Civil Court Can't Halt Land Acquisition Compensation Under S.63 of 2013 Act, But Can Order Bank Guarantee to Protect Co-Claimants: Karnataka High Court - 2025-08-30

Karnataka HC: Civil Court Can Impose Conditions on Compensation Recipient Despite Bar on Injunction Against Land Acquisition Authority

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified the scope of a civil court's jurisdiction in disputes involving land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court held that while Section 63 of the Act bars civil courts from issuing an injunction against the acquisition authority from disbursing compensation, it does not prevent the court from imposing conditions, such as furnishing a bank guarantee, on the recipient to protect the interests of other potential claimants in a pending suit.

The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar while dismissing two cross-appeals arising from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a 9-acre 4-gunta property in Mavinakunte Village, Nelamangala, originally owned by one P. Ramanna. The plaintiffs, claiming to be his legal heirs, filed a suit for partition (O.S.No.460/2022), asserting that the land was ancestral joint family property.

During the pendency of this suit, the property was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). Simultaneously, the property was sold to Smt. Gayathri K. (defendant No. 42) on 11th September 2023. This sale was based on a Will allegedly executed by the late P. Ramanna, for which a probate had been obtained by other defendants.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent KIADB from releasing the compensation amount to Smt. Gayathri K. The trial court initially granted the injunction but later vacated it upon an application by Smt. Gayathri, acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction to restrain KIADB. However, to balance the equities, the trial court directed Smt. Gayathri to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire compensation amount before receiving it.

This conditional order led to two appeals: one by the plaintiffs (MFA 969/2025) challenging the vacation of the injunction, and another by Smt. Gayathri (MFA 3171/2025) contesting the imposition of the bank guarantee condition.

Arguments from Both Sides

The Plaintiffs' Arguments: -

The sale to Smt. Gayathri K. is invalid under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act), as it occurred during the ongoing partition suit. -

They challenged the authenticity of the Will and the probate, alleging it was obtained without their knowledge and that the original owner had passed away long before the purported execution of the Will. -

They argued that the civil court has the jurisdiction to protect the rights of co-parceners by restraining the payment of compensation to a third-party purchaser.

The Defendant's (Smt. Gayathri K.) Arguments: -

The civil court is expressly barred by Section 63 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act from interfering in the disbursement of compensation by KIADB. -

Having vacated the injunction on jurisdictional grounds, the court could not impose any conditions on her right to receive the compensation. -

She claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value, relying on a valid sale deed executed after the grant of probate.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Huddar affirmed the trial court's order, finding it to be a judicious and balanced exercise of discretion. The High Court's reasoning was twofold:

1. On Jurisdiction to Restrain KIADB

The court firmly upheld the statutory bar on the civil court's jurisdiction. It noted:

"This Court is of the clear view that, Section 63 of the 2013 Act unequivocally bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters pertaining to land acquisition. The bar is expressed in absolute terms... When the law expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court, any injunction granted by such court in contravention thereof, would be ultravires and liable to be vacated as has been done by the trial Court."

2. On Imposing Conditions on the Recipient

Despite the jurisdictional bar against restraining the statutory authority (KIADB), the court held that its power to regulate the rights of the private parties before it remains intact. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' claim to a co-parcenery interest was not frivolous and required adjudication. The sale being pendente lite meant the purchaser's rights were subject to the final outcome of the partition suit.

The High Court emphasized that the condition of a bank guarantee was a prudent measure to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.

"While the Court could not restrain the KIADB, it could certainly regulate the rights of the parties before it by passing conditional orders that preserve the subject matter of the suit. By requiring defendant No.42 to furnish a bank guarantee, the trial Court ensured that, if the plaintiffs succeed, they are not left without a remedy. The condition does not affect the title of defendant No.42 or restrain her from receiving the compensation, but only secures the interest of the plaintiffs..."

Final Decision

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order. It concluded that the conditional relief was a balanced approach that protected the status quo and ensured that no irretrievable damage would be caused to either party pending the final decision.

Both appeals were dismissed, and the trial court's order directing Smt. Gayathri K. to furnish a bank guarantee to receive the land acquisition compensation was upheld.