IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.26870 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

NARSIMHEGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT HALUVAGILU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN, HASSAN-573201.

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. RAMESH Location: HIGH S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA, COURT OF AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, KARNATAKA R/AT EWS 105, SEETARAMANJANEYA TEMPLE, NORTH EXTENSION, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;

V/O. DATED 15.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F ORDER DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN LAC NO.91/2017 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LA ACT, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION

18(1) OF THE LA ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated

29.03.2025 passed in LAC 91/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the reference application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of 04 guntas in Sy No. 274/5, Haluvagilu Village came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The land measuring 04 guntas in Sy No. 274/5 situated at Haluvagilu Village of Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, belonging to the petitioner's father Venkategowda was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) for public purpose. The SLAO passed an award in 2011 and issued notice under Section 12 (2) on 08.03.2012, which was served on 17.03.2012. The petitioner's father received compensation on 22.08.2012 and filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act, 1894 on 23.08.2012 seeking reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The matter was forwarded to the reference court which was registered as LAC 91/2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite filing the Section 18(1) application of the Act, 1894 seeking reference, the authority failed to forward the reference in time and has issued an endorsement treating the application as delayed, which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the claimant had made several representations to the authorities for enhancement, but no action was taken, compelling him to seek adjudication of proper market value before the Civil Court.

4. It is his contention that apart from filing the application under Section 18 (1) immediately after receipt of the compensation, his father had also instituted Miscellaneous Petition 27/2015 before the Civil Court on 13.08.2015, seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference for determination of proper compensation. The said Miscellaneous Petition was placed before the Lok Adalat on 13.01.2016, wherein the office was directed to intimate the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to take steps for referring the matter for enhancement of compensation.

5. According to the learned counsel, the Miscellaneous Petition 27/2015 was filed under Section 18(3) of the Act, 1894 seeking reference and this proceeding evidences the fact that the claimant was continuously asserting his right to seek reference and the statutory request for reference had already been brought to the notice of the Civil Court. It is further contended that the dismissal of the reference in LAC 91/2017 is without taking note of the pendency and direction issued in Miscellaneous No. 27/2015 resulting in prejudice, as th