- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.231 OF 2017 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU. 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER EDUCATION DEPT KADUR KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT. 4. CHIEF SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKAMANGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. HEMALATHA V., AGA) AND: 1. SRI DODDAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 R/AT KANNAGONDANHALLY VILLAGE, TANGALI POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants, assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016 in R.A.No.49/2015 on the file of Prl. District Judge at Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2015 in O.S.No.18/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred with reference to their status before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.75 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas, situate at Tangali Village, Kadur Taluk. The defendant No.3 constructed a school building in the year 1970-71 without initiating acquisition proceedings and thereafter, plaintiff has arrived at the conclusion that the land is not suitable for cultivation and accordingly, plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar seeking alternative land in lieu of the schedule land taken by the respondent. However, the same was rejected. The plaintiff has made one more application to the defendant - Government, seeking alternative land and accordingly, the defendant - Government has accorded permission to grant alternative land to the extent of 5 acres of land in the name of the plaintiff on 01.06.1993 as per the Land Grant Rules. It is also stated that defendant No.2, after conducting spot inspection, granted 2 acres of land with certain conditions as per letter dated 23/24.02.1995. Thereafter, the defendants have revoked the said grant made in favour of the plaintiff. It is also stated in the plaint that defendants have taken the land belonging to the plaintiff without due process of law and compensation has not been paid to the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 filed W.P.No.21925/1998 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 03.01.2003, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to defendant No.2 with a direction to hold a detailed enquiry after issuing notice to the plaintiff and to assess the damages suffered by the plaintiff for wrongful deprivation of land of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, defendant No.2 has determined crop damages for the period of 21 years at Rs.54,327/- and awarded interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff has given an application to the defendant No.2 to fix compensation amount of Rs.2,587/- per gunta for 21 years. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 has again wrongly calculated the compensation amount payable to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.18/2014 seeking compensation in respect of the land being utilised by the defendants for the purpose of school building. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish his case, plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The defendants examined one of the defendants as D.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.D1 to D5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.07.2015, decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,51,924/- from defendant No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.49/2015, before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. 6. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2015 in O.S.No.18/2014. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 7. I have heard Smt. Hemalatha V., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Smt. Hemalatha V., learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that an error crept in the determination of compensation on account of mis-calculation made by defendant No.2 and same has been accepted by both the Courts below and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. N. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, would indicate that the land belonging to the plaintiff has been utilised by the defendant - authorities for the purpose of construction of school building. It is also forthcoming that there is no acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the subject land and on the other hand, the defendants have admitted about the construction of the school building in the land belonging to the plaintiff. It is also to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30085 RSA No. 231 of 2017 noted that this Court in W.P.21925/1998, disposed of on 03.01.2023, directed the defendant No.2 to determine the compensation that may be made good to the plaintiff with respect to the damage caused to the crop for a period of 21 years. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Trial Court with regard to quantification of damage caused to the plaintiff as just and proper, I am of the opinion that, no interference of this Court is called for in this appeal. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 11. In that view of the matter, appellants herein have not made out a case for formation of substantial question of law as required under S.100 of CPC. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50