Smt. Anuradha Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.213/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2015 PASSED IN LAC NO.35/2005 ON THE FILE OF PRL

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The appellant being the claimant in LAC.No.35/2005 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred as to 'the Reference Court'), is impugning the judgment and award dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Reference Court and also the judgment and award dated 25.03.2019 passed in RA.No.213/2018 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court').

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶28

Facts of the case in brief are that, the claimant is

¶29

the owner of 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.172/3 situated at Sirivara Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The Special

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Land Acquisition Officer has notified the same for acquisition

¶34

and has awarded compensation at Rs.807/- per gunta. The same was claimed by the claimant under protest. Not being satisfied with the same, the award was referred to the Reference Court. The Reference Court held an enquiry and determined the compensation at Rs.3,075/- per gunta. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimant has challenged the same before the First Appellate Court in RA.No.213/2018. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record determined the compensation at Rs.6,053/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the claimant has challenged the same before this Court.

¶35

During the pendency of appeal, the claimant has

¶36

filed IA.No.1/2025 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred as to 'CPC') producing four additional documents i.e. the order and awards in various LAC cases, to contend that the lands which are similarly situated, adjacent to the land which were acquired, have been awarded with more compensation and the same may be applied in the present case to award

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

compensation of Rs.6,050/- per gunta. However, by producing additional documents, the claimant is claiming Rs.50,000/- per gunta.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously opposing to the appeal contented that the initial claim of the claimant while preferring the appeal was Rs.6,050/- per gunta. But now the claimant is claiming Rs.50,000/- per gunta, without any basis. The additional documents produced before this Court pertains to some other villages, which are situated about 10 to 15 kilometres away from the land, which is the subject matter in the present appeal. Moreover, those lands are the garden lands, having trees standing therein or situated in a better position. But in the present case, the land acquired is wet land with few trees. Therefore, the additional documents i.e., order and awards passed in other acquisition matters cannot be the basis to determine the compensation.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 also makes similar submission by opposing the contention taken by the appellants.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on

¶47

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Monoj Kumar and others V.s State of Haryana and others¹ to contend that when the judgments that are relied on by the claimant by producing additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and when such orders are not between parties interse, an opportunity is to be given to the other side to lead evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, it is the contention of respondents that the matter is to be remanded back to the Reference Court to consider the applicability of compensation awarded in the additional documents relied on by the claimant.

¶48

In the present case, the land in question is situated at Sirivara Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. It is described as wet land and contain few trees. Now it is the contention of the claimant that in the orders that are produced as additional documents, the lands that are situated at Mallappanahalli Village which is said to be an adjoining village, the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per gunta was awarded.

¶49

1 (2018) 13 SCC 96

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

It is pertinent to note that initially the appellant has

¶54

claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.6,050/- per gunta and now she is claiming Rs.50,000/- per gunta. Under such circumstances, the claimant will have to lead the evidence about her claim and the respondents will have to be given an opportunity to rebut the contention taken by the claimant. For the said purpose, the claimant has to lead the additional evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court as well as the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Reference Court, permitting the claimant to prove applicability of the additional documents i.e., orders and awards passed in similar acquisition matters.

¶55

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶58

ii) The judgment and award dated 15.12.2015 passed in LAC.No.35/2005 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Tumakuru and the judgment and award dated 25.03.2019 passed in RA.No.213/2018 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, are hereby set aside.

¶63

iii) The matter is remanded back to Reference Court for fresh consideration of LAC.No.35/2005, with liberty to the claimant to lead additional evidence in support of her contention.

¶64

iv) It is needles to state that the respondents will be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses, if any, and produce additional documents.

¶65

v) In view of remand of the matter, the appellant is entitled for refund of Court fee in accordance with law.

¶66

vi) IA.No.1/2025 filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is permitted to produce the additional documents i.e., orders and awards.

¶67

vii) Office is directed to send back the Reference / First Appellate Court records, along with additional documents produced in IA.No.1/2025.

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:48989 MSA No. 55 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

viii) The claimant and the respondents are required to appear before the Reference Court on 17.12.2025 without awaiting any further notice in that regard.

¶72

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶73

PNV

¶74

CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt. Anuradha v. the Special Land Acqusition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha v. the Special Land Acqusition 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

Primary Agricultural Produce Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M K Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Syndicate Ryathara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka

G Kavalappa Vs Bengaluru District and Bengaluru Rural District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd.