- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10459 OF 2018 (LAC) BETWEEN: JAVARAMMA W/O GOPALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER LOKESH, S/O GOPALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENT OF KATTAYA KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-II, HASSAN-573 201 HASSAN DISTRICT. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 3. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION BELUR, HASSAN DIVISION-573 201. (R2 AND R3 ARE AMMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.11.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R K, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC.NO. 475/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND 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 claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.04.2015 passed in LAC No.475/2014 by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 06 guntas in Sy.No.314/3 and 19 guntas in Sy.No.325/4 situated at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal. 4. Sri. Chetan B., learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in fixing the market value without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of KUPPEGOWDA v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & Others1 has already enhanced the market value of similar lands acquired for the very same Yagachi Reservoir Project at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The said lands are situated in the same village and were acquired under a common scheme. Hence, the appellant is also entitled to similar compensation to ensure parity and fairness. He therefore prays for re- determination of the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. 5. Per contra, Sri. B.R. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Smt. Prathibha R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, support the award of the Reference Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3, being the beneficiary of the acquisition, was not a party before the Reference Court 1 MFA.NO.10457.2018 C/W MFA.NO.10456.2018 dtd:05.02.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 and ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence. It is further contended that the claimant to independently prove the market value of his land and cannot solely rely on judgments rendered in other cases. However, the learned AGA fairly submits that the earlier judgments relied upon by the claimant do arise from the same common judgment and pertain to the same locality and project, but urges that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is reasonable and does not warrant interference. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, the learned AGA, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeals is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court call for any interference?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 8. The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the claimant's lands measuring 06 guntas in Sy.No.314/3 and 19 guntas in Sy.No.325/4 situated at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The preliminary notification was issued on 30.12.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court re- determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that uniformity and parity in awarding compensation must be maintained for lands of similar character acquired for the same public purpose. When the lands are comparable in situation, fertility, and potential use, and when the acquisition forms part of the same project, it would be inequitable to grant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 higher compensation to one landowner and lesser compensation to another. Such unequal treatment would amount to discrimination and defeat the object of providing just compensation under the Act. 10. In the present case, the lands acquired from the claimant are adjacent to or in close proximity with those considered in Kuppegowda’s case referred supra and both the lands are similar and identical in nature and acquired for the same Yagachi Reservoir Project. Though the preliminary notification in the present case was issued in 2008, while the notification in aforesaid case was issued in 2010, the nature, potentiality and market conditions are substantially identical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that once the lands are acquired under the same scheme or for the same project, and the lands are similar in fertility, use, and location, the principle of parity requires that the market value be uniform to avoid arbitrary and unequal compensation. The difference in notification dates does not by itself justify - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 variation, unless there is a material showing significant change in the market trend. In the present case, no such material is forthcoming from the respondents. 11. We are also aware of the fact that the judgment in Kuppegowda’s case has attained finality, having not been challenged by the State or the beneficiary. The respondents having accepted the said determination cannot now be permitted to plead that the present case stands on a different footing or that the matter should be remanded for further evidence. The object of the Act being to provide fair and reasonable compensation, there is no justification for awarding a lesser amount to one landowner when another, similarly situated, has been paid a higher rate for identical lands. 12. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the market value fixed by the Reference Court deserves to be enhanced. When the lands are identical and acquired for the same project, it would be unfair and discriminatory - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 to fix a lower rate. Judicial discipline also demands consistency in the determination of compensation by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court. 13. Considering the fact that the land covered under this appeal and the land covered in aforesaid case are identical and similar, acquired for the same purpose, and it would be unfair to discriminate the land owners, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed by re-determining the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act. The Reference Court having fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta, the same is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits along with interest as per the Act. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45886-DB MFA No. 10459 of 2018 The market value of lands measuring 06 guntas in Sy.No.314/3 and 19 guntas in Sy.No.325/4 situated at Kattaya Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits as per law. The claimant is not entitled to the interest for the delay period of 1246 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27