##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12242

MSA No. 63 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.63 OF 2025 (LA)

BETWEEN:

MR.THIRUMALAIAH

S/O.LATE VENKATAIAH

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

GADENAHALLI VILLAGE

KATTAYA HOBLI

HASSAN TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI SOHAN NAYAK M. FOR

SRI MOHAN KUMAR B.M. AND SRI. KARIGOWDA

HENCHINAMANE S., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. SPEICAL LAND

ACQUISTITON OFIFCER

Digi tally HRP-II, HASSAN CITY

signed by HASSAN-573 201

PRAMILA G V

Location: 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER amendment carried

HIGH COURT YAGACHI DAM DIVISION out vide Court order

OF BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT dated 10.02.2026

KARNATAKA HASSAN-573 134

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI B.R.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.11.2019

PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) NO.156/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12242

MSA No. 63 of 2025

HC-KAR

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN,

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED IN LAC.74/2012 ON

THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER

SECTION 18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated

14.11.2019 passed in LAC (Appeal) No.156/2016 by the

Principal District Judge, Hassan (for short, 'the First Appellate

Court') confirming the judgment and award dated 03.03.2015

passed in LAC.No.74/2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Hassan (for short, 'Reference Court').

2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit

that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not

just and adequate compensation. The documentary evidence

placed in support of the claim for higher compensation is not

properly appreciated and considered by the First Appellate

Court. Thus, urged that the compensation be enhanced by

allowing the appeal.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12242

MSA No. 63 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-State would

oppose the appeal on the premise that just compensation is

awarded and there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal has

to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

beneficiary is not a party before the Reference Court and

Appellate Court.

5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the

Bar and perused the records.

6. It is noticed that respondent No.2, the beneficiary, has

neither been made as a party before the Reference Court nor

before the First Appellate Court.

7. It is a settled position of law that in a proceeding for

enhancement of compensation under the provisions of the

amended Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the beneficiary of the land

acquisition proceeding is a necessary party. Hence, any award

or any decree passed against the beneficiary without making

the beneficiary as a party is not sustainable, as the beneficiary

is the person who is paying the compensation to the land loser.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12242

MSA No. 63 of 2025

HC-KAR

8. Since the entire judgment and award passed by the

both the Courts are contrary to the settled position of law, the

judgment and award passed by both the Courts are to be set

aside. The matter has to be remitted to the Reference Court for

fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part

ii) The Judgment and Award dated 14.11.2019 passed in

LAC (Appeal) No.156/2016 by the Principal District

Judge, Hassan confirming the judgment and award

dated 03.03.2015 passed in LAC.No.74/2012 by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, are set aside;

iii) The matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh

consideration in accordance with l