IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1137/2015 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KRISHNAPPA

S/O NARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT AREHALLI Digitally signed

by ARSHIFA GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE

BAHAR KHANAM BASETTIHALLI POST

Location: High DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

Court Of …APPELLANT

Karnataka

(BY SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADV.,)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KIADB, M.S. BUILDING

PEENYA II STAGE

BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAC ACT, PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR IN LAC NO.30/2005 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WITH OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS AVAILABLE AND INTEREST AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS THE THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 challenging the judgment and award dated 26.10.2013 passed in LAC No.30/2005 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short) seeking for higher compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s land measuring 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.80, situated at Arehalli Guddadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for industrial purposes. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value at Rs.2,80,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the claimant sought a reference. The Reference Court held that, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the preliminary notification, the claimant was not entitled to enhancement of compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the reference petition and the refusal to enhance compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Sri. S.Nagaraja., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the Reference Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record. It is submitted that the claimant had produced relevant documents and had relied upon comparable awards pertaining to neighboring lands to demonstrate the prevailing market value as on the date of the preliminary notification. It is further submitted that the potentiality, location and features of the acquired property were clearly established, and therefore the claimant is entitled to higher compensation. It is also submitted that in other connected cases relating to the same village, the respondent has awarded compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and the same benefit is required to be given to the claimant. It is contended that the Reference Court adopted an unduly restrictive approach in discarding the supporting material and, as a result, the compensation awarded does not represent the fair market value. It is further contended that even the Deputy Commissioner, in the proceedings dated 30.01.2006, has determined and recommended compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for agricultural land, which clearly supports the claimant’s plea for enhancement. Hence, he seeks that this Court may interfere with the findings of the Reference Court and re-determine the compensation in a just and reasonable manner. In support of his contentions he produced the judgment and award dated 17.06.2011 passed in LAC.NO.21/2005 and connected