- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH 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. 3476 OF 2015 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O GOPASHETTIKOPPA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE'S) 1.1. VEERESHAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1.2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1.3. B. SIDDESH S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1.4. B. KARIBASAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 1.5. NAGARAJA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT GOPASHETTIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, OFFICER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIMOGA - 577 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.N.N.L. UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA. …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 DECREE DATED 20.11.2010 PASSED IN LAC.NO.13/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2010 passed in LAC No.13/2005 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. 2. Sri.Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nagamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another1 has enhanced the market value at Rs.105/- per square feet. It is further submitted that in the said case, the acquisition was for the same purpose 1 M.F.A. No.2436/2015 dtd 20.01.2021 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 and of the same village. Hence, the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the similar benefit and seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Smt. Prathibha R.K., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.2 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has determined the market value based on the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. It is also submitted that the appellant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the lands in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned AGA for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 respondent No.1, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 5. The pleadings and evidence on record indicate that the appellants land measuring 2 guntas in Sy.No.17/2, 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.19 and 2 acre 4 guntas in Sy.No.20 amounting to a total of 3 acre 25 guntas situated at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba hobli, Shimoga Taluk was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, dated 30.03.1996, for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.66,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon reference, the Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per gunta. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nagamma referred supra wherein, the market value of the lands situated in the very same locality i.e., Gopashettikoppa Village, Shimoga Taluk acquired for the same purpose and the same notification was re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet. 6. Having perused the said judgment, we find that the lands involved therein and the appellants land in the present case are similar in nature, location, and potentiality, and were acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. It would therefore be unjust and inequitable to treat the appellants dissimilarly in the matter of compensation. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015 same rate of compensation as awarded in the earlier case, i.e., at Rs.105/- per square feet. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with costs. The market value of the lands measuring 3 acre 25 guntas in Survey Nos. 17/2, 19 and 20, situated at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk is re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet with interest and statutory benefits as per law. The impugned judgment and award in this appeal is modified to the aforesaid effect. The appellants are not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 1531 days. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/BSR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48