- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7796 OF 2016 (LAC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3246 OF 2016 (LAC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3247 OF 2016 (LAC) IN MFA No. 7796/2016 BETWEEN: SRI. ARUN KUMAR S H S/O HALADAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT HALADAMMA NILAYA 7TH CROSS, SHARAVATHI NAGARA SHIVAMOGA CITY, SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.N.N.K. UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIMOGA CITY, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA FOR R1; SRI B. R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - - - THIS MFA FILED IS U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.11.2010 PASSED IN LAC.NO.99/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 3246/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI P V CHANNABASAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 2. P. V. KARIBASAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MELINAHANASAVADI, HANASAVADI POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIMOGA CITY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B R PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.11/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 3247/2016 BETWEEN: SRI SYED ABDUL BASHEER S/O SYED BASHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOPASHETTIKOPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT KNNL, SHIMOGA CITY, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B R PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2007 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 PASSED ON LAC NO.6/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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) MFA No.7796/2016 is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.11.2010 passed in LAC.No.99/2003 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga. MFA No.3246/2016 is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.10.2010 passed in LAC.No.11/2001 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga. MFA No.3247/2016 is filed by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 21.04.2007 passed in LAC.No.6/2001 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and C.J.M., Shivamogga. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 2. The Trial Court is referred hereinafter as 'the Reference Court', the appellants as claimants and the respondent as the respondent for the purpose of convenience. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of Upper Tunga project. The land of the claimant in LAC No.99/2003 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.36 of Basavanaganguru Village, Shivamogga Taluk, was acquired under the notification dated 11.09.1997 and award came to be passed on 23.07.2002. The lands of the claimants in LAC No.11/2001 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.23/2 and 5 guntas in Sy.No.22/3 of Gopashettikoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk, were acquired for the same purpose under the preliminary notification dated 19.03.1997 and award came to be passed on 14.07.2000. The land of the claimant in LAC No.6/2001 measuring 10 guntas in Sy.No.29/1 of Gopashettikoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk, was acquired for the same purpose under the preliminary notification dated 19.03.1997. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre, Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, respectively. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal. 4. The claimant in LAC No.99/2003 examined one Siddeshappa as PW-1 who was the claimant in the connected LAC and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. In LAC No.11/2001, claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 but no documents were marked and the respondents did not adduce any evidence. In LAC No.6/2001, claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23. The respondents examined RW-1. The Reference Court, on analyzing the evidence on record has re- determined the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre, Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, respectively with all statutory benefits and interest. Challenging the same, the claimants are in appeal seeking for higher compensation. 5. Sri.Sangamesh G.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue with regard to the market value has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 ACQUISITION OFFICER, UTP, SHIMOGA AND ANOTHER1. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal in terms of the said judgment. 6. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that though the acquisition is for the same project, the Court is required to consider the evidence on record and determine the market value. It is submitted that the Reference Court, on available evidence has rightly determined the market value which does not call for any interference. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of all the appeals and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 1 MFA No.8200/15 c/w MFA No.5782/15 dt. 13.1.20 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 8. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is: "Whether the impugned judgments and awards of the Reference Court call for any interference?" 9. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons: a) The parties to the proceedings does not dispute that land of claimant in LAC No.99/2003 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.36 of Basavanaganguru Village, Shivamogga Taluk, was acquired under the notification dated 11.09.1997 and award came to be passed on 23.07.2002, the lands of the claimants in LAC No.11/2001 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.23/2 and 5 guntas in Sy.No.22/3 of Gopashettikoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk, were acquired for the same purpose under the preliminary notification dated 19.03.1997 and award came to be passed on 14.07.2000 and the land of the claimant in LAC No.6/2001 measuring 10 guntas in Sy.No.29/1 of Gopashettikoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk, was acquired for the same purpose under the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 preliminary notification dated 19.03.1997. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre, Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, respectively. b) It is also not in dispute that the acquisition of the lands covered under these appeals were for the purpose of Upper Tunga project and the preliminary notification is of the year 1997. The lands covered under these appeals are of Basavanaganguru Village and Gopashettikoppa Village of Shivamogga Taluk, which are very near and the potentiality of the lands are very similar. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ESHWARAPPA, referred supra, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the purpose of the acquisition is same and the lands are identical and similar though lying in different village, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more compensation to the same land owners and less compensation to others. We have perused the observations of the co-ordinate Bench and noticed that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 the acquisition in the said proceedings are for the same project under the same notification of Basavanaganguru Village and we are of the view that similar benefit is required to be granted to the land losers in these appeals. We are in full agreement with the reasoning adopted by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision. Considering the evidence on record in these appeals, we are of the view that the appellants are also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per sq. ft. with statutory benefits and interest as per law. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals of the claimants are allowed with costs. The market value of the lands in question is re- determined at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. The claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits and interest as per law except for the delayed period. 11. The appellant in MFA No.7796/2016 is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 2700 days. The appellants in MFA No.3246/2016 is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 1508 days. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42922-DB MFA No. 7796 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3246 of 2016 MFA No. 3247 of 2016 The appellant in MFA No.3247/2016 is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 2978 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2