- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 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. 25 OF 2022 (LA) BETWEEN: NINGAJAMMA W/O. LATE. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. BACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSURU HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK- 573 120. HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER HRP, DC OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN- 573 201 2. KAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, 4TH PHASE, GOKULAM, KRS ROAD, MYSORE- 571 606 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL No.198/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED IN LAC No.51/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri B.R. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that :- Appellant is the land loser for having lost her land to the extent of 10 1/4th guntas in Sy.No.3 of Bachihalli Village, Halli Mysore Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk, Hassan District for the Hemavathi Reservoir Project. 3. Being aggrieved by the amount of award fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be filed by the claimant which was numbered as LAC No.51/2013. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 4. Along with the claimants, other claimants had also filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act and Learned Judge in the Reference Court clubbed all those matters and held a common enquiry. 5. Learned Judge in the Reference Court took into consideration various judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and enhanced the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.6,668/- per gunta, which would work out to Rs.2,66,720/- per acre as against Rs.1,80,000/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed an appeal before the District Court in LAC No.198/2016. 7. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the claimants holding that the quantum of compensation fixed for the land of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 appellant at the rate of Rs.6,668/- per gunta is just and reasonable inter alia holding in paragraph number 17 and 18 as under :- 17. In the light of law laid down by their lordships in the above rulings, on perusal of the sale deed, which is relied upon by the petitioner at EX.P22, it was registered on 18.4.2005. But this sale deed is relating to only one gunta of land situated at Doddakadanuru village. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.31,000/- for this one gunta. 18. No doubt, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this document is relating to Doddakadanuru village. In LAC No.50/13 and 53/13 the lands acquired are situated in the same ESSE village lle. Doddakadanuru. But even otherwise, if it is considered this Sele deed, though it is relating to same village i.e. Doddakadanuru. But as rightly pointed out by the learned AGP, It is not relating to theagricultural land which is actually acquired in these cases. Admittedy under this sale deed EX.P22, the purchaser has purchased only gunta for Rs.31,000/-. If it is considered the boundary mentioned in this sale deed, particularly towards eastern side, it is shown as "Hassan - Mysuru Road", Admittedly, this Hassan - Mysuru Road is a State Highway. Therefore, this 1 guntas of land purchased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 under this EX.P22, is abutting to the state Highway. In the normal course, nobody will purchase only 1 guntas of land for the purpose of doing agriculture unless he is having his own land in any one side. But in the case on hand, under this sale deed, he has purchased only 1 guntas of land. Though the sale deed disclosed, as this one gunta of land is an agriculture dry land, but if it is considered the boundary, it is made it clear that, it is the site property situated in the village by the side of Highway. Accordingly, this 1 guntas of land was purchased for Rs. 31,000/- in the year 2005 itself. Except this sale deed, the petitioners have not produced any supporting documents to show that, the lands which were acquired are also situated by the side of Hassan Mysuru Highway and near by the property purchased under this EX.P22. Under these circumstances, this EX.P22 sale deed cannot be based to fix the market value as claimed by the petitioners." 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 9. Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the lands which are acquired - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 by the Land Acquisition Officer is adjacent to the land in Kasaba Hobli of Chittanahalli Village and therefore, the compensation granted to the land situated in Chittanahalli Village should be the compensation that the claimant is entitled to and sought for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, Sri Gopala Krishna Soodi, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri B.R. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - beneficiary in unison submit that the quantum of compensation determined by the Reference Court is just and reasonable with cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the lands that are acquired to the extent of 10 1/4 gunta in Sy.No.3 of the appellant is situated in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 Baachihalli Village, HalliMysore Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk, Hassan District. 13. Thus the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the claimant is entitled to compensation as is determined in the land, which are acquired in Chittanahalli Village, by granting Rs.25,000/- per gunta cannot be countenanced in law as the present land is situated 10 Kilometers away from the Taluk Head Quarters. 14. Admittedly Chittanahalli Village is in Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, whereas Baachihalli is not situated in Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk. When the situation of lands are altogether different places, the determination of compensation on the ground that lands, which were in Chittanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, was having non agricultural potential cannot be equated with the lands that are situated in Baachihalli Village, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 which is 10 kilometers away from the Taluka Headquarters. 15. Therefore, determination of the compensation by the Reference Court after taking into consideration the legal principles enunciated by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.2,66,720/- is just and reasonable, which does not require any further modification. 16. Taking note of the same, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 17. A feeble attempt is no doubt made by the claimant before this Court to place additional evidence on record under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by filing I.A.No.2/2022. 18. The said additional evidence cannot be accepted for more than one reason. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36633 MSA No. 25 of 2022 19. Firstly, the present second appeal is filed under Order XLIII CPC, and therefore Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has no application. 20. Secondly, the additional evidence sought to be placed on record would not also improve the case of the appellant/claimant in view of the foregoing discussion. 21. Under such circumstances, the grounds of appeal could not merit for consideration. Hence the following :- ORDER a. The appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed. b. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2022 filed for production of additional documents is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24