Sri Venkataiah Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.714/2018 (LAC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENKATAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. CHANNAGIHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASAN TALUK-572201.

¶9

Digitally signed HASAN TALUK-572201. by RUPA V Location: HIGH (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.,) COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II OFFICE AT D.C. OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN-572101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3^RD AUGUST 2015 IN LAC NO.319/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION UP TO 43,29,134/- AND GRANT SUCH OTHER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶17

MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

This appeal is by the claimant seeking for higher compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2015 passed in LAC.No.319/2014 by the II

¶23

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for

¶26

the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error in awarding meagre compensation of Rs.20,500/- per gunta with statutory benefits and interest without appreciating the potentiality of the land. It is submitted that the land of the appellant measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶28

Hassan Taluk has been acquired by the State for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project and similarly placed land looser has approached this Court seeking for higher compensation in MFA.No.6899/2017. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide judgment dated 22.10.2024 has considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and re-determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. He submits that the acquisition in the instant case and the case of Sri.Swamygowda vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another in MFA.No.6899/2017 are arising out of the same notification and acquisition is for the same purpose and also of the same Village. Hence, similar benefits are required to be granted to the appellant herein. He seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶29

Per contra, learned AGA supports the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submits that the appellant is required to prove the nature of land

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶31

and its potentiality before the Reference Court by leading evidence. He submits that the claimant is required to prove his case by cogent and legally acceptable evidence and prove the market value. He further submits that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is based on the pleading and evidence on record and does not call for any enhancement. He seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA appearing for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶33

The undisputed facts between the parties are that the appellant is the owner of land measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk and the said land has been acquired by the

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶36

State government for Yagachi Reservoir Project vide preliminary notification dated 04.02.2009 and final notification dated 16.11.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land in question by passing an award dated 04.01.2012 by fixing the market value at Rs.52,000/- per acre with the statutory benefits and interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, by common judgment re-determined the market value at Rs.20,500/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest. Being aggrieved, the claimant/appellant is in appeal seeking for higher compensation.

¶37

In support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Swamygowds vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶38

and Another referred supra . We have meticulously

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶40

perused to the grounds urged in the appeal and the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench. We have noticed that the acquisitions in both the cases are for the same project i.e., Yagachi Reservoir Project, the preliminary notification in both the cases were issued on 04.02.2009 and lands covered in both the cases are from the same village. The Co-ordinate Bench taking note of the earlier decisions and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-determined the market value and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta.

¶41

We are of the considered view that the nature

¶42

of the land involved in the present appeal and the nature of land covered in the aforesaid judgment are of the same Village and acquired for the same purpose under same notifications, hence the land owners covered in two set of cases cannot be treated dissimilarly. Our view gain support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. BAL RAM AND

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5992-DB M.F.A. No.714/2018

¶44

ANOTHER¹ . Therefore, the appellant in the instant case

¶45

is also entitled to the similar market value for his land acquired for the same purpose under the same notifications. Applying the said analogy we have re-determined the compensation in the instant case at Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta with all statutory benefits and interest. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The MFA.No.714/2018 is allowed in part with costs.

¶48

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 03.08.2015 passed in LAC.No.319/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan is modified.

¶49

iii) The market value of the acquired land measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Channangihalli Village, Kattaya Hobli,

¶50

1 (2010) 5 SCC 747

¶51