The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6196 OF 2021 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.V SOMANNA GOWDA S/O VENKATE GOWDA AGED: MAJOR R/AT MUTHINAKOPPA VILLAGE N.R PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2, R1-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN LAC.NO.11/2017 (LAC NO. 21/2014), ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 PURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the appellant-The Executive Engineer, KNNL, Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga directed against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2018 in L.A.C No.11/2017(LAC No.21/2014) passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'), whereby, the Reference Court has allowed the application in part filed under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent No.1 herein. 2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2 before the Reference Court and the respondent No.1 herein was the claimant before the Reference Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 The land of the respondent No.1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas situated at Sy.No.57/1p of Muttinakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, N.R.Pura Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Upper Thunga project vide Preliminary Notification dated 05.11.2003 and the SLAO passed an award of Rs.37,300/- per acre. The said award was sought in reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in LAC No.11/2017 (LAC No.21/2014) by the respondent No.1 before the Reference Court. 4. To prove the claim before the Reference Court, the claimant/respondent No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P25, however, the appellant did not adduce any evidence. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court re-determined the market value of the land from Rs.37,300/- to Rs.10,80,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and interest. Challenging the reckoned compensation, the beneficiary of acquisition is in appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Sudhakar .S, for the appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 No.2, albeit, respondent No.1 was served notice but remained unrepresented. We have perused the materials made available before us including the judgment and award of the Reference Court. 7. Sri. Sudhakar. S, the learned counsel for the appellant authority contended that the Reference Court, without duly appreciating the evidence on record has re- determined the market value of the land and enhanced it to Rs.10,80,000/- per acre by placing reliance solely on the judgment in MFA No.1556/2010 (LAC). It is further contended that the respondent No.1 failed to produce an iota of evidence before the Reference Court regarding the actual market value. The evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 has failed to establish the quality, fertility and potentiality of the land acquired belonging to the respondent No.1. Aside from the RTC extract, no other document has been produced by the claimant/respondent No.1 to prove the said aspect. Supporting his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 13 SCC 96 and prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate, the sole point arising for our consideration is: "Whether the Reference Court is justified the compensation by partly the in LAC No.11/2017 (LAC in enhancing allowing respondent No.1 No.21/2014) dated 09.11.2018?" the claim petition filed by 9. The materials available on record indicate that in LAC No.11/2017 (LAC No.21/2014) land measuring 2 acres 15 guntas in bearing Sy.No.57/1p of Muttinakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, N.R. Pura Taluk was acquired to benefit the appellant in constructing channel of Upper Thunga Project by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 05.11.2003. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), considering the nature of the land, determined the market value at Rs.37,300/- per acre and the award was passed by the SLAO on 10.01.2007. The said award was challenged by the claimant/respondent No.1 before the Reference Court. 10. The respondent No.1, to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and deposed that the acquired land was an irrigated land with high potential to yield commercial crops. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 yield certificate produced by the respondent No.1 as per Ex.P7 demonstrated that the respondent No.1 harvested coconuts for the purpose of commercial use and also grew areca nuts. The Reference Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded detailed reasons regarding the nature of land and its potentiality. The Reference Court has considered the judgment in MFA No.1556/2010, BASAPPA AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER AND ANOTHER passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and re- determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Nevertheless, the other land losers for the same project in land bearing Sy.Nos.190 and 173/3 of the same village and acquired under same Preliminary Notification had also challenged the SLAO award in LAC Nos.5/2017 and 7/2017. In the said reference the Reference Court enhanced the award to Rs.10,80,000/- instead of Rs.37,300/-. Though the authority challenged the said award before this Court in MFA No.6605/2021 c/w MFA No.6073/2021 dated 27.02.2025 respectively, however, in both the cases, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by considering the evidence and materials placed by both the parties, dismissed the said appeals and confirmed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 the award passed by the Reference Court vide order dated 27.02.2025. We have meticulously perused the comprehensive materials on record. It could be gathered from the instant case that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of Upper Thunga Project and the Preliminary Notification was issued dated 05.11.2003. Admittedly, the Preliminary Notification in the case on hand was issued 3 years after the Preliminary Notification was issued in the case of BASAPPA referred supra. The Reference Court has admittedly not given any escalation for the period of 3 years and it has considered the market value of the land as determined in the case of BASAPPA referred supra. We have also noticed that the nature of land covered is irrigated land and the crops grown are commercial crops. Hence, the contention of the appellant is that the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on the case of BASAPPA referred supra, as it has no merit and is liable to be rejected. 11. We have also taken note of the judgment of the co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT Vs. Sayyad Farooq and Others in MFA No.6605/2021 dated 27.02.2025. The co- ordinate bench, taking note of the fact that the acquisition was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 for the purpose of Upper Thunga Project and considering the judgment passed in the case of BASAPPA referred supra, has affirmed the determination of market value at Rs.10,80,000/-. The appellant challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2022. 12. Insofar as the decision of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS referred supra is concerned, it has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the nature of land involved in the referred decision of the High Court is different and distinct. In the case on hand, the acquisition is for the same purpose and the nature of land involved is similar having similar potentiality to grow commercial crops. Except the change of survey numbers, the other aspects of the land and purpose of acquisition are similar. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that, the case in hand stands on similar footing as that of BASAPPA and SYED FAROOQ AND OTHERS as referred supra. Against this backdrop, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. Accordingly, we - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10832-DB MFA No. 6196 of 2021 answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceeding to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending interlocutory application[s], if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13