2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442188
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANU SIVARAMAN AND VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
THIMMARAYIGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – Respondent
MFA 7276/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH 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.7276/2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THIMMARAYIGOWDA
S/O LATE JAVARE GOWDA
AGED 70 YEARS
ECHALAHALLY VILLAGE
KANDLI POST, KASABA HOBLI
Digitally
HASSAN TQ & DIST-573201
signed by
RUPA V …APPELLANT
Location :
(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.,)
High Court
Of
Karnataka
AND:
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PLANNING-2
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM
SURFACE WATER DATE CENTRE BUILDING
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. AGA FOR R1
SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, 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.58/2011 FROM THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HASSAN. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN IN LAC NO.58/11, DATED 23.03.2013 THEREBY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR WITH OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 23.03.2013 passed in LAC.No.58/2011 by the Principal 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 lands in Sy.No.75/2 measuring 11 guntas and Sy.No.72 measuring 12 guntas, respectively, of Echalahally Village, Hassan Taluk, were acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.2 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 submits that the Reference Court has not considered the pleading and evidence in its proper perspective and awarded meagre compensation. It is submitted that the similarly placed land losers have received 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 the respondent No.2 submits that the 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 the 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 lands in question. In response to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly concedes to remand the matter. It is submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of T.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER, MFA No.8077/16 dt. 25.9.25 had remanded back the matter.
6. Smt.Prathiba R.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for the 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 our consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference