Manjegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED *31.07.2015 , PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, IN LAC NO.242/2014 AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,000/- PER GUNTA WITH SOLATIUM, ADDITIONAL MARKET VALUE AND INTEREST AND OTHER BENEFITS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT & ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 passed in LAC No.242/2014 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation.

¶32

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

¶33

Corrected vide Court Order dated 24-04-2026

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are

¶37

that the claimant's land measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.43/3 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.71,500/- per acre. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal.

¶38

Smt. Sharadamba A.R., learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question without considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that this Court in the case of KUPPEGOWDA vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER AND OTHERS¹ has enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta in respect of the lands acquired

¶39

1 MFA.No.10457/2018 c/w MFA.No.10456/2018 dt:05.02.2025

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

under a similar notification, for the same purpose, and situated in the same village. Therefore, the claimant is also entitled to the same benefits. Accordingly, she prays that the market value be re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/-

¶43

per gunta, along with all statutory benefits, in this appeal.

¶44

Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt. Prathibha R.K. learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the claimant shall establish the market value by leading evidence and they cannot rely on the judgment of this Court and seek for higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly

¶46

submits that the judgment relied on by the claimant no doubt arises from the similar notification and from the same region, but the burden is on the claimant to prove

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the market value of the land. Hence, the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is just and does not call for any enhancement. She seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶50

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed

¶51

by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶52

The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.43/3 situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District was acquired vide preliminary notification dated 27.12.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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 14.12.2011 by determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.71,500/- per acre with all statutory benefits. The claimant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act and the Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta along with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶56

The contentions of the respondents that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the claimant cannot be a basis to enhance the compensation and are taken note of for the purpose of rejection only. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of KUPPEGOWDA referred supra has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION

¶57

OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER² and held that

¶58

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

when the acquired lands are more or less situated nearby,

¶62

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

¶63

Court in subsequent decision of ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH

¶64

AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR³

¶65

and re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. In the aforesaid case, the preliminary notification was issued on 30.12.2008 and the acquisition was for the

¶66

same purpose as in the case on hand. In the instant appeal preliminary notifications was issued on 27.12.2008 and the nature of land and its potentiality are similar to that of the subject matter of the land covered in the aforesaid appeal. Hence, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the land covered under this appeal and the land covered in the 3 (2017) 4 SCC 717

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50507-DB M.F.A. No.2485/2017

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

aforesaid judgment are identical and similar, acquired for

¶70

the same purpose and it would be unfair to discriminate the land owners. Hence, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves 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.

¶71

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶72

The market value of the land measuring 15 guntas in Survey No. 43/3, situated at Doranahosahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District is redetermined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits as per law.

¶73

The impugned judgment and award in this appeal is modified to the aforesaid effect.

¶74

The Registry is directed to verify and calculate the Court fee paid by the appellant, and if it is found that

¶75