The Executive Engineer Vs J T Jayaramegowda

ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT N.R. PURA IN THE LAC NO.8/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

This appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, KNNL, Upper Thunga Project, Shivamogga, under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.01.2019 passed in LAC No.08/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura (for short, 'the reference Court' ).

¶36

Heard Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.S.V.Prakash., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶38

the Reference Court has committed a grave error in re-determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence to prove the

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

market value of the land in question. The Reference Court based on Ex.P3 has re-determined the market value which is impermissible. 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 of another case and determine the market value. It is also submitted that the claimants are 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.10,80,000/- per acre. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶42

Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the Reference Court, upon considering the material available on record, has rightly determined the market value. It is submitted that this Court, in other cases pertaining to similarly situated lands acquired for the same

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

purpose, has re-determined the market value at

¶46

Rs.10,80,000/- per acre. Therefore, the market value determined by the Reference Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶47

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶48

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.

¶49

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) & 1(b)/claimants and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is

¶50

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

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The pleading and evidence on record indicate

¶54

that the claimants' land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas in Sy.No.147 and an extent of 17 guntas in Sy.No.148 of Mutthinakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, N.R.Pura Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Upper Thunga Project vide preliminary notification dated 23.10.2003 and final notification dated 05.05.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award by fixing the market value at Rs.37,300/- per acre . Being aggrieved, the claimants have sought reference under section 18(1) of the Act. The Reference Court redetermined the market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits and interest.

¶55

The beneficiary of the acquisition has filed this appeal contending that the claimants have failed to establish the market value before the Reference Court, and that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.P3, i.e., the judgment in LAC No.7/2017. It is further

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

contended that the judgment of the Reference Court in another case 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

¶59

the land covered in LAC No.07/2017 - Ex.P-3 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.

¶60

We have perused the material available on record and are satisfied that the Reference Court was right in treating the landowners covered in Ex.P3 - Judgment and the landowner in the present case in the same manner. The Reference Court has clearly recorded that the land covered in Ex.P3 - Judgment and the land involved in the present case were 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

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

for re-determining the compensation. We are of the view 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 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.

¶64

This Court, in the case of The Executive Engineer vs. B.V. Somanna Gowda and Another¹ , 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

¶65

1 MFA.No.6196/2021 dtd:14.03.2025

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50561-DB M.F.A. No.6314/2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

under the preliminary notification dated 05.11.2003, which is identical in time and nature to the notification 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 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.

¶69