Dismissed¶55

The Executive Engineer v. Lakshmegowda

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2025MFA/360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 54(1) Land Acquisition Act 1894 appeal; Section 18 reference; enhancement of compensation; market value re-determination; Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta versus Rs.42,800/- per acre; valuation without sale deed or expert opinion; reliance on judgment in another LAC as comparable (Exs.P19, P20); parity/equal treatment of land losers; same preliminary notification dated 03.09.2009; Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation project; Muthige Village and Huluvare Village, Shantigrama Hobli, Hassan; LAC No.152/2012 attained finality; Manoj Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 96 distinguished; gunta measurement; Karnataka HC Division Bench. Outcome: Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None - appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; the Reference Court's re-determination of compensation stands affirmed. ¶55

The Executive Engineer Vs Lakshmegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; the Reference Court's re-determination of compensation stands affirmed.

¶55

Issue for consideration

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

¶41

Court's answer

The subject land in Muthige Village and the lands covered by Ex.P20 in abutting Huluvare Village have similar potentiality and were acquired under the same notification for the same purpose; hence the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance on Exs.P19 and P20, and that finding does not call for interference.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Supreme Court decision in Manoj Kumar And Others has no application to the facts of this case, since in the referred decision before the High Court the nature of land involved was different and distinct; here, no other evidence was available on record to determine market value, justifying reliance on Exs.P19 and P20.

¶48

Key takeaways

A land loser whose lands have been acquired under the same notification, for the same purpose and having the same potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in the award of compensation.ratio¶50
Since the judgment in LAC No.152/2012 had attained finality with no challenge by the appellant or the State, the appellant cannot contend that the re-determination of compensation was without basis; taking into account also that the acquisition was of the year 2009 and the claimant had not received enhanced compensation, the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court does not call for interference.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.; judgment authored by Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 11.02.2025, in M.F.A. No.360/2018 (LAC) - Land Acquisition - appeal by the Executive Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. under S.54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 01.04.2016 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan in LAC No.203/2014, enhancing compensation for 11 guntas in Sy.No.129 of Muthige Village (acquired vide preliminary notification dated 03.09.2009 for the Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation project) from Rs.42,800/- per acre (LAO award) to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. Held: although the claimant produced no sale deed, expert opinion or yield data, the Reference Court rightly relied on Exs.P19 and P20 (including the judgment in LAC No.152/2012) relating to lands of abutting Huluvare Village acquired under the same notification for the same purpose with similar potentiality; land losers under the same notification, purpose and potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in compensation; the LAC No.152/2012 judgment had attained finality unchallenged; the Supreme Court decision in Manoj Kumar And Others, (2018) 13 SCC 96, was distinguished as involving land of a different and distinct nature. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.360/2018 (LAC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., HEMAVATHI RIGHT CANAL DIVISION HOLENARASIPURA-573 211.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

LAKSHMEGOWDA S/O.KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. MARENAHALLI VILLAGE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P. - 2, HASSAN.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R2 R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT V.C.O. DTD:03.09.2024)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶20

NO.203/2014 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE PASSED IN REFERENCE LAC NO.203/2014 PASSED BY HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, DATED 01.04.2016 & 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 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

This appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.04.2016 passed in LAC No.203/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

¶26

Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for

¶27

the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶29

the Reference Court has committed a grave error in re-

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶31

determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. It is submitted that the Reference Court has clearly recorded the finding that the claimant has not produced any document like yield notification or price list of crops grown by the claimant to determine the correct market value on the basis of capitalisation of income method. The Reference Court further recorded the finding that the claimant has not produced any sale deed or expert opinion in respect of market value of the land and has proceeded to determine the market value solely based on Ex.P20. 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 in another case and determine the market value. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA AND

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶33

OTHERS¹ . 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.1,00,000/- per gunta. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶35

submits that the Reference Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment and re-determined the market value which is incorrect. He seeks to allow the appeal.

¶36

Though the notice on the respondent No.1-

¶37

claimant is served, there is no representation.

¶38

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this

¶39

1 (2018) 13 SCC 96

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶41

appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any

¶42

interference?"

¶43

The material available on record indicates that

¶44

the land of the respondent No.1 measuring 11 guntas in Sy.No.129 of Muthige Village, Shantigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk was acquired vide preliminary notification dated 03.09.2009 for the purpose of Kamasamudra Lift Irrigation project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award determining the market value at Rs.42,800/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1-claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of Act. The Reference Court re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta. The Reference Court though recorded the finding that the claimant has failed to produce the sale deeds and expert opinion to determine the market value, has proceeded to re-determine the market value based on Ex.P20-the judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.152/2012. The finding of the Reference Court is

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶46

that Muthige Village is situated besides Huluvare Village. The subject matter of the land in this appeal is situated in Muthige Village and the lands involved in the judgmentEx.P20 are of Huluvare Village which are abutting. The material available on record further makes it clear that the land situated in both the villages are having similar potentiality and acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. Hence, the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance on Exs.P19 and P20 which do not call for any interference.

¶47

8. Insofar as the decision of MANOJ KUMAR AND

¶48

OTHERS referred supra is concerned, it has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note that the nature of land involved in the referred decision of the High Court is different and distinct. In the case on hand, there is no other evidence available on record to determine the market value of the land in question. Hence, the Reference Court has placed reliance on Exs.P19 and P20.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6324-DB M.F.A. No.360/2018

¶50

We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the judgment in LAC No.152/2012 has attained finality and there is no challenge to the said judgment either by the appellant or the State. Hence, the appellant now cannot contend that the re-determination of the compensation by the Reference Court is without any basis. We are of the considered view that the land loser whose lands have been acquired under the same notification, same purpose and having same potentiality cannot be treated dissimilarly in the award of the compensation. In the instant case, the acquisition is of the year 2009 and the claimant has not received the enhanced compensation. Taking note of this aspect also, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court does not call for any interference.

¶51