The Executive Engineer Vs M R Sundaresh

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.3/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT N.R. PURA. TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE PASSED IN REFERENCE LAC NO.3/2017 PASSED BY HON'BLE

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT N.R. PURA DATED 12.09.2018 & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellant - The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL), Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2018 passed in LAC No.03/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura.

¶30

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

¶31

appellant submits that the reference Court, without appreciating the evidence on record has re-determined the market value of the land in question at 10,80,000/- per acre placing reliance solely on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in M.F.A. No.1556/2010 (LAC). It is submitted that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench cannot be the sole basis to enhance the compensation. It is further

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

submitted that respondent No.1/claimant is required to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land in question. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant 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 the case of The Executive Engineer v. B.V.Somanna Gowda and Another¹ has considered all the aspects and affirmed the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre determined by the reference Court. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeals.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Reference Court has only proceeded based on the previous judgment and re-determined the market value which is incorrect and seeks to allow the appeal.

¶37

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

¶38

1 MFA.No.6196/2021 dt:14.03.2025

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶42

The material available on record indicate that the claimant's land in question was an agricultural land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.190 situated at Muttinakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, N.R.Pura Taluk was acquired for the benefit of the appellant for construction of channel of Upper Thunga Project by issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act') dated 23.10.2003 and the Land Acquisition Officer, considering the nature of the land, determined the market value at Rs.37,300/per acre and passed the award on 10.01.2007. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act and the reference Court, considering various judgments of this Court and the reference Court, has re-determined the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre.

¶43

The beneficiary of the acquisition has filed this appeal contending that the claimant has failed to establish the market value before the Reference Court, and that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on the earlier decision

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it cannot be the sole basis for determining the market value in the present case. However, the Reference Court, after assigning detailed reasons, has arrived at the conclusion that the land involved in the present case and the land covered in MFA.No.1556/2010 was acquired for the same purpose, are identical in nature, and were subjected to preliminary notifications issued in the year 2003 and re-determined the market value at Rs.10,80,000/per acre.

¶47

We have perused the material available on record and are satisfied that the Reference Court was right in treating the landowners in MFA.No.1556/2010 and the landowner in the present case in the same manner. The land involved in the present case was acquired for the same purpose, and are located in the same village. Therefore, the appellant cannot now argue that the Reference Court had no basis for re-determining the compensation. It is settled principle that landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, for the same purpose, and having the same potential should not be treated differently when awarding

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

compensation. Since the acquisition of land in both the cases took place in 2003, we are of the considered view that the judgment and award of the Reference Court is proper and does not require any interference.

¶51

It is also not in dispute that this Court, in the case of The Executive Engineer referred supra had an occasion to consider the earlier decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench relating to acquisition of lands situated in the same village and acquired for the very same public purpose. After examining the material placed therein, the Court affirmed the determination of the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. It is not in dispute that the acquisition in the said case was initiated under the preliminary notification dated 23.10.2003, which is identical to the land involved in the present appeal. Having regard to the fact that the land covered in the aforesaid judgment and the land involved in the present case pertain to the same village, were acquired for the same purpose, and were covered by preliminary notifications issued in the same year, the principle of parity requires that the claimants herein should not be placed on a footing different from those in the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53458-DB M.F.A. No.6199/2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

aforesaid decision. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the present case. In view of the similarity in the factual matrix and guided by the precedent referred to above, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has rightly determined the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court.

¶55