Thimmarayigowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.58/2011 FROM THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HASSAN. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN IN LAC NO.58/11, DATED 23.03.2013 THEREBY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR WITH OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶24

and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 54(1) of

¶29

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 23.03.2013 passed in LAC.No.58/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

¶30

The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the Reference Court', the appellant as claimant and the respondent as the respondent for the purpose of convenience.

¶31

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant's lands in Sy.No.75/2 measuring 11 guntas and Sy.No.72 measuring 12 guntas, respectively, of Echalahally

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Village, Hassan Taluk, were acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal.

¶35

Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has not considered the pleading and evidence in its proper perspective and awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the similarly placed land losers have received higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to reconsider the evidence on record by allowing the appeal.

¶36

Per contra , Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and was not arrayed as a party before the Reference Court. Hence, it would be appropriate to implead the respondent No.2 before the Reference Court by permitting him to adduce evidence. He seeks to remand the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

matter to the Reference Court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market value of the lands in question. In response to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly concedes to remand the matter. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench in the case of T.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND

¶40

ANOTHER¹ had remanded back the matter.

¶41

Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional Government

¶42

Advocate for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

¶44

The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:

¶45

1 MFA No.8077/16 dt. 25.9.25

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

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

¶50

The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶51

a) The parties to the proceedings does not dispute that

¶52

the lands in Sy.No.75/2 measuring 11 guntas and Sy.No.72 measuring 12 guntas, respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, were acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta.

¶53

b) The learned counsel for the claimant seeks for enhancement of the market value by re-appreciating the evidence on record by contending that the similarly placed land losers have received higher compensation. However, no judgment in support of his contention is produced.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

c) The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is passed without arraying the respondent No.2 herein, who is the beneficiary of the acquisition, as a party to the proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court by permitting them to adduce the evidence.

¶58

d) Considering the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. Cauvery Neeravari Nigam was not a party before the Reference Court who is required to satisfy the award, we are of the view that the matter requires remand to the Reference Court with a direction to provide sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence. We have also noticed that this Court in the case of

¶59

ANNEGOWDA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

¶60

OFFICER AND ANOTHER² accepting the submissions, had remanded the matter back to the Reference Court. It

¶61

2 MFA No.7278/2015 dt. 27.10.25

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45875-DB M.F.A. No.7276/2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

is further noticed that the subject matter of the lands covered in this appeal and the aforesaid matter remanded to the Reference Court are of the same village and acquired under the same preliminary notification for the same purpose. Hence, the interest of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to reconsider the same in accordance with law.

¶65

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed-in-part with costs.

¶66

The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 23.03.2013 passed in LAC No.58/2011 is set aside.

¶67

The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to reconsider the reference petition on merits and in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence.

¶68

It is needless to observe that the respondent No.2 shall be impleaded as a party before the Reference Court.

¶69

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the market value of the lands in question.

¶70