- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2022 (LA) BETWEEN: KALAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A BADENAHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572219 TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMKUR - 572 101 2. CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR - 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SODI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.309/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN LAC.NO.514/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022 PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT., THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Claimant being the appellant herein is impugning the judgment and award dated 11.06.2015 passed in LAC No.514/2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and the judgment and award dated 23.10.2020 passed in RA No.309/2018 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'). 2. Heard Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Gopal Kirshna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1 situated at Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the appellant came to be acquired by issuing the preliminary Notification dated 25.06.2004, final Notification dated 20.10.2005 and the possession was also taken over. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation in respect of the land and the trees standing therein. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants sought for reference of dispute. Accordingly, the Trial Court in LAC No.514/2010 held an enquiry. 4. The claimant examined himself as PW1, got marked Exs.P1 to 10 in support of his contention. Taking into consideration all these materials on record, it has awarded compensation of Rs.16,540 towards the value of 4 guntas of land, Rs.30,000/- towards value of two big hebbevu trees, Rs.7,000/- towards value of 7 mango saplings , Rs.1,000/- towards nugge sapling, Rs.6,000/- towards the value of 3 neem trees and Rs.68,040/- towards the value of 9 coconut trees. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimant has preferred appeal in RA No.309/2018. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022 5. The First Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and modified the award passed by the Trial Court enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,000/- per Mango trees and in respect of 7 such mango trees. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court. 6. The First Appellate Court referring to the written arguments submitted by the appellant noted that, appellant is not seeking enhancement in respect of the land but he is seeking enhancement of compensation only in respect of the trees. Therefore, it proceeded to consider the contention of the claimant and felt necessary to enhance the compensation in respect of 7 mango trees standing in the land that was acquired. Even though the appellant is challenging the impugned judgment, now he cannot turn around and contend that even the compensation in respect of the land acquired is to be enhanced. He is in fact estopped from taking such contentions. 7. With regard to existence of various trees referred to by the appellant and with regard to the value of the same, no materials are placed before the Court to seek enhancement. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022 the absence of any materials to support the contention taken by the appellant, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this Judgment. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25