IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.59 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

DUSHYANTH KUMAR S/O H.S.NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ECHALAHALLI GRAMA KANDALI POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PLANNING-2 (H.R.P-II)

D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX HASSAN-573 201 Digitally signed by MALATE SH 2. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED K C SURFACE WATER DATA Location: ANAND RAO CIRCLE HIGH DIRECTORATE OF COURT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION KARNATAKA SESHADRI ROAD, LAKSHMAN PURI GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1;

SRI B.R.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2013 PASSED IN RA NO.261/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.8.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.182/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LA ACT THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Claimant’s Second Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation for the acquired land for the purpose of Yagachi Reservoir Project. Claimant is the land loser. In view of increase in the height of the reservoir, claimant’s land got submerged in the back water.

3. The Reference Court and the First Appellate Court have re-assessed the compensation. As per the Order of the First Appellate Court, the land value is fixed at Rs.20,000/- per gunta as against Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired land.

4. Being further aggrieved by the same, claimant is before this Court.

5. Pertinently, the beneficiary was not made as party before the Reference Court as the law existed then, did not contemplate impleading the beneficiary as party to the proceeding. However, before this Court, an application came to be filed by the claimant for impleading the beneficiary as party. 6. Sri B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/beneficiary contended that since there was no fair opportunity granted, in the absence of beneficiary being party to the proceeding, award passed by the Reference Court and the First Appellate Court may be set-aside and the matter may be remitted to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication permitting the beneficiary to place necessary material on record and also place oral and documentary evidence on record.

7. Taking note of the fact that the claimant is seeking Rs.1,00,000/- per gunta based on the acquisition of land of similarly placed claimants of the adjacent village, it is just and necessary to set-aside the Order of the First Appellate Court and the Reference Court and remit the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law.

8. Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant further submits that taking note of the fact that acquisition is of the year 2006, Reference Court may be directed to expedite the matter. His submission is recorded.

9. Hence, the following:

ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed (ii) Consequently, award passed by the Reference Court and the First Appellate Court is hereby set-aside.

(iii) To afford proper and fair opportunity for the beneficiary, matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to place additional e