- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4042 OF 2019 (LAC) BETWEEN: B.K. THIMMAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRs. 1. G.C. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE B.K. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. T. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE B.K. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. T. MOHANKUMAR S/O LATE B.K. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. PRAKASH S/O LATE B.K. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KODI KRS AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN-572 130. &APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, HASSAN-BENGALURU RAILWAY DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU-572 101. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS (WEST) CANTONMENT, BENGALURU-560 046. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS (WEST) CANTONMENT, BENGALURU-560 046. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI POOJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.33/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the legal representative of the original claimant, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 27.04.2015 in LAC.No.33/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (8reference Court9 for short) whereby, the reference petition filed under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (8Act9 for short) seeking enhancement of compensation came to be dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The land bearing Sy.No.29/1 measuring 37 ½ guntas situated at KRS Agrahara, Kasaba hobli, Kunigal, was acquired for the purpose of Bengaluru-Hassan railway line under preliminary notification dated 18.01.2007 followed by the final notification dated 01.11.2007 and an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 award was passed on 31.05.2008 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). 4. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the reference Court, appellant No.3 was examined as PW1 and deposed that the land was a garden land containing coconut and areca trees situated adjacent to National Highway-48 with high commercial potential and capable of fetching higher market value. The reference Court dismissed the claim petition on the ground that PW1 was not subjected to cross-examination and RW1 was not cross-examined. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the reference Court erred in dismissing the reference petition on a technical ground without determining just compensation. Evidence of PW1 and documents were not considered. Adjacent lands under the same notification were awarded higher compensation, including fixation at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 `200/- per sq. feet in connected matters. It is submitted that the Act being beneficial legislation the claim ought to have been adjudicated on merits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the dismissal order and submits that PW1 did not tender himself for cross-examination and evidence remained unproved nor RW1 was cross-examined. Hence in the absence of proper proof, the claimants failed to establish entitlement for enhancement. 7. The point that arises for consideration is: <Whether the reference Court was justified in dismissing the reference petition?= 8. The reference Court dismissed the reference petition solely on the ground that PW1 did not subject himself for cross-examination and RW1 was not cross- examined. The reference petition is made under Section 18 of the Act. The Court is under an obligation to determine just and reasonable compensation. The Act - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 being beneficial legislation, technical lapses cannot defeat substantive rights particularly when materials are available on record. It is brought on record that in respect of adjacent lands acquired under the same notification, compensation has been re-determined at `200/- per sq. feet in connected matters. This aspect has not been considered by the reference Court. Further, the explanation offered by the appellants regarding inability to prosecute the case effectively due to circumstances beyond their control deserve consideration in the interest of justice and accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.04.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal in LAC.No.33/2009 is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18964 MFA No. 4042 of 2019 iii. The matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh consideration. iv. The parties shall appear before the reference Court on 27.04.2026. v. The appellants are at liberty to adduce evidence and produce documents in support of their contention and the respondents are at liberty to file additional objections, if any. vi. The reference Court shall dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33