Partly allowed

Smt. Somashekar v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026MSA/177/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against enhancement of land acquisition compensation. Following the coordinate bench decision in Puttaswamappa for lands under the same notification in the same village, the court fixed market value at Rs.45,000 per gunta and granted consequential benefits and appeal costs.

What did the court decide?

Market value fixed at Rs.45,000/- per gunta with all consequential benefits and cost of appeal; no interest for 873 days' delay in filing appeal.

Smt. Somashekar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.177 OF 2024 (LA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SOMASHEKAR S/O NANJAPPA AGED AB OUT 60 YEARS R/AT MUNDAGODU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-562 157.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MANOJ KUMAR J Y., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P.-2, 1^ST FLOOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560 058.

¶14

KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA KRS ROAD GOKULAM 4^TH STAGE, MYSORE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

HC-KAR

HASSAN-570020.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2022 PASSED IN LAC(APPEAL) NO.193/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2016 PASSED IN LAC.15/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 11.03.2016 passed in Reference LAC.No.15/2014

¶29

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Arakalgud and also judgment and award dated 18.04.2022 in L.A.C.(Appeal) No.193/2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Hassan.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents

¶31

are heard on merits.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in Puttaswamappa V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and another¹ . Learned counsels for the respondents would submit that the issue raised in the present appeal is not covered.

¶33

In terms of the award passed in Reference, the market value is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per gunta and consequential benefits were awarded. Being unsatisfied with

¶34

1 MSA.No.25/2023 clubbed with MSA.No.24/2023.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the award, the appellant has filed appeal before the learned District Judge. The District Court has allowed the appeal in part and re-determined the market value at Rs.35,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved by the same, the land loser is in second appeal before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that land in question was notified in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, on 03.09.2009. The lands in question i.e., Sy.No.37/1 is located in Mundagodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. It is claimed that the lands are an agricultural lands where the appellant used to grow Ragi, Avare, Horsegram, Thoor, Alasande, Beans, Sesame, groundnut, Jowar, Potato, tobacco etc.

¶40

It is further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench

¶41

of this Court in Puttaswamappa (supra), while deciding the market value of the property located in the same village, under the same Notification dated 03.09.2009 has determined the market value at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. It is urged that the lands involved in the aforementioned two cases are of similar nature and both the lands are at a distance of about 2 to 3

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

kilometres away from Arakalagudu town and is abutting to Arkalagudu - Konanoor Main Road. Thus, urged that the market value be re-determined and market value be fixed at Rs.45,000/- per gunta.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would urge that, respondent No.2 was not made a party before the Reference Court, it was made a party before the First Appellate Court and the appellant has to substantiate the claim based on the independent evidence. The appellant cannot rely upon the judgment in Puttaswamappa (supra), is the counter

¶46

submission.

¶47

Following question arise for consideration:

¶48

"Whether the appellant has made out a case to award Rs.45,000/- per gunta as market value?"

¶49

It is noticed that though respondent No.2 was not

¶50

made a party before the Reference Court and was made a party before the First Appellate Court for the first time, the decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not questioned by

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has accepted the decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶55

Thus, the only question is whether market value is to be determined with reference to the judgment in Puttaswamappa (supra) . It is noticed that the lands are acquired under the same Notification in both the cases and in addition, lands are also from same village and are agricultural lands.

¶56

From evidence on record, it appears that both lands are similar. That being the position, this Court is of the view that, there is no difficulty in accepting the appellant’s contention that market value has to be determined at Rs.45,000/- per gunta. Hence, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Appeal is allowed in part ;

¶59

(ii) The market value of the land acquired is determined at Rs.45,000/- per gunta.

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10503 MSA No. 177 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

(iii) Appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits and appellant is also entitled to the cost of the appeal.

¶63

(iv) However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 873 days in filing the appeal.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶66

SMJ

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. Somashekar v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Somashekar v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. Muniswamaiah Vs the Managing Director and

Ramesh M v Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Ramesh N Vs Chief Traffic Manager

Smt Kamalamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dasaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer