Anne Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC.NO. 63/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB MFA No. 7278 of 2015

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FOR FURTHER COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 11.07.2014 passed in LAC.No.63/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

¶32

The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the

¶33

Reference Court', the appellant as claimant and the respondent as the respondent for the purpose of convenience.

¶34

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant's land in Sy.Nos.51/1, 51/2, 3/2, 4/1 measuring 11 guntas, 6½ guntas, 2 guntas and 17 guntas, respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired

¶35

for the benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006 and final notification dated

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB MFA No. 7278 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

16.12.2006. 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Per contra , Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for

¶41

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 matter to the Reference Court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB MFA No. 7278 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

value of the land 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

¶45

ANOTHER¹ had remanded the matter back.

¶46

Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

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.

¶48

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal

¶49

is:

¶50

"Whether the impugned judgment and award

¶51

of the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶52

1 MFA No.8077/16 dt. 25.9.25

¶53

5 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB MFA No. 7278 of 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative

¶57

for the following reasons:

¶58

a) The parties to the proceedings does not dispute that

¶59

the lands in Sy.Nos.51/1, 51/2, 3/2, 4/1 measuring 11 guntas, 6½ guntas, 2 guntas and 17 guntas, respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.2 under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006 and final notification dated 16.12.2006. The 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.

¶60

b) The learned counsel for the appellant 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. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is without arraying the respondent

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42495-DB MFA No. 7278 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

No.2 in the appeal as a party to the proceedings who is the beneficiary of the acquisition. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court by permitting them to adduce evidence. 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.

¶64