Smt. Eramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Eramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part with costs: market value of the 3 acre 25 guntas in Survey Nos. 17/2, 19 and 20, Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk re-determined at Rs.105/- per square foot with interest and statutory benefits as per law; impugned judgment and award modified to that effect; no interest payable for the delayed period of 1531 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?

Court's answer

The lands involved in Nagamma and the appellants' land in the present case are similar in nature, location and potentiality, having been acquired for the same purpose under the same notification; it would therefore be unjust and inequitable to treat the appellants dissimilarly, and they are entitled to the same rate of compensation as awarded in the earlier case, i.e., at Rs.105/- per square feet.

Ratio / Principle

The market value of the lands measuring 3 acre 25 guntas in Survey Nos. 17/2, 19 and 20, situated at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk is re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet, with interest and statutory benefits as per law; the impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly.

Key takeaways

The appellants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 1531 days.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition — Compensation — Enhancement — Parity with co-ordinate Bench decision. Appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by claimants whose land measuring 3 acre 25 guntas in Sy.Nos.17/2, 19 and 20 at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba hobli, Shimoga Taluk was acquired under preliminary notification dated 30.03.1996 issued under Section 4(1) for the Upper Tunga Project. SLAO had fixed Rs.66,000/- per acre; the Reference Court, on a reference under Section 18(1), re-determined market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per gunta. Held: since the co-ordinate Bench in Nagamma v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another (M.F.A. No.2436/2015, decided 20.01.2021) had re-determined the market value of lands in the very same locality (Gopashettikoppa Village), acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, at Rs.105/- per square foot, and the lands here are similar in nature, location and potentiality, it would be unjust and inequitable to treat the claimants dissimilarly; they are entitled to the same rate. Market value re-determined at Rs.105/- per square foot with interest and statutory benefits as per law; impugned judgment and award modified; appellants not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 1531 days. Appeal allowed in part with costs.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 OF 2015 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O GOPASHETTIKOPPA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE'S)

1.1. VEERESHAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

1.2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

1.3. B. SIDDESH S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

1.4. B. KARIBASAPPA S/O LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

1.5. NAGARAJA

S/O LATE ERAMMA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT GOPASHETTIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, OFFICER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIMOGA - 577 201.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.N.N.L. UPPER THUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R K, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. B R PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2010 PASSED IN LAC.NO.13/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), CJM, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2010 passed in LAC No.13/2005 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' ) seeking for higher compensation.

Sri.Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nagamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another¹ has enhanced the market value at Rs.105/- per square feet. It is further submitted that in the said case, the acquisition was for the same purpose

1 M.F.A. No.2436/2015 dtd 20.01.2021

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

and of the same village. Hence, the appellant in the instant case is also entitled to the similar benefit and seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Smt. Prathibha R.K., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.2 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has determined the market value based on the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. It is also submitted that the appellant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the lands in question. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned AGA for

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

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 submissions advanced. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:

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

The pleadings and evidence on record indicate that the appellants land measuring 2 guntas in Sy.No.17/2, 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.19 and 2 acre 4 guntas in Sy.No.20 amounting to a total of 3 acre 25 guntas situated at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba hobli, Shimoga Taluk was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, dated 30.03.1996, for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.66,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon reference, the Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per gunta. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in the case of Nagamma referred supra wherein, the market value of the lands situated in the very same locality i.e., Gopashettikoppa Village, Shimoga Taluk acquired for the same purpose and the same notification was re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet.

Having perused the said judgment, we find that the lands involved therein and the appellants land in the present case are similar in nature, location, and potentiality, and were acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. It would therefore be unjust and inequitable to treat the appellants dissimilarly in the matter of compensation. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44665-DB MFA No. 3476 of 2015

HC-KAR

same rate of compensation as awarded in the earlier case,

i.e., at Rs.105/- per square feet.

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

The market value of the lands measuring 3 acre 25 guntas in Survey Nos. 17/2, 19 and 20, situated at Gopashettikoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk is re-determined at Rs.105/- per square feet with interest and statutory benefits as per law.

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

The appellants are not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 1531 days.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK/BSR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48