Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54 (2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) NO.183/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN LAC.53/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:10505 MSA No. 62 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2017 passed in Reference LAC.No.53/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Arakalgud and also judgment and award dated 20.07.2022 in L.A.C.(Appeal) No.183/2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Hassan.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents

¶30

are heard on merits.

¶31

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.

¶32

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 the award, the appellant has filed appeal before the learned

¶33

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

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:10505 MSA No. 62 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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.

¶38

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.31/2 is 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.

¶39

It is further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench 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 kilometres away from Arakalagudu town and is abutting to

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:10505 MSA No. 62 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Arkalagudu - Konanoor Main Road. Thus, urged that the market value be re-determined and market value be fixed at Rs.45,000/- per gunta.

¶44

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.

¶45

Following question arise for consideration:

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10505 MSA No. 62 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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.

¶51

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:

¶52

ORDER

¶53