The Executive Engineer Vs Smt. Snehalatha R Shetty

SMT. SNEHALATHA R. SHETTY W/O P. RAMANATHA SHETTY REP. BY GPA HOLDER PRASHANTH HEGDE AMARDEEPA, NEAR SAHYADRI GRAMINA BANK MISSION COMPOUND SHIVAMOGGA.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACUQISITION OFFICER UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.8/2006 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE PASSED IN REFERENCE LAC NO.8/2006 PASSED BY HON'BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA, DATED 10.06.2022 & ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

This appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, Upper Thunga Project, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL), UTP Division, Shivamogga, under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.06.2022 passed in LAC No.08/2006 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (for

¶27

short, 'the reference Court' ).

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel appearing

¶31

for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in re-determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. It is submitted that the claimant have failed to produce any evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. The Reference Court based on Exs.P3 to P5 has re-determined the market value which is impermissible. Hence, the impugned judgment of the Reference Court needs to be interfered. It is further submitted that the Reference Court cannot rely solely on the judgment of another case and determine the market value. It is also submitted that the claimant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. In the absence of any evidence, the Reference Court has erred in re-determining the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶35

appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Reference Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment and re-determined the market value which is incorrect and seeks to allow the appeal.

¶36

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶37

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is

¶38

"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶39

The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the claimant's land measuring 2 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.37 of Alkola Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Upper Thunga Project vide preliminary notification dated 22.02.2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award by fixing the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

market value at Rs.2,80,000/- per acre . Being aggrieved, the claimant has sought reference under Section 18(1)(A) of the Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft., with all statutory benefits and interest.

¶43

The beneficiary of the acquisition has filed this appeal contending that the claimant has failed to establish the market value before the Reference Court, and that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.P3 to P5. It is further contended that the judgment of the co- ordinate bench of this Court and of the Reference Court in another cases cannot be the sole basis for determining the market value in the present case. However, the Reference Court, after assigning detailed reasons, has arrived at the conclusion that the land involved in the present case and the lands covered in Exs.P3 to P5 was acquired for the same purpose and are identical in nature and re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

We have perused the material available on record and are satisfied that the Reference Court was right in treating the landowners covered in Exs.P3 to P5 Judgments and the landowner in the present case in the same manner. The Reference Court has clearly recorded that the lands covered in Exs.P3 to P5 and the land involved in the present case were acquired for the same purpose, and are located in the same village. Therefore, the appellant cannot now argue that the Reference Court had no basis for re-determining the compensation. We are of the view that landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, for the same purpose, and having the same potential should not be treated differently when awarding compensation, hence, the judgment and award of the Reference Court is proper and does not require any interference.

¶47

This Court, in the case of G. Hanumantharao

¶48

and Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

and Another¹ , had an occasion to consider the earlier decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench relating to acquisition of lands situated in the same village and acquired for the very same public purpose. After examining the material placed therein, the Court determined the market value at Rs.105 per sq.ft. It is not in dispute that the acquisitions in the said case was initiated under the preliminary notifications dated 25.01.2001, 17.03.2001, 20.05.2004, which are identical in time and nature to the notification involved in the present appeal. Having regard to the fact that the lands covered in the aforesaid judgment and the land involved in the present case pertain to the same village, were acquired for the same purpose, and were covered by preliminary notifications issued in the same year, the principle of parity requires that the claimant herein should not be placed on a different footing from those in the

¶52

1 MFA.No.7998/2014 and connected matters dt:13.01.2020

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:54157-DB M.F.A No.2196/2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

aforesaid decision. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the present case . In view of the similarity in the factual matrix and guided by the precedent referred to above, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has rightly determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court.

¶56

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed .

¶57

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.

¶58

No order as to costs.

¶59

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶61

BRS/ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

The Executive Engineer v. Smt. Snehalatha R Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Smt. Snehalatha R Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mysore Stoneware Pipes Vs Sri Raghavendra Enterprises

Sri.Ramesh Singh Vs State of Karnataka by

Shri Ranganath Vs Shri. C.D. Rama Rao

Sri. J.N. Kumar Vs Sri. Jayaram.N. I.A.S

M/S Parisaraa Developers Vs Sri.Rajender Kumar Kataria

Sri.H.R. Parthasarathy Vs M.D.Sharath