- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2025 (LA) BETWEEN: SRI DHARMAPPA M M S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MUNDAGODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK. HASSAN DIST - 562157. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANOJ KUMAR J.Y., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-2, 1 FLOOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560058 Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 2. KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA, K. R. S, ROAD, GOKULAM 4TH STAGE, MYSORE, HASSAN- 570020. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2022 PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) NO.176/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2017 PASSED IN LAC.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD, 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 ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 01.02.2017 passed in Reference LAC.No.49/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Arakalgud and also judgment and award dated 10.10.2022 in L.A.C.(Appeal) No.176/2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Hassan. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are heard on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Puttaswamappa v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another1. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents would submit that the issue raised in the present appeal is not covered. 5. In terms of the award passed in Reference, the market value is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per gunta and consequential benefits were awarded. Being unsatisfied with 1 MSA.No.25/2023 c/w MSA.No.24/2023 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 the award, the appellant has filed appeal before the learned District Judge. The District Court has allowed the appeal in part and re-determined the market value at Rs.35,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved by the same, the land loser is in second appeal before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that land in question was notified in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 03.09.2009. The lands in question i.e., Sy.Nos.36/1, 36/3 and 36/9 are located in Mundagodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. It is claimed that the lands are an agricultural lands where the appellant used to grow Ragi, Avare, Horsegram, Thoor, Alasande, Beans, Sesame, groundnut, Jowar, Potato, tobacco etc. 7. It is further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Puttaswamappa (supra) while deciding the market value of the property located in the same village, under the same Notification dated 03.09.2009 has determined the market value at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. It is urged that the lands involved in the aforementioned two cases are of similar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 nature and both the lands are at a distance of about 2 to 3 kilometres away from Arakalagudu town and is abutting to Arkalagudu - Konanoor Main Road. Thus, urged that the market value be re-determined and market value be fixed at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would urge that, respondent No.2 was not made a party before the Reference Court, it was made a party before the First Appellate Court and the appellant has to substantiate the claim based on the independent evidence. The appellant cannot rely upon the judgment in Puttaswamappa (supra) is the counter submission. 9. Following question arise for consideration: "Whether the appellant has made out a case to award Rs.45,000/- per gunta as market value?" 10. It is noticed that though respondent No.2 was not made a party before the Reference Court and was made a party before the First Appellate Court for the first time, the decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not questioned by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has accepted the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. Thus, the only question is whether market value is to be determined with reference to the judgment in Puttaswamappa (supra). It is noticed that the lands are acquired under the same Notification in both the cases and in addition, lands are also from same village and are agricultural lands. 12. From evidence on record, it appears that both lands are similar. That being the position, this Court is of the view that, there is no difficulty in accepting the appellant’s contention that market value has to be determined at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The market value of the land acquired is determined at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10498 MSA No. 60 of 2025 (iii) Appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits and appellant is also entitled to the cost of the appeal. (iv) However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 811 days in filing the appeal. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17