- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022 (LA) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O BACHENAHALLI VILLAGE HALLI MYSORE HOBLI HOLENARSIPURA TALUK-573 120. HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H R P (HNP) D C OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN-573 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED 4TH PHASE GOKULAM KRS ROAD MYSORE-571 606. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) No. 206/16 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED IN LAC No.53/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The claimant in LAC No.53/2013 being the appellant in LACA No.206/2016 on the file the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), is impugning the judgment dated 06.12.2018, dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case are that, the claimant is the owner of Sy.No.3 of Baachanahalli Village, Hallymysuru Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District measuring 81/4 guntas. The same was notified for acquisition for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 purpose of forming link channel. The preliminary Notification was on 05.07.2008 and the final Notification was issued on 07.11.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 07.02.2012 fixing the compensation at Rs.43,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants had sought for reference, which was registered as LAC No.53/2013 before the Reference Court. 4. The claimant examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 in support of his contention. The Reference Court on consideration of the materials on record, allowed the reference by enhancing the compensation to Rs.6,668/- per gunta with interest @ 12% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred an appeal in LACA No.206/2016. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the materials on record dismissed the appeal, which is impugned in the present appeal. 5. Heard Sri. Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned AGA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "1. Whether I.A.No.2/2022 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the appellant is to be allowed ? 2. "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court? 3. What order ?" My answer to point No.1 is in the 'affirmative'. In view of answering point No.1 in the 'affirmative', point No.2 does not survive for consideration. Point No.3, as per final order, for following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 REASONS 7. The claimant is the owner of 81/4 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.3, situated at Baachanahalli Village, Hallymysuru Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixing the compensation at Rs.43,000/- per acre. However, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for Rs.6,668/- per gunta. Even though an appeal in LACA No.206/2016 was preferred, the same came to be rejected. Now it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that he has produced a copy of sale deed pertaining to the adjacent land, where one cent of land was sold for Rs.31,000/-, but the First Appellate Court has not taken the said document into consideration and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The Reference Court has also not taken into consideration the fact that the adjacent land was valued at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.31,000/- per gunta. Therefore, the appeal is to be allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 8. The claimant has filed I.A.No.2/2022 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC producing the judgment dated 16.04.2019 passed in LACA No.445/2017 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The subject matter of the said appeal is 81/2 guntas of land in Sy.No.61/5 of Mallenahalli Village, Hallymysuru Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. The First Appellate Court in the said case awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- per gunta. Therefore, it is the contention of the claimant that the same compensation may be awarded in the present case. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the judgment referred to above pertains to a different Notification dated 17.07.2008, even though it is for the same purpose and further the property is situated in a different village. Under such circumstances, the claimant has to prove parity with the claimants in LACA No.445/2017. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 submits that respondent No.2 is not a party in L.A.C.A.No.445/2017. 9. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar others Vs. State of Haryana and others1 to contend that the award passed in a different proceedings cannot be received as evidence for consideration without giving an opportunity of rebutt to the opposing parties. Therefore, it is his contention that merely because, the said judgment is produced along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, it cannot be a basis for allowing the appeal. He has relied on paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, which reads as under: '' 18. This Court has clearly laid down that such judgment/award cannot be received in evidence and considered without giving an opportunity of rebuttal to opposite parties by adducing evidence. At the stage of appeal if award/judgment has to be read in evidence, an application has to be filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to take additional evidence 1 (2018) 13 SCC 96 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 on record and if allowed, opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal has to be allowed.'' 10. Now it is the contention of the claimant that even though the additional documents produced pertains to a different Notification, it was for the same purpose and the villagers are adjacent to one another. 11. An opportunity will have to be given to the claimant to prove the same by adducing additional evidence and also to the respondents to contest the case. The claim of the claimant cannot be denied at this stage. Therefore, I am of the opinion that I.A.No.2/2022 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC will have be allowed by permitting the claimant to produce additional document. The matter is to be remanded back to the Reference Court permitting the claimant to adduce additional evidence. 12. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'. Point No.2 does not survive for consideration. Point No.3 is as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44640 MSA No. 18 of 2022 ORDER (i). Appeal is allowed. (ii). The judgment and award dated 06.12.2018 passed in LACA No.206/2016 by the learned Prl. District Judge, Hassan, is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.2/2022 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is allowed. (iv) The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court, permitting the claimant to lead further evidence on the basis of additional evidence that is already produced with an opportunity to respondent to contest the same. (iv) Both the parties shall appear before the reference Court on 25.11.2025 without waiting for further notice. Registry is directed to send back the Reference Court records along with the additional documents produced along with I.A.No.2/2022. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45