S Bharathi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.70/11 FROM THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN ON 16.01.2024 IN LAC NO.70/11, THEREBY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2014 passed in LAC.No.70/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

¶28

The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the Reference Court', the appellant as claimant and the respondent as the respondent for the purpose of convenience.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48337-DB M.F.A. No.4742/2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 09 guntas and 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.57 and in 84 respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal.

¶32

Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Reference Court has not considered the pleading and evidence in its proper prospective and awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the similarly placed land losers have got higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to reconsider the evidence on record by allowing the appeal.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48337-DB M.F.A. No.4742/2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Per contra , Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel

¶36

for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and was not arrayed as a party before the Reference Court. Hence, it would be appropriate to implead respondent No.2 before the Reference Court by permitting him to adduce evidence. He seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market value of the land in question. In response to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant fairly concedes to remand the matter to the Reference Court.

¶37

Smt.Manjunath Rayappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶39

counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48337-DB M.F.A. No.4742/2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

¶43

The point that arises for consideration in this

¶44

appeal is:

¶45

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

¶46

The aforesaid point is answered in the

¶47

affirmative for the following reasons:

¶48

a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that

¶49

the claimant's lands measuring 09 guntas and 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.57 and in 84 respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48337-DB M.F.A. No.4742/2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

b) The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant seeks for enhancement of the market value by re-appreciating the evidence on record by contending that the similarly placed land losers have received higher compensation. However, no judgment in support of his contention is produced. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is without arraying the beneficiary of the acquisition and he seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court by permitting them to adduce evidence. Considering the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. Cauvery Neeravari Nigam was not a party before the Reference Court, who is required to satisfy the award, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to reconsider the matter after providing

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48337-DB M.F.A. No.4742/2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the

¶56

evidence.

¶57

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is

¶58

allowed-in-part with costs.

¶59

The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 16.01.2014 passed in LAC.No.70/2011 is set aside.

¶60

The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to reconsider the reference petition on merits and in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence.

¶61

It is needless to observe that respondent No.2 shall be impleaded as a party before the Reference Court.

¶62

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the market value of the land in question.

¶63

The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 16.12.2025.

¶64

The Registry shall refund the eligible Court fee.

¶65