Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K.
Rangamma @ Kamalamma – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisiton Officer – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K, J.
Though this appeal is listed for admission and to hear on I.A.No.1/2021 for condonation of delay and I.A. No.2/2021 for stay, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties and by considering the aspect that this appeal is of the year 2021, the same is taken up for disposal.
2. This appeal under Section 54(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short) is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed in LAC No.48/2001 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred as "Reference Court", for short), whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO", for short) on 23.07.2001 to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of tank fed land of the appellant bearing Sy.No.7
The court reinforced that compensation for land acquisition must reflect fair market value, considering unique circumstances and principles of equity, even when faced with significant delays in legal....
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be justified adequately; mere claims of parity with other cases do not suffice to condone significant delays under the Limitation Act.
Compensation for land acquisition must consider legal principles of escalation and delay, leading to justified adjustments based on precedents in similar cases.
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The principle of parity and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar cases influenced the court's decision to allow the condonation of delay and grant similar compensation to the applican....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article