Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Kalaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Kalaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition OfficerKalaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dismissed¶order

Kalaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025MSA/98/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal on land-acquisition compensation (trees vs land) — High Court of Karnataka, NC 2025:KHC:47789, MSA No. 98 of 2022 (LA), decided 19-11-2025 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma. Claimant Kalaiah s/o Late Rangaiah challenged enhancement decisions concerning 4 guntas in Sy.No.14/1, Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District (Hemavathi Canal Zone); provisions invoked: S. 23 and S. 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Key points: claimant confined enhancement claim to trees (estopped from seeking land-value enhancement); dismissal for want of materials on tree existence/value. Advocates: M.C. Basavaraju (appellant); Gopal Krishna Sodi, AGA (R1 – Special LAO); K.S. Bheemaiah (R2 – Chief Engineer).

What did the court decide?

Since the appellant had not sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the land before the courts below and his claim was confined to the trees, he cannot turn around and contend that the compensation in respect of the acquired land should also be enhanced; he is estopped from taking such contentions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, having not sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land before the courts below (his claim being confined to the trees), can nonetheless contend that the compensation for the land should be enhanced. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the appellant had not sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the land before the courts below and his claim was confined to the trees, he cannot turn around and contend that the compensation in respect of the acquired land should also be enhanced; he is estopped from taking such contentions.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any materials placed before the Court to support the appellant's contention regarding the existence and value of the various trees, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma), MSA No. 98 of 2022 (LA) filed under S. 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act against the First Appellate Court's judgment of 23.10.2020 in RA No.309/2018, decided 19.11.2025. The claimant-appellant's 4 guntas in Sy.No.14/1, Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District were acquired (preliminary notification 25.06.2004; final notification 20.10.2005); the Trial Court (LAC No.514/2010, decided 11.06.2015) awarded Rs.16,540 for the land plus amounts for hebbevu, mango, nugge, neem and coconut trees, and the First Appellate Court enhanced compensation to Rs.16,000 per mango tree in respect of 7 mango trees. Held: the appellant, having sought enhancement only in respect of the trees and not the land, is estopped from contending that the land compensation should also be enhanced; and as no materials supported his contention on the existence and value of the other trees, there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed; Trial Court records directed to be returned.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2022 (LA)

BETWEEN:

KALAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A BADENAHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572219 TUMKUR DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMKUR - 572 101

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE TUMKUR - 572 101

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SODI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

…RESPONDENTS

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.309/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN LAC.NO.514/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022

HC-KAR

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Claimant being the appellant herein is impugning the judgment and award dated 11.06.2015 passed in LAC No.514/2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and the judgment and award dated 23.10.2020 passed in RA No.309/2018 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').

Heard Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Gopal Kirshna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that 4

guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1 situated at Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the appellant came to be acquired by issuing the preliminary Notification dated 25.06.2004, final Notification dated 20.10.2005 and the possession was also taken over. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation in respect of the land and the trees standing therein. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants sought for reference of dispute. Accordingly, the Trial Court in LAC No.514/2010 held an enquiry.

The claimant examined himself as PW1, got marked Exs.P1 to 10 in support of his contention. Taking into consideration all these materials on record, it has awarded compensation of Rs.16,540 towards the value of 4 guntas of land, Rs.30,000/- towards value of two big hebbevu trees, Rs.7,000/- towards value of 7 mango saplings , Rs.1,000/towards nugge sapling, Rs.6,000/- towards the value of 3 neem trees and Rs.68,040/- towards the value of 9 coconut trees. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimant has preferred appeal in RA No.309/2018.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022

HC-KAR

The First Appellate Court has partly allowed the

appeal and modified the award passed by the Trial Court enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,000/- per Mango trees and in respect of 7 such mango trees. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court.

The First Appellate Court referring to the written arguments submitted by the appellant noted that, appellant is not seeking enhancement in respect of the land but he is seeking enhancement of compensation only in respect of the trees. Therefore, it proceeded to consider the contention of the claimant and felt necessary to enhance the compensation in respect of 7 mango trees standing in the land that was acquired. Even though the appellant is challenging the impugned judgment, now he cannot turn around and contend that even the compensation in respect of the land acquired is to be enhanced. He is in fact estopped from taking such contentions.

With regard to existence of various trees referred to

by the appellant and with regard to the value of the same, no materials are placed before the Court to seek enhancement. In

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47789 MSA No. 98 of 2022

HC-KAR

the absence of any materials to support the contention taken by the appellant, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed .

Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court

records along with copy of this Judgment.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

BH

CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appellant, having not sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land before the courts below (his claim being confined to the trees), can nonetheless contend that the compensation for the land should be enhanced.¶6
The court held
Since the appellant had not sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the land before the courts below and his claim was confined to the trees, he cannot turn around and contend that the compensation in respect of the acquired land should also be enhanced; he is estopped from taking such contentions.ratio¶6
2.
Whether there are grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments so as to further enhance the compensation awarded for the various trees on the acquired land.¶7
The court held
In the absence of any materials placed before the Court to support the appellant's contention regarding the existence and value of the various trees, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.ratio¶7

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Land Acquisition Act54(2)¶cause-title 23¶cause-title

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and award dated 23.10.2020 in RA No.309/2018 (First Appellate Court) partly allowing the claimant's appeal and modifying the Trial Court award by enhancing compensation for the mango trees.¶1
VII Additional District Judge, Tumkur · 23.10.2020
Prior proceeding
4 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1, Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the appellant acquired; preliminary notification dated 25.06.2004, final notification dated 20.10.2005; possession taken over.¶3
Prior proceeding
SLAO awarded compensation for the land and the trees standing thereon; claimants not satisfied and sought reference of dispute.¶3
Prior proceeding
Reference enquired into by the Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi) in LAC No.514/2010; judgment and award dated 11.06.2015 granting compensation for the land and various trees.¶1
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court (VII Addl. District Judge, Tumkur) in RA No.309/2018 partly allowed the claimant's appeal, enhancing compensation to Rs.16,000 per mango tree in respect of 7 mango trees.¶5

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Kalaiah S/O Late Rangaiah¶cause-title
M.C. Basavaraju
respondent
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Canal Zone, Tumkur¶cause-title
Gopal Krishna Sodi
respondent
Chief Engineer, Hemavathi Canal Zone, Tumkur¶cause-title
K.S. Bheemaiah

Coram

AI extract

M G Umaauthor¶coram-line

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 19 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 11 Oct 2022
Case no.: MSA/98/2022
CNR: KAHC010467652022
Topic: Land Acquisition
Bench: M G Uma
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Miscellaneous Second Appeal (LA)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M G Uma

Anthonyswamy Vs the State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Peresandra Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangh Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Puttamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer
19 Nov 2025
Primary Agriculture Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka
19 Nov 2025
Sri. Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka
19 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Kalaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MSA/98/2022 (KA), decided on 19 November 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Land Acquisition Act54(2) · 23

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Judgment and award dated 23.10.2020 in RA No.309/2018 (First Appellate Court) partly allowing the claimant's appeal and modifying the Trial Court award by enhancing compensation for the mango trees.VII Additional District Judge, Tumkur · 23.10.2020
4 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/1, Badenahalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District belonging to the appellant acquired; preliminary notification dated 25.06.2004, final notification dated 20.10.2005; possession taken over.
SLAO awarded compensation for the land and the trees standing thereon; claimants not satisfied and sought reference of dispute.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M G Uma

Parties & counsel