B.V. Nagarathna, J.

This is a miscellaneous second appeal, assailing judgment and award passed in LAC. Appeal No. 130/2011 by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, dated 02.04.2012 by which, judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bailhongal, (hereinafter referred to as "the reference court" for the sake of convenience) dated 26.3.2011 in LAC.No.193/2010 has been modified by partly allowing the appeal.

2. Relevant facts of the case are that an extent of 17 guntas out of 1 acre 37 guntas of land, in Sy.No.6/3+4b; 25 guntas in Sy.No.87/5 and 35 guntas in Sy.No.85/1 situated at Mugabasava village, Bailhongal taluk, Belgaum District, were acquired for the purpose of River Malaprabha Reservoir Project. In fact the aforesaid lands along with other lands were submerged in the backwaters of Malaprabha River on the construction of the reservoir project. Consequently, the aforesaid lands along with other lands were sought to be acquired by issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity), dated 07.06.2007. Subsequently, declaration was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and an award was passed on 23.07.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") awarded compensation of Rs. 56,672/- per acre by a common award.

3. Not being satisfied with the said award, the appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act (read with Karnataka Amendment) seeking a reference to the court for enhancement of compensation. The reference court awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre by assessing escalation in the market value of the land at 8% per annum as per the assessment of the lands in the neighbouring village in the same taluk which were also acquired earlier for the very same purpose. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the reference court, respondent No. 1, beneficiary filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge at Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the "first appellate court" for the sake of convenience), who by his judgment and award dated 02.04.2012 reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre on the basis of capitalisation method. The appellant-claimant had also filed cross-objection before the first appellate court. The cross-objection of the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the First Appellate Court, the claimant has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. I have heard Sri. S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the claimant and Sri. Ramesh N. Misale, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Veena Hegde learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 2.

6. Appellant's Counsel has raised a two polonged contention in this appeal. Firstly, he contended that the land in question has been acquired for Malaprabha Reservoir Project. In so far as the said acquisition is concerned, while applying escalation method, as has been done by the reference court in this case, the ruling of a Division Bench of this court must be applied. He submitted that the Division Bench has assessed escalation in the price of the land by 10% per annum by judgment dated 01.12.2011 in MFA.No.22947/2011 and that the judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 16.12.2013 in SLP.No.8875/2013 filed by the first respondent herein. The SLP was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits and therefore, following the aforesaid dictum, this court may enhance escalation at 10% instead of 8% per annum which was reckoned by the reference court, although the First Appellate Court did not proceed on that basis but on capitalisation method. He contended that if the aforesaid decisions are applied, then compensation would be Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and accordingly all statutory benefits would apply.

7. His next contention was with regard to payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act.