IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101257 OF 2025 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SINGATALURU LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT, KNNL, DIVISION MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-583219.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UDAYKUMAR S/O. KEMPAYYA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDIGERI, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231, NOW AT BENGALURU-560001.

V ISHAL …RESPONDENT NINGAPPA (BY SRI. AMIT ANANDHALLI AND PATTIHAL SRI. SANKET S.AMBALI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

Digitally signed by THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.286/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, KOPPAL; AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

The beneficiary has filed the present appeal challenging the enhancement of the compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 05.12.2024 passed in LAC No.286/2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Koppal. (herein after referred to as ‘authority’ for brevity)

2. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for the respondent -claimant.

3. Learned counsel for appellants contends the following:

The authority without following the provisions of New Land Acquisition Act passed the award fixing the market value at Rs.3,80,000/- per acre which is exorbitant and not based upon the real facts of the case. The authority ignored the principles laid down in Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana¹ wherein it is held that the previous judgment can be relied only when there is no other evidence available as last resort but the authority relying on the judgment passed by it earlier has enhanced the compensation. The authority has not conducted enquiry. The authority has not given opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The averments in the judgment indicate that the authority has rejected the prayer of the claimants to adduce evidence. The authority has passed the judgment without any evidence and only based on the judgment rendered by it in another claim petition. The authority has not considered the nature of the land etc,. The authority has only enhanced compensation on the ground of parity placing reliance on the judgment and award rendered in another case. On these grounds, he prayed to set aside the impugned judgment, award

1 In Civil Appeal No.13132-41 of 2017 and remand the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration.

4. Learned counsel for respondent –

claimant has not disputed the fact that the authority has not given opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and that the prayer of the claimants to lead evidence has been rejected.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, we have perused the impugned judgment and other materials placed on record.

6. The reference petition pertains to acquisition of land under Singatalur Irrigation Project. The respondent -claimant is the owner of the land acquired for Singatalur Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (herein after referred to as ‘SLAO’ for brevity) has fixed market value of the acquired land situated in Gudigeri Village at Rs.74,766/- per acre. The SLAO has taken sales statistics for a period of 03 years from 25.09.2011 till 25.09.2014 and by adopting sales statistics method, arrived at the aforesaid market value. The respondent -claimant has filed claim petition and the s