Allowed

Smt Kamalamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026MSA/223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous second appeal regarding land acquisition compensation for agricultural land, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal in part. The Court determined the market value at Rs. 45,000/- per gunta, aligning it with a coordinate bench decision for similar land under the same notification. Consequential benefits were granted, but interest for the delay in filing the appeal was den

What did the court decide?

Market value determined at Rs. 45,000/- per gunta; consequential benefits granted; appeal costs awarded; interest for delay period of 1044 days denied.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025 (LA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT KAMALAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MUNDAGODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DIST 562157.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-2,1ST FLOOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING, HASSAN 560058

¶15

KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA K R S ROAD

¶16

GOKULAM 4^TH STAGE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MYSORE, HASSAN 570020.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED IN LAC(APPEAL) NO. 177/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, AT HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN LAC.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2017 passed in Reference LAC.No.55/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Arakalgud and also judgment and award dated 20.07.2022 in L.A.C.(Appeal) No.177/2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Hassan.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents

¶32

are heard on merits.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

1 MSA 25/2023 C/W MSA 24/2023

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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.

¶40

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 land in question i.e., Sy.No.31/3 and Sy.No.81 are located in Mundagodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. It is claimed that the land is an agricultural land where the appellant used to grow Ragi, Avare, Horsegram, Thoor, Alasande, Beans, Sesame, groundnut, Jowar, Potato, tobacco etc.

¶41

It is further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

nature and both the lands are at a distance of about 2 to 3 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.

¶46

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 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 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

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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

¶54

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.

¶55

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:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Appeal is allowed in part ;

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:10504 MSA No. 223 of 2025

¶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 1044 days in filing the appeal.

¶64

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶65

SMJ

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt Kamalamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamalamma 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. Somashekar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dasaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer