Roopla Naika v. the Special Land Acquisition

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025MSA/78/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MSA No. 78 of 2023 (LA); NC: 2025:KHC:30413; High Court of Karnataka; V Srishananda J; land acquisition compensation enhancement; Section 18 reference; Section 54 appeal; Section 54(2) miscellaneous second appeal; capitalization method; Nagoji Rao (2017) 15 SCC 671; quality of land versus crop grown; sugarcane; maize cotton vegetables; Upper Thunga project; Kengatte Village Govinakovi Hobli Honnali Davanagere Shimoga; LAC Appeal No.34/2006; MA No.27/2015; LAC No. 74/2014 Rs. 10,80,000 per acre; LAC 1/2004 EX.P1; price list EXs.P2 P3; Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India; AIR 2004 SC 3981; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — the appeal is dismissed on merits; consequently I.A.2/2023 does not survive for consideration. ¶¶109

Roopla Naika Vs the Special Land Acquisition — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the appeal is dismissed on merits; consequently I.A.2/2023 does not survive for consideration.

¶¶109

Issue for consideration

Whether the market value of the acquired land (Sy.No.78, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk) should be determined at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre as prayed by the appellant, instead of the Rs.2,30,000/- per acre fixed by the first appellate court. +2 more

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Non-granting of compensation for the sugarcane crop is just and proper: the record shows the claimant was growing sugar cane, maize, cotton and vegetables; PW-1's sugarcane claim lacked any documentary evidence of cultivation or supply to the sugar factory; and sugarcane being a minimum 13-month crop, no other crop could have been grown alongside it. The first appellate court's re-determination at Rs.2,30,000/- based on the yield of maize and cotton is accordingly just and proper.

¶¶96

Key takeaways

The principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagoji Rao would not be made applicable where the claimant has voluntarily approached the Reference Court to determine the quantum of compensation based on the capitalization method, since the claimant wanted market value determined by that method and no other.ratio¶¶101
The Division Bench's remittance of similar matters to the Reference Court rested on Nagoji Rao, where the claimants had not sought capitalization-method valuation; here the claimant having sought compensation on the capitalization method and placed material evidence on record, the Reference Court and the first appellate Court adopted the same method, and the first appellate Court's redetermination at Rs.2,30,000/- (against Rs.1,42,000/- by the Reference Court) does not call for any further interference.ratio¶¶108

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:30413), oral judgment delivered on 05.08.2025 by V Srishananda J dismissing MSA No. 78 of 2023 (LA) filed under S. 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act by claimant Roopla Naika against the compensation fixed for 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.78, Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk, acquired for the Upper Thunga project. Compensation ladder: LAO draft award Rs.25,000/- per acre; reference under S. 18; Reference Court (judgment dated 01.12.2011 in LAC Appeal No.34/2006, Senior Civil Judge, Harihara) Rs.1,42,000/- per acre with statutory benefits; first appellate court (judgment dated 18.06.2020 in MA No.27/2015, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere) enhanced to Rs.2,30,000/- per acre on the capitalization method using the price lists EXs.P2–P3 and the LAC 1/2004 award (EX.P1). Holding: the Nagoji Rao principle — compensation by quality of land irrespective of crop grown ((2017) 15 SCC 671) — does not apply where the claimant himself sought valuation by the capitalization method; sugarcane-crop compensation was rightly withheld for want of documentary evidence, the Rs.2,30,000/- figure resting on maize/cotton yield. Appeal dismissed as meritless; I.A.2/2023 does not survive.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2023 (LA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROOPLA NAIKA S/O HANUMANAIKA,

¶9

AGE 68 YEARS,

¶10

R/A KENGATTE VILLAGE, GOVINAKOVI HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE UTP SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNN LTD. UTP PROJECT, HONNALI DIVISION, HONNALI - 577 217.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 AGA FOR R1)

¶19

THIS MSA IS FILED U/S 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL NO.34/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

DECREE DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN MA NO.27/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED U/S. 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Patil Sanganagouda Guranagouda for Sri Sangamesh G Patil and learned counsel for the second respondent Sri Prashanth B R and learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶27

Present second appeal is filed by the claimant with the following prayer -

¶28

" Wherefore, the appellant respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and set aside/modify the judgment and award dated 01.12.2011 in LAC No.34/2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge Harihara and also the judgment and award passed in MA No.27/2015 dated 18.06.2020 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge at Davanagere and be

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

pleased to determine the market value of the appellant land bearing Sy.No.78 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas of Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre and award all statutory benefits in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary

¶34

for disposal of the present appeal as under:

¶35

3.1 Government of Karnataka acquired the land of

¶36

the appellant to the extent of one acre 31 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.78 situated at Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk.

¶37

3.2 The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per acre in the draft award. The claimant after receiving the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer, under protest filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

3.3 Reference Court after notifying the acquiring

¶42

authority held an inquiry and determined the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- per acre as against Rs.25,000/awarded by the land acquisition officer with statutory benefits.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the improper determination of the compensation for the acquired land, claimant filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before the first appellate Court.

¶44

The learned judge in the first appellate Court taking note of relevant aspects of the matter including the award that is passed in LAC 1/2004 which is placed on record by the claimant vide EX.P1 and considering the price list placed on record vide EXs.P2 and P3 are determined the compensation by enhancing the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-as against Rs.1,42,000/- determined by the Reference Court.

¶45

Being further aggrieved by the same, claimant is before this Court on following grounds -

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The impugned judgments and awards passed by the courts below highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶50

The market value determined by the reference court and lower appellate court are contrary to the facts and not based on relevant material and hence the same are liable to be set aside and the market value of the Appellant land be determined on the basis of the facts and material on record.

¶51

The courts below without any reason have awarded Rs. 1,42,000/per acre and Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre without appreciating the potentiality of the land in question and hence the impugned judgment which is illegal and unsustainable,

¶52

The reference court passed the judgment in LAC No. 74/2014 and connected cases subsequent to the impugned judgment where in market value has been determined at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre for the land of Kengatti village which is same village of the appellant land. The appellant is also entitled similar compensation for his land.

¶53

The method adopted by the reference court for determination of market value of the Appellant land is contrary to the well-established rule of law and provisions of the LA Act, which is not sustainable.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The court below without discussing all the material evidence on record and without taking into consideration of evidence of PW-1 and without taking into consideration of various documents marked before the court on an unsustainable ground, without any basis, in an arbitrary manner has awarded meager compensation which is illegal and contrary to Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.

¶58

It is submitted that the reference court ought to have determined market value of the land in question at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre.

¶59

It is submitted that the lower appellate court has awarded compensation at Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre based on capitalization method. However the judgment passed in neighboring land at Rs. 10,80,000/- per acre has not been placed as the appellant was not aware. Hence the appellant is also entitled the similar compensation for the land in question.

¶60

It is submitted that the reference court and also lower appellate court has failed to follow the ratio led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981, wherein it has been held that it would be unfair to discriminate between land owner to pay more to some and less to others when purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar though lying in the

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

different villages. The reference court awarded Rs. 10,80,000/in LAC 74/2014 and Rs. 1,42,000/- per acre to the land of the appellant, which is illegal and unsustainable."

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the

¶66

grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that Reference Court as well as the first appellate Court have not properly determined the compensation for the acquired land including the settled principles of law and both the courts wrongly determined the quantum of compensation for the acquired land by applying the capitalization method and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

¶67

He would also contend that in similar set of matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B Nagoji Rao

¶68

vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others

¶69

reported in (2017) 15 SCC 671, while considering the fixing of compensation, quality of land is to be taken into consideration by the Court and has held in paragraphs 5 to 7 as under :

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

" 5. The contention raised by the appellants is that the land value should depend upon the quality of the land and not based on the crop which has been grown in the land at the time of Section 4(1) notification. To put it in clearer terms, in the case of the appellants there is no dispute that at the time of the notification they were growing sugarcane but in the adjacent land, arecanut trees have been cultivated. In the case of lands cultivated with arecanut trees compensation granted is Rs. 10.08 Lacs per acre, whereas in the case of sugarcane the land value granted to the appellants is Rs. 2.38 Lacs per acre and in the case of some other sugarcane fields, it is Rs. 2.65 Lacs per acre. Our attention has been drawn on this aspect in respect of the adjacent land, as reflected in the order passed by a coordinate Bench.

¶74

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents it is not as if in all the adjacent lands arecanut have been grown. It is also submitted that in some adjacent lands it is sugarcane and in some it is arecanut Be that as it may, as we have already referred to the above factual position of the adjacent land and particularly the evidence regarding the quality of soil not available before us, which requires verification on the basis of evidence adduced before the Reference

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Court. As the records are available with the High Court, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration on the above aspect. In the process of such inquiry, if the High Court comes to a conclusion that the quality of the land of the appellants is that of the lands where arecanut trees have been grown, needless to say they will be entitled to similar treatment in the matter of compensation. What is material is the quality of the land and it does not necessarily depend on the crops grown at a particular time or season.

¶79

7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments and remit the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to both the sides to take all available contentions and refer to whatever materials and judgments in the case of adjacent lands for the purpose of establishing their point."

¶80

It is the further case of the appellant that based

¶81

on the order passed in the case of Nagoji Rao, a Division Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the principles stated in Nagoji Rao's case and has remitted the Miscellaneous First Appeal to the Reference Court for redetermining the compensation.

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant

¶85

sought for remitting the matter to the Reference Court for placing fresh evidence on record.

¶86

Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposes the appeal grounds by contending that the material evidence placed on record has been taken into consideration by the Reference Court in detail and based on the material documents placed on record, re-determined the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,42,000/which has been further re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the first appellate Court with prudence and re-determined the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- which is just and proper. Therefore no further indulgence need to be shown in determining the appropriate market value and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶87

Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶88

On such perusal of record, it is crystal clear that material evidence placed on record by the claimant shows

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

that he was growing sugar cane, maize, cotton and vegetables.

¶93

In the case on hand, acquisition of the land for

¶94

the Upper Thunga project is not in dispute so also the extent of land. In the cross examination of PW.1, he clearly admitted that he has grown sugarcane and he had an agreement with the Bhadra Sugar Factory and sugarcane yields from the lands was to the tune of 70 tonne per year. It is also elicited that per tonne the rate of sugarcane was Rs.1,500/- but to establish that he had grown sugarcane and he has supplied the same to the sugar factory, no material evidence is placed on record.

¶95

On the contrary, the price list that has been filed vide EXs.P2 and P3 is taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge and has determined the market value in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- based on the crop that were grown were that of maize and cotton and vegetables.

¶96

Under such circumstances, non-granting the compensation for the sugarcane crop is just and proper. It

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

is pertinent to note that even though the claimant has deposed before the Court that he was growing 3 crops in a year, if sugarcane is grown, which is minimum 13 months crop, no other crop could have been grown. In the absence of any documentary evidence that is placed on record that the claimant has grown sugarcane, the learned Judge in the first appellate Court re-determining the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- based on the yield of maize and cotton is just and proper.

¶101

Further, there is no dispute with regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the nature of the soil and fertility of the land acquired while determining the compensation. However, if a claimant has approached the Reference Court to determine the quantum of compensation voluntarily based on the capitalization method, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagoji Rao would not be made applicable for the simple reason that the claimant

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

wanted is market value to be determined based on the

¶106

capitalization method and not on any other method.

¶107

Further, the Division Bench of this Court remitting the matter to the Reference Court is based on the principles of law enunciated in Nagoji Rao where the claimant did not seek the determination of quantum of compensation by capitalization method.

¶108

In the case on hand, claimant having sought for the grant of compensation based on the capitalization method and placed material evidence on record, the Reference Court and the learned Judge in the first appellate Court adopted the same method, especially in redetermination of the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- by the first appellate Court as against Rs.1,42,000/- determined by the Reference Court does not call for any further interference.

¶109

Thus, the appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed,. hence, the following -

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:30413 MSA No. 78 of 2023

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

ORDER

¶114

The appeal is merit less and the same is

¶115

hereby dismissed.

¶116

In view of dismissal of the appeal on merits,

¶117

I.A.2/2023 would not survive for consideration.

¶118

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

¶119

JUDGE

¶120

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and award dated 01.12.2011 in LAC Appeal No.34/2006 (Senior Civil Judge, Harihara) and judgment and decree dated 18.06.2020 in MA No.27/2015 (I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere), challenged by this Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking determination of market value at Rs.10,80,000/- per acre.¶¶19
Senior Civil Judge, Harihara; I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere · 01.12.2011 (LAC Appeal No.34/2006); 18.06.2020 (MA No.27/2015)
Prior proceeding
Government of Karnataka acquired 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.78, Kengatte Village, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk, for the Upper Thunga project; acquisition and extent not in dispute.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre in the draft award.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Claimant received the LAO-determined compensation under protest and filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Reference Court, after notifying the acquiring authority and holding an inquiry, determined compensation at Rs.1,42,000/- per acre (against Rs.25,000/-) with statutory benefits; this corresponds to the judgment and award dated 01.12.2011 in LAC Appeal No.34/2006 (Senior Civil Judge, Harihara) challenged in this appeal.¶¶42
Prior proceeding
Claimant, aggrieved by the reference-court determination, filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before the first appellate Court.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
First appellate court took into account the award passed in LAC 1/2004 (placed on record by claimant as EX.P1) and the price lists placed on record as EXs.P2 and P3.¶¶44
Prior proceeding
First appellate court (MA No.27/2015, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, judgment dated 18.06.2020 — challenged) enhanced compensation to Rs.2,30,000/- per acre against Rs.1,42,000/- determined by the Reference Court.¶¶44

Roopla Naika v. the Special Land Acquisition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopla Naika v. the Special Land Acquisition

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

Mr S R Narasimhamurthy Vs the Sreematha Trust

Sri Halkatappa Vs Smt. Gangamma

K Nagabhushana Vs Smt Aswathamma

Peter Anandaraj Vs Nil

G.A. Sharathchandra Vs H.S. Sukanya

Sri G a Somasundar Vs G a Sharathchandra