P Ganeshwaraiah S/O P Veereshaiah Vs Land Acquisition Officer

P. GANESHWARAIAH S/O. P. VEERESHAIAH, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO. 11, KARNAM BEEDI, KAMALAPUR HOSAPETE, TALUKA: VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT (OLD BELLARI DISTRICT).

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRANAV U. BADAGI, ADVOCATE REP. SRI S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGAR – 560 040.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR TOURISM DEPARTMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, ICOM, BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, NEAR LOTUS MAHAL, HAMPI POST, KAMALAPUR, TAL: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 560 040.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-12-2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI (NOW VIJAYANAGAR), SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN LAC NO 27/2022 ON IA NO. 2/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶25

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

i. A writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 02-12-2024 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Ballari (Now Vijayanagar), sitting at Hosapete in LAC No 27/2022 on IA No. 2/2024 filed by the petitioner, a copy of the said order is produced herein as per Annexure-F and allow the said application in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

ii. Any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit be granted in the interest of justice.

¶30

The petitioner was the owner of the land in R.S.

¶31

No.120B2, measuring 1.5 acres situated in at

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶33

Kaddirampur village, Kamalapur Hobli, Hospete

¶34

Taluk, District Vijayanagar.

¶35

The said land came to be acquired by respondents No.2 and 3 for the benefit of respondents No.2 and 3, and an award came to be passed on 19/09/2016. The petitioner being aggrieved by the amount awarded, has sought for reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act of 2013’, for short). The same was referred to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, sitting at Hosapete and came to numbered as LAC No.27/2022.

¶36

In the said reference, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which came to be numbered as I.A.2/2024, seeking for incorporation of the number of trees, the market value of the said trees and certain other aspects,

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶38

contending that the valuation would have to be affected in respect of these items.

¶39

The said application having been opposed by the beneficiary of the acquisition, vide order dated 02.12.2024, the application came to be dismissed on the ground that the amendment which has been sought for, is for incorporation of pleadings in the nature of evidence, which is not permissible, and as such, the petitioner intends to plead evidence in the matter, which cannot be permitted under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, wherein the determination to be made by the Court under Section 69 of the Act of 2013 is as to whether the computation of the compensation made is proper or not and no new evidence can be led. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Sri. Pranav V. Badagi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Reference Court is not proper, inasmuch as what is

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶42

sought to be placed on record is not only evidence, but a pleading on which basis evidence should be led in the future, and it is for the Reference Court to have considered these aspects to determine whether the calculation of the compensation made is proper or not. The contention of the land loser being that the valuation of the property is not proper and that the relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, the land loser is now seeking to place those details on record, which could not be placed earlier. The amendment being required to determine

¶43

the true compensation which is liable to be paid, the Reference Court ought to have allowed the said application.

¶44

Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA, would submit that all those aspects have been considered by the SLAO while passing the award, and as such, no further evidence could be led by the land loser in relation thereto.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶46

Heard Sri.Pranav V. Badagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the papers.

¶47

The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is, “whether the land loser can be permitted to lead evidence in reference proceedings by placing on record the pleadings relating to the aspects, which have not been considered in the award passed by the SLAO?

¶48

It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner has been acquired and an award has been passed, as regards which the petitioner has a grievance in terms of the quantum of the compensation awarded. It is in that background that the petitioner has sought for enhancement of compensation as regards the valuation made to the number of trees, valuation of the trees, and certain other aspects.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶50

The valuation of agricultural land being required to be made on the basis of the nature of the trees, quantum of trees and the yield of the trees, if the petitioner land loser was of the opinion that the compensation has not been determined and ascertained on that basis, and the apportionment made is not correct, it would but be required for the land loser to seek for reference and place those details on record for the Reference Court to consider.

¶51

If the land loser were not permitted to place any evidence on record as regards the enhancement sought, then there would be nothing for the Reference Court to consider while considering the application for enhancement.

¶52

In that view of the matter, the finding of the Reference Court in the present matter that the pleadings sought to be placed on record is evidentiary in nature is not correct, inasmuch as for evidence to be led, there would have to be pleadings

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶54

placed on record. It is trite law that the pleadings without evidence, and evidence without pleadings cannot be looked into.

¶55

As such, I am of the considered opinion that the pleadings now sought to be placed on record are the foundation for the evidence which are required to be led by the land loser for enhancement of compensation. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The petition is allowed.

¶58

ii. The order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete in LAC No.27/2022 on I.A.No.2/2024, is set aside.

¶59

iii. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2024 is allowed the Reference Court is directed to proceed with the matter therefrom, after permitting the petitioner

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100754 of 2025

¶61

to carry out the necessary amendment to the

¶62

claim petition.

¶63

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶64

gab/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

P Ganeshwaraiah S/O P Veereshaiah v. Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Ganeshwaraiah S/O P Veereshaiah v. Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Secretary

Shivaprasad Yallappa Hubballi Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkappa Kareppa Gayakwad Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayarama Udupa Vs State by Sagar Town P S

Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar, Vs the State of Karnataka, Represented by Its

Shri Jagadish S/O Savalageppa Pattanashetti Vs Shri Gadigeppa S/O Basappa Munavalli