Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G.PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
Bagalkot Cement & Industries Limited, R/By Its Authorised Signatory – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against order of single judge (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of land acquisition and legal disputes (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's examination of eligibility as an interested person (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. arguments on interest in land compensation (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. legal definitions and considerations on lease expiration (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion: appeal rejected (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
S. G. PANDIT, J.
1. This intra-court appeal by the unsuccessful petitioner filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P. No.101551/2025, whereunder the petitioner’s prayer to quash the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.748/2019 dated 05.12.2024 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and Addition Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Bagalkote, (Annexures-J & J1) and further prayer for a direction to respondent No.3 to receive the compensation amount awarded till disposal of the apportionment proceedings initiated by the petitioner in L.A.C. No.216/2019, are rejected.
2. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitio
A lessee whose lease has expired and whose extension suit was dismissed cannot claim to be a 'person interested' in compensation for acquired land under the 2013 Act.
The expression ‘person interested’ does not require that a person must really have an interest in the land sought to be acquired. It is enough if he claims an interest in compensation, as distinguish....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that possession and receipt of compensation qualify a person as 'interested' under the Land Acquisition Act, and just compensation must be award....
A tenant must assert interest in land acquisition proceedings to qualify for compensation; failure to respond to statutory notices negates the claim.
Public notice under the Land Acquisition Act suffices for informing interested parties; individual notice is not required, and excessive delay in challenging acquisition proceedings can bar claims.
A subsequent allottee, MRPL, cannot be considered a 'person interested' for the purpose of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act, 1966, and the decisions in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (su....
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
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
