IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4742/2015 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

S. BHARATHI W/O SUNDARKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ECHALAHALLY VILLAGE Digitally signed by KANDLI POST, KASABA HOBLI ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HASSAN TALUK.

Location: High …APPELLANT Court Of (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.,)

Karnataka AND:

1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVIOR PLANNING 2 HASSAN.

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM SURFACE WATER DATA CENTRE BUILDING ANANDRAO CIRCLE BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PRASHANTH B.R. ADV., FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.70/11 FROM THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN ON 16.01.2024 IN LAC NO.70/11, THEREBY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2014 passed in LAC.No.70/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

2. The Trial Court is hereinafter referred as 'the Reference Court', the appellant as claimant and the respondent as the respondent for the purpose of convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 09 guntas and 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.57 and in 84 respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, was acquired for purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project under the preliminary notification dated 30.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 31.01.2009 and determined the market value at Rs.63,800/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal.

4. Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Reference Court has not considered the pleading and evidence in its proper prospective and awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the similarly placed land losers have got higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to reconsider the evidence on record by allowing the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is the beneficiary of the acquisition and was not arrayed as a party before the Reference Court. Hence, it would be appropriate to implead respondent No.2 before the Reference Court by permitting him to adduce evidence. He seeks to remand the matter to the Reference Court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the market value of the land in question. In response to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant fairly concedes to remand the matter to the Reference Court.

6. Smt.Manjunath Rayappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court calls for any interference?"

9. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons:

a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the claimant's lands measuring 09 guntas and 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.57 and in 84 respectively,