- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200009 OF 2018 (LA) BETWEEN: AMRUTH RAO S/O GUNDAPPA PATIL BY LRS, GUNDERAO S/O LATE. AMRUTH RAO PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE SAVATHKHED, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.M.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH ASST. COMMISSIONER & L.A.O., SEDAM – 585 222, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIKAS SOUDHA, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T.R., H.C.G.P.) Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN L.A.C.A. NO.437/2017, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.1983 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, GULBARGA IN L.A.C.NO.54/1981 TO BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AT RS.99,114/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellant is before this Court assailing the award in LAC No.54/81 on the file of the Civil Judge, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 Gulbarga. The reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.2,700/- per acre in respect of the land acquired after enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,000/- per acre awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e. before the District Judge at Kalaburagi. 4. Appellate Court in LACA No. 437/2017 allowed the appeal-in-part and awarded compensation of Rs.61,584/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest. 5. The appellant is before this Court seeking further enhancement to Rs.99,114/- per acre with all statutory benefits. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate and co-ordinate bench of this Court in MSA No.200118/2017 has awarded compensation of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 Rs.1,20,814/- per acre in respect of land in the neighbouring village where Section 4(1) notification was issued on 18.12.1973. It is his further submission that this order was called in question by the State before the Apex Court. Apex Court has dismissed the SLP and the compensation awarded by the co-ordinate bench of this Court is confirmed by the Apex Court. Thus, he would contend that after de-escalating the value of the land with reference to the compensation determined in MSA No.200118/17, the compensation in respect of the appellants’ land in the neighbouring village which is acquired has to be re-determined and the same has to be enhanced to Rs.80,950/- despite the appellant making a claim for Rs.99,114/-. 7. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand would contend that the compensation awarded is just and fair and there is no scope for further escalation. It is also her submission that the compensation awarded in MSA 200118/2017 cannot be the basis to determine the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 compensation in the present case as the notifications are different and are separated by 12 years and the lands are also from different village. Thus, she urged that the appeal is to be dismissed. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the acquisition is for the same purpose though under different notification the appellant is entitled to compensation in the same manner as awarded in MSA 200118/2017 by de-escalating the market value by 5 to 10%. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. The point that arise for consideration is, “Whether the appellant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation based on the judgment in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.200118/2017”? 11. It is not in dispute that initially the land was acquired in the year 1973 by issuing Section 4(1) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined Rs.2,000/- per acre as market value. Later, on a reference by the appellants the market value is enhanced by Rs.2,700/- per acre. The appellant filed First Appeal before the District Judge wherein the appeal is allowed-in-part and market value is enhanced to Rs.61,584/-. 12. It is noticed from the judgment of the Appellate Court that Appellate Court has determined the compensation at Rs.61,584/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest and Appellate Court has placed reliance on the award in LACA No.294/2017 and connected cases for similar lands acquired in 1973, Rs.61,584/- per acre was the market value determined. The Appellate Court has also considered the market value determined in MSA No.200500/2015 wherein the market value per acre is determined at Rs.1,52,059/-. The Appellate Court has based its calculation on the market value determined in MSA No.200500/2015 where the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 market value is arrived at Rs.1,52,059/- in respect of a notification which is issued in 1990 and thereafter, the Appellate Court has de-escalated the market value @ 3.5% per annum for 17 years and arrived at compensation of Rs.61,584/- per acre. 13. This Court is of the view that the market value determined in MSA 200118/2017 pertaining to adjoining village in respect of acquisition which has taken place in the year 1985 cannot be the basis to claim higher compensation. The market value or the escalation depends on various factors. The events / developments 1973 i.e. after publication of Section 4(1) notification in respect of petitioner’s land and the events that have taken place in 1980’s might have influenced the escalation of market price. That cannot be the basis to determine the market value of the land accrued in 1973 based on an acquisition which has taken placed in the year 1985. 14. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to enhance the market - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1824 MSA No. 200009 of 2018 value based on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench in MSA 200118/2017 wherein this Court has determined the market value in respect of the land in the adjoining village inasmuch as the acquisition has taken place 11 years after the petitioner’s land was acquired in the year 1973. Even if the appeal filed by the State challenging the order in MSA No.200118/2017 which is confirmed by the Apex Court, the market value determined in the said case pertaining to the adjoining village cannot be the basis to determine the market value in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48