B v Divakar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

B v Divakar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed with costs; market value of the land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.05, Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with interest and statutory benefits; claimant not entitled to interest for the delay period of 1073 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference? +1 more

Court's answer

Since the lands covered under this appeal and the lands covered in the aforesaid judgments (Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Lakshmegowda and Sannegowda, applying Union of India v. Bal Ram and Ali Mohammad Beigh, and Reference Court judgments) are identical and similar, acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, it would be unfair to discriminate between land owners; the land loser in this appeal is entitled to similar benefits, and the compensation is re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act.

Ratio / Principle

The contention of respondent No.3 that the matter requires remand to the Reference Court has no merit: the judgments relied on by the claimant have attained finality with no challenge by the State or respondent No.3, respondent No.3 was arrayed as a party in the aforesaid appeal and Reference Court proceedings, and having accepted re-determination at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta for similarly-situated lands it cannot now contend that remand is required.

Key takeaways

No purpose would be served in remanding the matter to determine the market value, as the Reference Court and this Court have already re-determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta on appreciation of various factors; an order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because an unwarranted remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice, and remitting the matter back would further delay the farmer-claimant's compensation.ratio¶64
The claimant is not entitled to interest for the delay period of 1073 days.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - Enhancement of compensation - Parity for similarly-situted land losers. Claimant's land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.05, Byadarahalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk, acquired for the Yagachi Reservoir project under preliminary notification dated 11.02.2009 (S.4(1)) and final notification (S.6(1)) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; SLAO by award dated 23.12.2011 fixed Rs.77,200/- per acre; the Reference Court (LAC No.331/2014, judgment and award dated 16.04.2015) re-determined Rs.20,000/- per gunta with statutory benefits. Held (per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.): applying the ratio of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Lakshmegowda (MFA No.8703/2018) and Sannegowda (MFA No.8760/2018), which considered Union of India v. Bal Ram, (2010) 5 SCC 747, and recorded its reiteration in Ali Mohammad Beigh, (2017) 4 SCC 717, where acquired lands are nearby, identical and similar and acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, it is unfair to discriminate between land owners; the claimant is entitled to like treatment and compensation stands re-determined at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest as per the Act. Respondent No.3-beneficiary, impleaded only at the appeal stage, cannot seek remand: the earlier judgments have attained finality, it was a party to those proceedings, and remand is not to be ordered routinely as it merely elongates litigation and would further delay the farmer-claimant's compensation. Appeal allowed with costs; interest denied for the 1073-day delay period.