of the subject land is for the purpose of construction of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 channel of the Upper Thunga Project and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of A. Suresh Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another1 has considered all the aspects and determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Reference Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment and re-determined the market value which is incorrect and seeks to allow the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: 1 MFA.No.4641/2014 and connected matters dt:25.02.2020 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 6. The material available on record indicate that the claimant's land measuring 39 guntas in Sy.No.24/4 situated at Gopishettikoppa Village, Shivamogga, was acquired for the purpose of construction of channel of Upper Thunga Project by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 19.03.1997 in the village chavadi and the Land Acquisition Officer, considering the nature of the land, determined the market value at Rs.66,000/- per acre, and passed the award on 30.06.2000. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought for reference under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the reference Court has re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. 7. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that the Co-ordinate Bench of this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 Court in the case of A. Suresh referred supra has already considered all relevant aspects and has re-determined the market value of similarly situated lands at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. It is also an admitted fact that in the said case as well as in the present case, the preliminary notification was issued on the same date, i.e., 19.03.1997, and the acquisition of lands was for the same project and the same public purpose. It is well settled that, where acquisitions arise out of the same notification and relate to similarly situated lands, uniformity in determination of compensation is required to be maintained. The appellant has not placed any material or contra evidence on record to show that the land involved in the present case is dissimilar or to fix the lesser market value. In such circumstances, the market value determined by the Reference Court does not call for any interference and the appeal is devoid of merits. 8. In view of the same, this appeal is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54158-DB M.F.A. No.2002/2024 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28