- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201249 OF 2022 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ALAMATTI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT, SECRETARY FOR LAND ACQUISITION DIVISION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UKP, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS (BY DR. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, A.A.G., AND SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, A.G.A.) AND: SHAMBULINGAYYA S/O SHARANAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HADAGALI, NOW AT SHARAN NILAYA, P AND T QUARTERS, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 74(1) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, VIJAYAPUR, IN L.A.C. NO.19/2020. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 06.11.2021 passed by I-Additional District Judge and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Vijayapura, in LAC no.19/2020, this appeal is filed. 2. Dr.Archana P.Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Sri Maqbool Ahmed, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that appeal was by State challenging award passed by reference Court determining market value of acquired property at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre as against Rs.78,000/- per acre awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer. It was submitted acquisition of lands in instant case were for Mulwad Lift Irrigation Project. Preliminary Notification for acquisition was issued on 22.11.2016 and award was passed on 01.12.2018. Land in question was situated in Hadagali village, Vijayapura Taluk and claimant relied upon sale deeds in respect of lands of same village purchased for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 ‘industrial purpose’. Since lands in question were agricultural lands and there was no material to establish that lands covered in sale deeds at Exs.P2 to P15 were nearby or adjacent to land in question, valuation in sale deeds cannot be treated as market value. Therefore, reference Court erred in relying upon same and enhancing market value to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. 3. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for appellants. Perused impugned judgment and award and records. 4. This appeal is by State assailing enhancement of compensation by reference Court. Therefore, point that would arise for consideration is: Whether enhancement of market value by reference Court is contrary to material on record and as such, calls for interference? 5. Acquisition of 16 guntas of land belonging to claimant in Sy.no.295/3 of Hadagli village for Mulwad Lift Irrigation Project is not in dispute. By award dated 01.12.2018, SLAO fixed market value at Rs.78,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with same, claimant sought reference which was registered as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 LAC no.19/2020 by reference Court. In order to establish higher market value of acquired land, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked copy of reference application as Ex.P1 and sale deeds in respect of Sy.nos.6/2, 552/2B and 552/3, 552/2, 552/1B and 552/2A of Shivanagi village as Exs.P2 to P5. He also produced sale deeds of Sy.nos.126/3, 183/2, 15/1, 172/3 and 171/2 of Kaggod village as Exs.P6 to P10. Likewise, claimant produced sale deeds in respect of Sy.nos.223/4, 297/2, 297/1 and 219 of Kumatagi village as Exs.P11 to P14. Claimant also relied on sale deed in respect of Sy.no.423/1 of Hadagali village as Ex.P15. Vijayapura Taluka map was produced as Ex.P16. 6. While passing impugned judgment and award, reference Court took note of fact that nature of land under acquisition was dry land. It noted that Exs.P2 to P15 were sale deeds for purchase of lands for industrial purpose. Said purchases were with approval of Government for formation of industrial area. Though Exs.P2 to P5, P6 to P10 and P11 to P14 were in respect of Shivanagi, Kaggod and Kumatagi villages respectively, Ex.P15 is in respect of Sy.no.423/1 of Hadagli - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 village i.e., same village as claimant’s land under acquisition. Valuation shown in Ex.P15-sale deed in respect of 01 Acre 29 guntas is Rs.13,80,000/-, which would be Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. 7. Indeed, contention of learned Additional Advocate General about proximity of said land with land under acquisition would appear substantial on first blush, but on perusal of Ex.P16-Taluka map, it is seen that Shivanagi, Kaggod and Hadagali villages are situated adjacent to National Highway no.218, while claimant has stated that their nature and potential were similar, appellants herein have merely made suggestions to PW.1-claimant about dis-similarities of lands and acquired lands being distant from lands in sale deeds. Said suggestions are denied. There is no positive evidence led by appellants to establish distance between acquired lands and lands involved in sale deeds. In fact, appellants did not chose to step into witness box. Even village map showing location of survey numbers is not produced. In absence of same, appreciation of award passed by reference Court appreciating material on record especially fact that Exs.P2 to P14 sale deeds would indicate similar valuation. Said sale deeds are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2883 MFA No. 201249 of 2022 contemporaneous to preliminary notification of acquisition. Therefore, finding of reference Court cannot be stated to be without any basis or contrary to material on record and as such, would not call for interference. 8. Point for consideration is answered in negative. 9. Consequently, following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 Ct;Vk