Partly allowed

Kantharaju v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026MFA/7287/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's land acquired for Hemavathi canal project; reference court denied enhancement treating it as dry land. High Court on re-appreciation found fruit-bearing trees and irrigation established garden-land character and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,500 per gunta with statutory benefits, denying interest for 3133 days' delay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kantharaju Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7287/2017 (LAC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶9

Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶10

KANTHARAJU S/O THOPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. G. MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE TIPTUR TALUK-572224.

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TIPTUR - 572224.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.56/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPATUR. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2013 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR LAND & TREES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 passed in LAC No.56/1994 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short) seeking for higher compensation.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶26

referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.

¶27

The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.95 situated at G.Mallenahalli Village, Tiptur taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Hemavathi canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the market value and awarded compensation at Rs.2,38,443/-. Being aggrieved,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the claimant sought a reference. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the reference petition and the refusal to enhance compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶31

Sri. Chandrashekar P Patil., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the Reference Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record. It is submitted that the Reference Court failed to consider that the acquired land is garden land and wrongly treated it as dry land while fixing the compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that very low compensation was awarded for coconut trees, wells, and other improvements, ignoring the reports of the Agriculture Department and other competent authorities. It is also submitted that the Reference Court applied an

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

incorrect multiplier and relied on old decisions without considering present economic conditions and the Reference Court did not consider the fertility, irrigation facilities, future potentiality, increase in land value, and incidental damages suffered by the appellant. Hence, he seeks that this Court may interfere with the findings of the Reference Court and re-determine the compensation in a just and reasonable manner.

¶35

Per contra, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and submits that the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and correct as on the date of acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the market value, nature of the land, annual yield, existing trees, buildings and other relevant factors and has arrived at the valuation. It is further submitted that the said valuation was fixed in accordance with the existing parameters

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

prescribed by the Government. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the valuation is just, fair and adequate and does not warrant any reassessment. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment

¶40

and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

¶41

The undisputed facts in this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas situated in Sy.No.95, situated at G. Mallenahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of Hemavathi canal project by issuing Preliminary Notification

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

dated 28.09.1989. The LAO had passed an award on 05.06.1992 by determining the market value at Rs.2,38,443/-. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought a reference and got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and the respondent examined RW-1 and no documents were marked. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶45

The primary contention of the appellant is that the acquired land was a "Garden Land" and not a "Dry Land" as classified by the LAO and the Reference Court. Upon meticulous perusal of the records, including the Mahazar and the list of assets found on the land at the time of preliminary notification, it is evident that the land contained a substantial number of fruit-bearing trees,

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

including Coconut and Mango. The existence of a borewell and the established horticultural yield are clear indicators of the land's nature. It is a settled principle that when a land is utilized for growing perpetual horticultural crops with the aid of irrigation facilities, it loses its character as 'Dry Land' and must be treated as 'Garden Land' for the purpose of determining just compensation.

¶49

Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that the Reference Court erred in its classification. A perusal of the records reveals the presence of high-yield crops and fruit-bearing trees, which have characteristic features of Garden Land. Furthermore, we take judicial notice of the discussions held between the Taluk Level Officers and the claimant in the Lok Adalat, where a compromise on valuation was reached. It is significant to note that in the said Adalat, a panel of experts arrived at a common valuation and passed a resolution vide Order No.2/2011-12 dated 15.06.2011.

¶50

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Although the said compromise was referred to the Government and "express consent" has not yet been received, this Court cannot disregard the expert opinion of these high-ranking officials. The officials, after consulting experts of various fields, fixed the market value at Rs.2,500/- per gunta for Garden Land, for wet land Rs.2,000/- per gunta and Rs.1,500/- per gunta for Dry Land.

¶53

Since the evidence on record supports the claimant’s contention that the land in question is a Garden Land, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta. Insofar as the trees are concerned, we affirm the conclusions and compensation awarded by LAO.

¶54

In view of the above, the judgment of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside to the extent of determination of the market value as the land is garden land and not a dry land. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.2,500/- per

¶55

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:683-DB M.F.A. No.7287/2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

gunta. It is needless to observe that the appellant shall

¶58

also be entitled to all statutory benefits and interests in accordance with law.

¶59

For the aforementioned reasons:

¶60

i. The appeal is allowed in part with costs.

¶61

ii. The judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 passed in LAC No.56/1994 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, is hereby set aside.

¶62

iii. The appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta with all statutory benefits along with interest as per law. However, the appellant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 3133 days.

¶63

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶65

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Kantharaju v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kantharaju v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Sarkariya Vs the Union of India

Smt Rama Raju Vs Joint Secretary

Smt.H.P.Rohini Vs Joint Secretary

Smt. Nethravathi R.V. Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri R S Raju

S Mahadevaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Police