Kuppegowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Kuppegowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals allowed. In MFA No.10457/2018, market value of 23 guntas in Sy.No.317/1, Doranahosahalli Village re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits; in MFA No.10456/2018, market value of 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2 re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits; claimant not entitled to interest for the delay period of 1132 days; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court call for any interference (point framed for consideration). +2 more

Court's answer

Since the lands covered under these appeals and the lands covered in the earlier, unchallenged judgments are identical and similar and were acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners; compensation is therefore re-determined uniformly at the rate fixed in those judgments.

Ratio / Principle

Finding of fact: though the notifications for the acquired lands bear different dates (2008 and 2010), the nature of the land and its potentiality are one and the same, as is evident from the SLAO's award.

Key takeaways

The lands in these appeals are similar in nature and potentiality to the lands covered in the coordinate-bench judgments arising from the same project/acquisition; hence, by applying the ratio of those decisions, the land losers in these appeals are entitled to similar benefits.ratio¶95
The contention of respondent No.3 that the matters require remand to the Reference Court has no merit; the Court is not inclined to remand the matters.ratio¶96
The objection that a coordinate-bench decision cannot be applied ipso facto (as held in Manoj Kumar, relied on by respondent No.3) has no application here, because respondent No.3 has accepted the 4 judgments of this Court and 2 judgments of the Reference Court, which have attained finality.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.), 05.02.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB) — MFAs 10457/2018 & 10456/2018 (LAC, S.54(1)): claimants Kuppegowda (23 guntas, Sy.No.317/1) and G.T. Chandrashekar (13 guntas, Sy.No.313/2), Doranahosahalli Village (Kattaya Hobli, Hassan), sought enhancement over Reference Court awards dated 24.04.2015 (LAC No.478/2014, Rs.20,000/gunta) and 01.08.2015 (LAC No.482/2014, Rs.20,500/gunta) for lands acquired for the Yagachi Reservoir project (preliminary notifications 30.12.2008 and 06.05.2010; SLAO values Rs.77,200/- and Rs.70,160/- per acre). Respondent No.3, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. (impleaded beneficiary), sought remand pleading non-participation before the Reference Court and reliance on Neyveli Lignite, Gurmit Singh Bhatia, U.P. Awas, Manoj Kumar ((2018) 13 SCC 96) and Lokesh (MFA No.4091/2018). Held: remand refused — respondent No.3 neither challenged its impleadment nor filed an independent appeal, and had accepted four judgments of this Court (including Lakshmegowda, MFA No.8703/2018 and Sannegowda, MFA No.8760/2018, which applied Union of India v. Bal Ram, reiterated in Ali Mohammad Beigh) and two Reference Court judgments fixing Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta for identical lands of the same project, all of which have attained finality; it is unfair to discriminate between owners of identical, similarly-acquired lands; routine remand merely elongates litigation. Both appeals allowed; compensation re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act; interest denied for the 1132-day delay period; no costs.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10457/2018 (LAC) C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10456/2018 (LAC)

IN M.F.A. No.10457/2018:

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KUPPEGOWDA S/O MALLESGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/OF. GANIGANAKOPPALU VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)

…APPELLANT

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-II, HASSAN-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT.

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION BELUR, HASAN DIVISION-573201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.478/2014 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN. MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.478/2014 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN & ETC.

IN M.F.A. NO.10456/2018:

BETWEEN:

G.T. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/OF. GANIGANAKOPPAL VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P.-II, HASSAN-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION BELUR, HASSAN DIVISION-573201.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.482/2014 BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN. MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.482/2014 BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN & ETC.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

CAV JUDGMENT

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.

MFA No.10457/2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.04.2015 passed in LAC No.478/2014 by the Court of the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Hassan and MFA No.10456/2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.08.2015 passed in LAC No.482/2014 by the Court of the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court

In MFA No.10457/2018 (LAC No.478/2014), the claimant's land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.317/1

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.77,200/- per acre. The Reference Court redetermined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits.

In MFA No.10456/2018 (LAC No.482/2014),

claimant's land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2 situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.70,160/- per acre. The Reference Court redetermined the market value at Rs.20,500/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal.

Sri.Chethan B., learned counsel for the

claimants submits that the Reference Court has committed

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

a grave error in determining the market value of the lands in question without considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands arise out of the same notification. This Court in MFA Nos.8760/2018, 8703/2018, 8873/2018 and 3870/2021 enhanced the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. He seeks to redetermine the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits in these appeals.

Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel

for the respondent No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and they were not arrayed as party to the proceedings before the Reference Court and only in the appeal, they have been impleaded. Hence, it would be appropriate to remand the matters back to the Reference Court to enable the parties to adduce evidence. It is

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

submitted that the claimants shall establish the market value by leading evidence and they cannot rely on the judgments of this Court and seek for higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION

LTD. Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NEYVELY AND OTHERS¹ , GURMIT SINGH BHATIA Vs. KIRAN KANT ROBINSON AND OTHERS² , U.P.AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. GYAN DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS³ , MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS⁴ and the judgment of this Court in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERY

NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. Vs. SRI.LOKESH AND ANOTHER⁵ .

Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that the judgments relied on by the claimants no

1 (1995) 1 SCC 221

2 (2020) 13 SCC 773

3 (1995) 2 SCC 326

4 (2018) 13 SCC 96

5 MFA No.4091/2018 dt. 19.02.21

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

doubt arise from the same notification and from the same region, but the burden is on the claimants to prove the market value of the lands. Hence, the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is just and does not call for any enhancement. He seeks to dismiss the appeals.

We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the claimants, the learned High Court Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is "Whether the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court call for any interference?"

The undisputed facts in these appeals are that in MFA No.10457/2018, the claimant's land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.317/1 situated at Doranahosahalli Village,

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired vide preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on 05.01.2012 by determining the market value

of the land in question at Rs.77,200/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

In MFA No.10456/2018, the claimant's land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2 situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired vide preliminary notification dated 06.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and final notification dated 01.08.2011 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The SLAO passed the award on 07.10.2013 by determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.70,160/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

It is not in dispute that the acquisition in both the cases is for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir project. The acquisition in both the cases are the lands situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. The nature of land in both the notifications are similar and acquired for the same purpose. Though the notifications issued for the acquisition of the aforesaid lands are on different dates, the nature of the land and potentiality are one and the same as is evident by the award passed by the SLAO.

The contentions of the respondent No.3 that the matters are required to be remanded back to the Reference Court as they were not parties before the Reference Court and they intend to adduce the evidence and that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants cannot be a basis to enhance the compensation, are taken note of for the purpose of rejection only. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of LAKSHMEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS⁶ and

SANNEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

OFFICER AND OTHERS⁷ has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER⁸ and held that

when the acquired lands are more or less situated nearby,

when the acquired lands are identical and similar and acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more compensation to some of the land owners and less compensation to the others. The Bench has also recorded that the said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH

AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR⁹

and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the aforesaid case, the preliminary notification was issued in the year 2009 and the acquisition was for the same purpose as in the case on hand. In the instant

6 MFA No.8703/2018 dt. 25.09.21

7 MFA No.8760/2018 dt. 24.09.21

8 (2010) 5 SCC 747

9 (2017) 4 SCC 717

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

appeals, though the preliminary notifications are of the years 2008 and 2010, respectively, the nature of lands and their potentiality are similar to that of the subject matter of the lands covered in the aforesaid appeals. Hence, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the land losers in these

appeals are also entitled to similar benefits. The Reference Court in LAC Nos.128/2015 to 132/2015 and LAC No.45/2016 c/w LAC No.126/2015 vide judgment dated 02.08.2016 has re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The judgments of the Reference Court clearly indicate that the subject matter of the acquisition arise from the preliminary notifications dated 14.03.2008, 11.02.2009, 06.05.2010 and 06.07.2007 and the acquisition was for the purpose of the same project as in the instant case. The subject matter involved in one of the LAC was from the same Hobli also. Hence, the contention of the respondent No.3 that the matters require remand has no merit.

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

Another Reference Court in LAC No.90/2016 c/w LAC Nos.87/2016 and 88/2016 vide judgment dated 26.09.2022 has enhanced the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. The aforesaid judgments of the Reference Court indicate that the acquisition was for the same project and the preliminary notifications are also dated 30.12.2008. It is also not in dispute that the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra and the judgments of the Reference Court referred supra have attained finality and there is no challenge to the said judgments either by the State Government or by the respondent No.3-beneficiary of the acquisitions. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent No.3-beneficiary was arrayed as a party in the aforesaid appeals and the proceedings before the Reference Court. Without challenging the aforesaid judgments, the respondent No.3 cannot now contend that the matters require remand as they have accepted the redetermination of the compensation in respect of the lands

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

covered under the aforesaid judgments acquired for the

same purpose at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

This Court is conscious that the acquisition proceedings are initiated in the years 2008 and 2010, respectively and the claimants are the farmers who lost their lands to the extents of 23 guntas and 13 guntas, respectively and if the matters are remitted back, it would cause further delay in getting the compensation. It is trite law that the order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the decisions referred supra which have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute that the beneficiary of the acquisition is a necessary party however, the respondent No.3 has neither challenged the order of impleadment passed in the present proceedings nor challenged the impugned

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

judgments of the Reference Court by filing independent appeal. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to remand the matters back to the Reference Court. The contention that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR referred supra , has no application to the facts of the case as the respondent No.3 has accepted the 4 judgments of this Court and 2 judgments of the Reference Court referred supra which have attained finality. Hence, no purpose would be served in remanding the matters to determine the market value of the lands in question as already the Reference Court and this Court on appreciation of the various factors re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Considering the fact that the lands covered under these appeals and the lands covered in the aforesaid judgments are identical and similar, acquired for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate the land owners. Hence, we are of the

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

considered view that the appeals deserve to be allowed by re-determining the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

i. MFA No.10457/2018 and MFA

No.10456/2018 are allowed.

ii. In MFA No.10457/2018, the market value of the land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.317/1 situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits.

iii. In MFA No.10456/2018, the market value of the land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.313/2 situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is re-determined at

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5252-DB M.F.A. No.10457/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.10456/2018

Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits. The claimant is not entitled to the interest for the delay period

of 1132 days.

No order as to costs.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43