The Executive Engineer Vs S R Prahlad Rao Dead by L R.S

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O T.N. VENKATA MADHAVA D/O LATE PRAHLAD RAO AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O. No.44/B, 4^TH MAIN DATTATREYA NAGARA HOSAKEREHALLI B.S.K. 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU

¶28

SMT. SHANTHA W/O BABU RAO K. D/O LATE PRAHLAD RAO AGEDA BOUT 67 YEARS R/O No.101/1, 4^TH WEST MAIN ITI LAYOUT KATTARIGUPPE MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU

¶29

SMT. PARIMALA W/O L.R. GOVINDA RAO D/O LATE PRAHLAD RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O No.37/1, 3^RD MAIN

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶32

HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU

¶33

SMT. SULOCHANA W/O B. KESHAVAMURTHY D/O LATE PRAHLAD RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O No.970/7, 10^TH MAIN RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR, BENGALURU

¶34

SMT. GEETHA W/O J.S. MURALIDHAR D/O LATE PRAHLAD RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O No.15, 8^TH MAIN AREHALLI NANDHAKUMARA BADAVANE SVS SCHOOL OPPOSITE BENGALURU

¶35

RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3 & 5 TO 9 ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER RESPONDENT No.4 ACHUTHA RAO

¶36

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R4; SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9; SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R10; R2-SERVED)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN LAC No.02/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE APPLICATION U/S. 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AND ETC.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶41

IN M.F.A. NO.4331/2020:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶44

…APPELLANT

¶45

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMACHANDRAN K., ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

H. SIDDAMMA DEAD BY LR'S

¶48

SUMITRA

¶49

W/O CHANDRASHEKAR KURLAGIRI D/O S.N. ESHWARAPPA AGED 81 YEARS R/O. "SUMUKHA" 1^ST PARALLEL ROAD GANDHINAGAR, 'A' BLOCK SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶50

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2)

¶53

THIS MFA FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1961, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN LAC. No. 7/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AND ETC.

¶54

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶56

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

¶57

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶58

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

¶59

Since both these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, they are taken together for disposal in order to avoid repetition of facts.

¶60

MFA No.3312/2020 and MFA No. 4331/2020 are filed by the appellant - the Executive Engineer, Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.11.2018 passed in LAC No.2/2001 and LAC No.7/2001 respectively by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Shivamogga.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in respect of both the appeals.

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference Court, without appreciating the evidence on record has re-determined the market value of the land in question at

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶64

Rs.105/- per sq.ft. placing reliance solely on the judgment in LAC No. 15/2014. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence before the reference Court with regard to the actual market value. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals.

¶65

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶66

respondents/claimants submits that the acquisition of the subject land is for the purpose of construction of channel of the Upper Thunga Project and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.7998/2014 and connected matters has considered all the aspects and affirmed the market value at Rs.105/- per sq.ft., determined by the reference Court, and the said judgment was taken up in appeal by the beneficiaries as well as the claimants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7587/2021 and connected matters has affirmed the re-determination of compensation at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeals.

¶67

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶69

counsel for the respondents in respect of both the appeals and perused the material available on record.

¶70

The material available on record would indicate that

¶71

the land in question was acquired for the benefit of the appellant for construction of channel of Upper Thunga Project by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 30.03.1996 and the Land Acquisition Officer, considering the nature of the land, determined the market value at Rs.66,000/- per acre and passed the award on 30.06.2000. Being aggrieved, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the reference Court, considering various judgments of this Court and the reference Court, has re-determined the market value at Rs.105/- per sq. ft.

¶72

It is also not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of G. Hanumantha Rao Vs. the Special Land Acqusition Officer, Upper Thunga Project and Another in MFA No.7998/2014 and connected appeals, disposed of on 13.01.2020, has considered various aspects and affirmed the re-determination of compensation at Rs.105/- per sq.ft. In the abovementioned judgment, the preliminary notification was

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7695-DB MFA No.3312/2020 c/w MFA No.4331/2020

¶74

issued on 25.01.2001, 17.03.2001 and 20.05.2004, however in the case on hand, the preliminary notification was issued on 30.03.1996 and the acquisition of lands was for the same project and same purpose and there is a gap of more than 4 years between the notifications. The said judgment was taken up in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7587/2021 between The Executive Engineer, KNNL Vs. Nagamma & Anr. , disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the beneficiaries, confirming re-determination of the market value at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. Hence, in the instant cases also, the determination of the compensation at Rs.105/- per square feet by the reference Court is fully justified.

¶75

In view of the same, these appeals are required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed .

¶76

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶78

PN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

The Executive Engineer v. S R Prahlad Rao Dead by L R.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. S R Prahlad Rao Dead by L R.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Rajavardhan Sanchi Vasant Vs the State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

The Tahsildar Vs Sri K B Shashidhara

Lolamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. Vs the Director