- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2016 (LA) BETWEEN: U G GOPALAIAH S/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT UDDE HOSAKERE VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2011 PASSED IN RA LAC NO.189/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.29/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri R. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This second appeal by the claimant is filed seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per Mango Tree in the land, which was acquired for the Hemavathi Irrigation Canal in Gubbi Taluk. 3. Admitted facts leading to filing of this case are that the land to the extent of 32 guntas situated at Udde Hosakere Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Hemavathi Canal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 4. Reference Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.750/- per gunta of land for 32 guntas of land, for 30 Coconut Trees at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per tree, for 36 Mango Trees at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per tree, Rs.60,000/- for the Borewell and Rs.5,000/- for pump house. 5. The order of the Reference Court was subject matter of Appeal in R.A.No.189/2010, wherein the First Appellate Court has re-determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.64,000/- for 32 guntas of land, Rs.3,24,000/- for 36 Mango Trees, Rs.1,12,500/- for 30 Coconut trees and Rs.25,000/- for the pump house and a sum of Rs.60,000/- was fixed for the borewell. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. During the Course of argument, a memo came to be filed which was recorded by this Court on 12.09.2025 whereby the compensation amount is restricted to Mango Trees. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 7. In the land, according to the report given by the Deputy Commissioner, only 11 Mango Trees were in existence. However, the Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has awarded the compensation for 30 Coconut Trees and 36 Mango Trees in a land, which is measuring only 32 guntas. 8. A Moot question always arose before the Reference Court as to how many Coconut Trees or Mango Trees can be grown in one acre of land. In that regard, an expert from the Horticulture Department had been appointed in connected matters, wherein there is a clear finding recorded by the Expert by stating that only if Mango Trees are grown in one acre of land only 36 Mango Trees can be grown. Likewise only if Coconut Trees are grown 40 to 45 Coconut trees alone can be grown in one acre of land. 9. Since the appellant has now restricted the claim only with regard to the Mango Trees, which is beneficial to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 appellant inasmuch as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,01,055/- per Mango Trees for 28 Mango Trees. However, that is for fruit bearing Mango Trees. Sri Bheemaiah, learned counsel would contend that according to the report, the Mango Trees that are grown in the land are not fruit bearing trees as it has been mentioned as small Mango Trees. 10. Since the land that is acquired is 32 guntas and the appellant is restricting the claim to Mango Trees alone, in 32 guntas of land, about 28 Mango Trees would be counted for determining the compensation. 11. Therefore, while re-fixing the quantum of compensation by this Court, for the acquired land, it is to be counted that 28 Mango Trees is to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.1,01,055/- retaining the cost of the land determined by the First Appellate Court at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per gunta, which is Rs.64,000/- and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 the amount of compensation for the pump house is Rs.25,000/- and the Borewell is Rs.60,000/-. 12. 12. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the said finding is interfering with the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by claimant; Especially in the absence of any appeal filed by the beneficiary or Land Acquisition Officer. 13. But while re-determining the compensation especially granting the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,01,055/- per Mango Tree for 28 Mango Trees. It is the claimant, who stands benefited inasmuch as in the area of 32 guntas, he could not have grown more than 36 Mango Trees and 30 Coconut trees. 14. Since the value of the Coconut Trees is less compared to the Mango Trees, granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1,01,055/- per Mango Tree for 28 Mango Trees will be much higher than what the First Appellate Court has granted for 36 Mango Trees in a sum of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36634 MSA No. 92 of 2016 Rs.3,24,000/-. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed:- ORDER a. The appeal is allowed in part with costs. b. As against the order of the Reference Court and the First Appellate Court, claimant would be entitled to sum of Rs.64,000/- as compensation for the acquired land of 32 guntas and Rs.25,000/- for the Pump House, Rs.60,000/- for the Borewell and for the loss of 28 Mango Trees, at the rate of Rs.1,01,055/-*per tree in the land of 32 guntas with consequential benefits. c. Claimant would be entitled to receive the compensation less already paid. d. Registry is directed to pass modified award accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT-PS *Corrected vide Court order dated 10.11.2025