Thippeshappa Dead by His Lrs Kalamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner / Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.02.2021 PASSED IN LAC NO.2/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶32

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

¶33

award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and

¶34

Principal JMFC., Tarikere (referred to as " the Reference

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Court ", for brevity) in LAC No.2/2013 and seeking enhancement.

¶38

The case of the appellant - landowners is that a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (" the Act ", for brevity) was issued notifying several lands including the lands of the appellantlandowners situated in Bettathavarekere village for Upper Bhadra Project and a final declaration was also issued.

¶39

The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act awarding compensation. Being dissatisfied by the said award, appellant-landowners sought reference before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of land, trees as well as yield of trees.

¶40

Thereafter, the Reference Court, having recorded the evidence, has awarded statutory benefits

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

without enhancing the compensation as provided under Section 23(1) of the Act.

¶44

Being dissatisfied with the award of

¶45

compensation by the Reference Court as aforesaid, the appellant-landowners are before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶46

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-landowners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant-landowners

¶48

contended that though the landowners were entitled for enhancement of compensation, the Reference Court has only awarded the statutory benefits without providing enhancement under Section 23(1) of the Act. It is also contended that by inadvertence, the appellants were unable to file the relevant documents before the Reference Court. However, they have filed I.A.No.1/2024 seeking production of additional documents and prays to provide

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

an opportunity to place those documents before the Reference Court and lead evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the award and to remit the matters to the Reference Court for fresh consideration.

¶52

The said application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the Reference Court, after meticulously examining the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has rightly awarded the compensation and as such, no additional documents be permitted to be taken on record. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the aforesaid application and consequently, to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

It could be gathered from records that the other landowners of Bettathavarekere village, whose lands were acquired for the similar purpose have challenged the award before the Reference Court in different LAC numbers. Among those cases, in LAC.Nos.2/2013, 10/2013, 14/2013, 9/2013, 15/2013, 18/2013, 12/2013, 6/2013, 17/2013, 5/2013, 19/2013 and 30/2014, the

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Reference Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the SLAO by considering the documents and evidence placed by the landowners. Those awards were challenged by the beneficiary i.e., Visveswaraya Jala Nigam Limited in MFA No.6332/2021 & connected matters before the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the awards passed by the Reference Court have been upheld by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the said appeals. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C)Nos.11779-11790/2025 vide order dated 02.05.2025. The Visveswaraya Jala Nigam Limited also challenged the other bunch of reference cases in LAC Nos.16/2013, 7/2013, 21/2013, 8/2013, and 31/2014 before this Court in MFA No.6338/2021 & connected matters challenging the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court. However, the said appeals were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025.

¶57

On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the Reference Court has not enhanced the compensation other

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

than the statutory benefits under Section 23(1) of the Act.

¶61

The reasons assigned by the Reference Court for not enhancing the compensation under the said head was that the landowners failed to place the relevant documents to substantiate that their land valued more than what has been awarded by the SLAO.

¶62

Now that the appellant-landowners have filed I.A.No.1/2024 under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to produce the additional documents.

¶63

Since this Court has already affirmed the enhancement of award made by the Reference Court in the aforesaid LACs and that in the LAC under this appeal, the Reference Court has not enhanced the compensation as aforesaid for the reason that the appellant-landowners have failed to produce documents to substantiate the value of their land, we are of the view that an opportunity deserves to be extended to the appellant-landowners to produce the additional documents and lead evidence to that effect. Accordingly, we allow the application filed by

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the appellant-landowners. Consequently, we pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶69

ii) The judgment and award passed in LAC No.2/2013 by the Reference Court is set aside and the said LAC is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration.

¶70

iii) The parties are directed to be present before the Reference Court on 08.10.2025 without expecting any further notice from the Reference Court.

¶71

iv) The appellants are permitted to produce the additional documents and lead additional evidence before the Reference Court.

¶72

v) The respondents are also at liberty to produce additional documents and lead evidence.

¶73

vi) The Court fee shall be refunded to the appellant-landowners as provided under

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB MFA No. 6830 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees

¶77

and Suits Valuation, Act.

¶78

vii) All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

¶79

viii) The Reference Court is directed to dispose off the matters as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005.

¶80

Pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶81

The Registry is directed to return the original records, if any, to the concerned Reference Court forthwith, along with the certified copy of this judgment.

¶82

SD/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶83

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶84

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Thippeshappa Dead by His Lrs Kalamma v. the Assistant Commissioner / Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thippeshappa Dead by His Lrs Kalamma v. the Assistant Commissioner / Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulfeeza Begum Vs the Union of India

Sri. T. Srinivas, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Seema Caterers Vs the Union of India

Adyah Solar Energy Private Limited Vs Smt. Vyshali.M.L

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs B S Umapathi

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Vs the State of Karnataka