- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.22 OF 2023 (LA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.23 OF 2023 (LA) MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2023 (LA) IN MSA NO.22/2023: BETWEEN: PRAKASHAIAH @ PRAKASH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT KODINAGENAHALLI VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572223 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMAKURU-572101. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE KUNIGAL ROAD TUMAKURU-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.214/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. IN MSA NO.23/2023: BETWEEN: THAMMAIAH @ BORAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S H.T. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE THAMMAIAH @ BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HONNENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMAKURU - 572 101. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE KUNIGAL ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 101 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.196/2018 ON THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. IN MSA NO.139/2023: BETWEEN: CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A MATTIGHATTA VILLAGE NITTURU HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572219 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPEICAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMAKURU-572101. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE KUNIGAL ROAD TUMAKURU-572101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.202/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. These appeals are filed seeking for enhancement of compensation. In MSA No.22/2023, the land acquired of the appellant is 3½ guntas of Kodinagenahalli village, Nittur hobli, Gubbi taluk; in MSA No.23/2023, the land acquired of the appellant is four guntas of Honnavalli village, Kasaba hobli, Gubbi taluk and in MSA No.139/2023, the land acquired of the appellant is 21 guntas of Mattigatta village Nittur holbi, Gubbi taluk. 3. The counsel would submit the Trial Court granted the compensation of Rs.8,000/- per gunta but the First Appellate Court dismissed the claim of the respective appellants on the ground that no documents are placed before the Court for enhancement of compensation in respect of the subject lands are concerned, but in respect of coconut tree is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 concerned, the same was enhanced. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals are filed before this Court. 4. The counsel for the respective appellants in support of his arguments relies upon the orders passed by the different Courts. In LAC No.144/2022 dated 12.02.2024, compensation was awarded per gunta at the rate of Rs.14,000/-; in LAC No.49/2023 dated 16.12.2024, wherein also compensation of Rs.14,000/- was awarded wherein the said lands were also acquired for the same purpose. The counsel also relied upon the judgment passed in LAC No.117/2022 dated 30.06.2025 wherein also granted an amount of Rs.14,000/- and the same is also for the same purpose. The counsel also relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in MSA No.1157/2016 connected with other matters dated 10.02.2025 and brought to notice of this Court that the land was acquired for the same purpose but compensation awarded in those cases also Rs.14,000/- per gunta and nature of land is also same i.e., dry land. The counsel would submit that though the notifications are different. In the Division Bench judgment, the notification is of the year 1992. But the present acquisition is of the year - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 2004-05 and the other three judgments considered by the First Appellate Court is of the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and nature of the properties are same. Hence, prayed this Court to award the very same compensation of Rs.14,000/- per gunta. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that though the lands are acquired for the same purpose, but the notifications are different and also the distance between the properties are also different. The counsel relies upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96 in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 11 to 17 wherein in detail discussion was made that the High Courts are adopting the method in considering the earlier judgments and the compensation cannot be determined blindly following the previous award and judgment, hence, the same has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. The Court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The Apex Court also held that take note of the distance between the land and also value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometers distance may also make the material difference in value since land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not the land situated in interior villages. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 14 wherein it is held that if any additional evidence is placed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the same has to be allowed and given an opportunity to lead evidence for rebuttal to other side. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the appellants have not placed on record any documentary proof for the value of the property at the time of acquisition and even not placed any other evidence before the Court for enhancement of compensation. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim made by the appellants, thus, the question of enhancement does not arise. The counsel also would submit that the certificate of market - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 value i.e., Guidelines Value is also not placed before the Court. Hence, the question of enhancement does not arise. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and in keeping the submissions as well as principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court has to consider that whether it is a case for enhancement. 8. Having considered the grounds and also the principles laid down in the judgment, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in declining to enhance the compensation in respect of lands which were acquired for the same purpose? 2. What order? Point No.1 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the material on record, it is not in dispute that land is acquired for Hemavathi Water Channel and nature of the property is also dry land. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 properties which were acquired also though from different villages, but from the same hobli and the said fact is also not in dispute. The land acquired in MSA No.22/2023 is only 3½ guntas; in MSA No.23/2023 is four guntas and in MSA No.139/2023 is 21 guntas i.e., only a small portion of land was acquired. When such being the case, the Court has to take note of nature of the land. No doubt, there is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court referred by the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 wherein the Apex Court in detail discussed about the trend in following for enhancement of compensation and the same cannot be a precedent. At the same time, the Court has to take note of the purpose for which the land was acquired. No doubt, the Apex Court also taken note of current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination for compensation. In the case on hand, sale statistics is not given and as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State, the Guidance Value is also not placed before the Court. But the fact is that land was acquired for the same purpose and already there was an enhancement granting compensation of Rs.14,000/-. Even this Court also in the appeal referred above, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 in a case of acquisition in respect of particular hobli Headquarter, Nittur Hobli, in a case of dry land, awarded compensation of Rs.14,000/- in respect of Notification of the year 1992. When such being the case, there cannot be two yardsticks for granting of compensation. The First Appellate Court fails to take note of the fact that the land which were acquired are only a small portion of land i.e., 3½ guntas, 4 guntas and 21 guntas and not having the land of acres and the same were also a dry land. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the same when there are judgments in a similarly situated property in the very same hobli Headquarters, though from different villages and the extent is only a smaller extent and apart from that nature of the land is also a dry land and the acquisition is also for the same purpose. Even the Division Bench of this Court, in respect of the acquisition of the year 1992, Rs.14,000/- was awarded for per gunta. But in the present case, acquisition is of the year 2004 and First Appellate Court also in other different Regular appeals, in respect of the acquisition of the year 2005, 2006 and 2007, similar rate of Rs.14,000/- was awarded. Under such circumstances, when the Properties are in similar nature and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43671 MSA No. 22 of 2023 C/W MSA No. 23 of 2023 MSA No. 139 of 2023 for similar purpose, acquisition was made, same amount should be awarded. In the judgment of the Apex Court, it is held that only considering the earlier judgment, cannot grant the compensation blindly but take note of the nature of land Acquired and also the purpose for which the land was acquired. Taking note of the said fact into consideration, the appellants are entitled for similar rate of compensation i.e., Rs.14,000/- per gunta with other statutory benefits in respect of the land which are acquired. Hence, the point for consideration is answered partly affirmative. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Appeals are allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.14,000/- per gunta with other statutory benefits as entitled. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN