SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K.SINGH, UMESH M.ADIGA, JJ.
Jemcy Ponnappa C.P., S/o C.P. Ponnappa - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.487 of 2025 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri.K.G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel For Sri.Sampath A., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.Mohd.Jaffar Shah, AGA Sri.B. B. Patil., Advocate

Court upheld that compensation for land acquisition exceeding five crores requires state approval; prior unapproved awards are invalid, and res judicata bars re-litigation of previously decided matters.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Section 28(4) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 23, 23-A, 27 - Determination of compensation for acquired land - The petitioners' land was acquired, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer initially determined compensation at Rs.197,28,34,758/-, which was not approved by the State Government. The revised compensation of Rs.55,69,76,660/- was later directed to be disbursed. The court found the prior large award invalid as it lacked governmental approval. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 28)

(B) Res Judicata - Principle of finality in litigation - The court held that the subsequent writ petition was barred by res judicata since it sought to challenge an award previously adjudicated, constituting an abuse of judicial process. (Paras 26, 28)

(C) Legislation by incorporation - The court examined whether the rules framed by the State Government were valid despite the absence of incorporation of Section 109 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, concluding that they were enforceable in this case. (Paras 20-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the reduction of compensation after their land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The Special Land Acquisition Officer's initial award was followed by a recalculated amount due to required state approval.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the initial award was not valid without state approval and that the subsequent petition was barred by res judicata.

Issues: The key issues were the validity of the compensation awarded without state approval and the applicability of res judicata due to prior adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for amounts exceeding five crores, state approval is mandatory, and concluded the lack of such approval rendered the initial award void. Additionally, previously litigated issues cannot be re-agitated.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the dismissal of the previous writ petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. acquisition of land and compensation assessment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. approval requirement for awards over rs. 5 crores. (Para 6 , 10)
4. arguments on statutory authority regarding compensation. (Para 7 , 8)
5. discussion on the applicability of acquired provisions. (Para 9 , 11 , 13)
6. principle of res judicata and finality in litigation. (Para 18 , 27)
7. rejection of arguments regarding rules and amendment relevance. (Para 24 , 25)
8. final judgment dismissing the writ appeal. (Para 26 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12603/2024 (LA-KIADB).

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.

3. The petitioners' land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, by issuing Final Notification under Section 28 (4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, `KIAD Act'), dated 15th December 2017. The compensation amount for the land of the petitioners acquired was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.197,28,34,758/-.

4. The petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.15168/2023, seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/-. The beneficiaries i.e., Mangaluru Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., had filed Writ Petition No.22685/2023, challenging the Notifications dated 15th December 2017 and 25th November 2020, issued under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act. These two writ petitions were clubbed together and by the common order dated 22nd February 2024, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition No.22685/2023 filed by the beneficiaries/Mangaluru Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., and the other Writ Petition No.15168/2023 filed by the petitioners was allowed in-part. The respondents-authorities were directed to disburse the amount of Rs.55,69,76,660, in terms of the General Award dated 7th July 2023, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition No.12603/2024 contending that the Land Acquisition Officer had already passed the award for an amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/- on 16th March 2023, and the subsequent award dated 7th July 2023 would be non est. The respondents be directed to give effect to the award dated 16th March 2023 and petitioners be paid the amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/-, instead of Rs.55,69,76,660/-.

6. The Writ Court has been of the view that, in view of the provisions of Sections 28 , 29 and 30 of KIAD Act, and as per the Circular issued by the Government dated 25th January 2022, any award amount above Rs.5 crores is required to be approved by the State Government. In the present case, as the award dated 16th March 2023 for an amount is Rs.197,28,34,758/- was not approved by the State Government, the State Government asked the Special Land Acquisition Officer to recalculate the amount to be paid to the petitioners. On re-calculation, the Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the award amount at Rs.55,69,76,660/-.

7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.G.Raghavan has submitted that, as per Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is the Land Acquisition Officer who is empowered to determine the compensation and there is no requirement for any Government approval of the award. He would further submit that, there are no statutory rules which have been framed by the State Government, that would require the approval of the State Government for an award in respect of the land acquired and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be final and there is no question of re-determining the award on the direction of the State Government.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top