K. Venkataswamy vs Gowramma - 2026 Supreme(SC) 881

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(SC) 881

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
K. Venkataswamy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gowramma & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4567 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3295 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Important Points

The Reference Court possesses incidental jurisdiction under the relevant statutory framework to adjudicate title disputes to determine rightful compensation entitlement. Furthermore, an appellate court cannot set aside its own final remand order, and parties are precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum after accepting the benefit of such remand.

Subject

Property Law - Land Acquisition

Act Referred

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT: S.3(h)(4)

Headnote

(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3H(4) - Jurisdiction of the Reference Court - Whether the Reference Court can determine title disputes - The expression “person to whom the amount is payable” necessitates an adjudication of the underlying claim of title to ensure just distribution of funds - Inquiry into title is an incidental and integral part of the jurisdiction conferred to determine the rightful claimant. (Paras 22.5, 22.6, 22.7)

(B) Appellate Procedure - Remand Order - Finality of initial orders - Where a remand order is passed and allowed to attain finality, parties cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the forum to which the matter was remitted; such directions are binding upon the parties and the court. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The matter involved a dispute over compensation for acquired land. The authority responsible for the acquisition withheld payment due to rival title claims. A referral was made to the judicial forum to resolve the dispute regarding who was entitled to receive the compensation. In a previous round of litigation, an appellate court had remanded the matter to the primary court to specifically determine the issue of title based on additional evidence. Upon following the remand directions, the primary court reaffirmed the title in favour of the claimants. However, in the subsequent appeal, the appellate court held that the primary court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate title questions.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court erred by overlooking its own earlier remand order, which had limited the scope of proceedings. The statute provides for the resolution of disputes concerning the entitlement to compensation, which necessitates the incidental adjudication of title. Once an order of remand has attained finality, neither the parties nor the courts can seek to re-open the jurisdictional questions settled by that order.

Issues: 1. Whether the reference court possesses the jurisdiction under the statute to adjudicate upon the title of individuals seeking compensation; 2. Whether an appellate court can challenge its own previously passed, final remand order regarding the scope of the original reference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority to determine the eligibility of persons entitled to compensation implies the necessary power to investigate title, as the latter is a condition precedent to the former. Accepting any other interpretation would render the statutory provision ineffective. Moreover, the principle of finality dictates that a party cannot benefit from a remand order and later challenge the jurisdiction of the forum designated to carry out that specific exercise.

Result: Appeal allowed; restored to the file of the appellate court for disposal on merits.

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Maryam Junaid, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR Ms. Kanu Garg, Adv.

Table of Content
1. determination of whether a higher appellate court can restrictively interfere with findings remanded under a specific statutory provision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history regarding land acquisition compensation disputes and initial appellate court remand orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. scope of remand orders for title determination in land acquisition disputes and competing claims of ownership. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. the principle of finality of remand orders and the error in appellate review of issues already settled by binding directions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. estoppel against litigants who accept and act upon a remand order while later challenging the jurisdiction of the remitted forum. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. order of remand setting aside appellate dismissal and directing a fresh decision based on the merits of existing evidence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

ORDER :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The principal question that falls for consideration is whether the First Appellate Court could, in the second round of litigation, interfere with the findings recorded by the Principal Civil Court pursuant to its own remand directions issued under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 19th December, 2023, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru,¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Regular First Appeal No. 1381 of 2014, whereby the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 against the judgment and award dated 25th July, 2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala,²[Hereinafter, referred to as “Reference Court”.] in LAC No. 57 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the finding of the Reference Court declaring appellant Nos. 1 to 3 as the absolute owners of the acquired land and consequently entitled to receive the entire compensation amount arising out of the acquisition proceedings.

Facts of the case: –

5. The brief facts, essential for the disposal of the present appeal, are that pursuant to notifications issued by the Central Government during the years 2002-03 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956,³[For short, “NH Act”.] certain lands, including the land in dispute, came to be acquired by respondent No. 2, namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority.

6. According to the appellants, the acquired land originally belonged to one Late Kempaiah, the father of appellant No. 1 and father-in-law of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who had acquired title thereto under a registered sale deed executed during the year 1950-51. It is their case that upon the demise of Late Kempaiah, the title and interest in the acquired property devolved upon the appellants as his legal heirs and successors-in-interest.

7. In this regard, respondent No. 2, acting as the Competent Authority, passed an award under Section 3G of the NH Act determining compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,32,931/- for acquisition of the subject land. However, before the compensation could be disbursed, a dispute arose between the appellants and respondent No. 1, the latter asserting a competing claim over the acquired property and, consequently, over the compensation amount payable therefor. In view of the rival claims, respondent No. 2 withheld disbursement of the compensation.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 44750 of 2003 seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to release the compensation amount in their favour. The High Court, by order dated 8th March, 2004, disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No. 2 to determine the entitlement to compensation in accordance with Section 3H(3) of the NH Act. The High Court further observed that if any dispute arose with regard to the apportionment of compensation or entitlement thereto, th