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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


NC: 2025:KHC:40738


CRP No. 414 of 2018


DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025


BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 414 OF 2018 (RES)


BETWEEN:

SRI. B.C. NAGARJUNA

S/O. BHOOPALAM R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

R/AT 6TH CROSS, RAJENDRANAGARA,

SHIVAMOGA CITY,

SHIVAMOGA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA,

SHIVAMOGGA CITY, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

UPPER TUNGA PROJECT,

KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA,

UTP DIVISION SHIVAMOGA,

SHIVAMOGA CITY, SHIVAMOGA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1

SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH

The court affirmed that under Section 28A, compensation should be redetermined for similarly situated claimants, regardless of individual prior acceptance of lower compensation, focusing on equitable treatment and timely applications post-alteration of compensation rates.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Acquisition Act - Sections 18 and 28A - This revision petition questions the rejection of an application under Section 28A(3) pertaining to compensation recovery for acquired land - The petitioner received compensation without contest and later sought redetermination after other landowners received higher compensation; hence, the principles of parity apply. (Paras 4-6 and 12-16)

(B) Limitation - The revision court ruled that the application was time-barred, neglecting provisions allowing application within three months post-court award for similarly situated claimants, leading to erroneous findings by the lower court. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s land was acquired for the Upper Tunga Project, and received Rs.3,50,000 per acre as compensation after contesting a similar award that established a compensated rate of Rs.105 per sq.ft. for other landowners.

Findings of Court:
The initial dismissal of the reference application was unjustified and did not consider the provisions of Section 28A correctly.

Issues: Whether the application for compensation redetermination was filed within the permissible timeframe and if the court's dismissal of the application was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is eligible for re-evaluation of compensation in line with the prior ruling for similar land under Section 28A, and the trial court misapplied limitation laws.

Result: Revision petition allowed and order of the reference court set aside.

THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.115 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED IN LA.MISC.PETITION NO.5/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 28-A(3) READ WITH SECTION 18(3) (B) OF KARNATAKA LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.Bhojegouda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2-beneficiary.

2. Even though the matter is listed for admission, by the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, having regard to the short question involved, which is to be decided in this revision petition and also taking note of the fact that the award amount carries interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

3. Validity of rejection of the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 28A(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter ‘Act’ for short) is called in question in this revision petition.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

5.1. Land of the revision petitioner is acquired by virtue of the preliminary notification dated 11.01.2001 under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of Upper Tunga Project and award came to be passed on 29.10.2003 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre.

5.2. Land of the revision petitioner in Sy.No.29/2 situated at Gadikoppa village, Shivamogga Taluk is acquired by fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre.

5.3. After the award came to be passed, revision petitioner received the compensation amount under protest but did not choose to file any application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act.

5.4. However, one of the similarly placed land losers – claimants, filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act which was numbered as LAC No.15/2014.

5.5. The said reference application on contest was allowed and a sum of Rs.105 per sq. ft. was ordered for the non-converted land which has attained finality by order dated 01.06.2016.

5.6. Soon after the claimant came to know that similar land losers had obtained the compensation at the rate of Rs.105 per sq.ft. as against sum of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre, the revision petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on 04.07.2016 before the Land Acquisition Officer.

5.7. After receipt of the application under Section 28A of the Act by the revision petitioner, instead of recommending for grant of the same quantum of compensation to the revision petitioner, Land Acquisition Officer passed on an endorsement stating that the determination of the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre is just and proper.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order (endorsement) passed under Section 28A(2) of the Act, an application was filed before the reference Court under Section 28A(3) of the Act.

6. Learned Judge in the reference Court after considering the application recorded the evidence of the parties and by impugned order, dismissed the application as time barred inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.11 to 14 as under:

“11. Having heard the arguments put forth by both counsels this court proceeds to analyze the evidence placed on record and to determine whether the petitioners have made out a case to order for reference and as to whether the delay of 13 years satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and has in his evidence deposed that he is owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 29/2 situated at Gadikoppa village and out of the said property an extent of 8 guntas is acquires U/S 4(1) of preliminary notification dated 11-01-2001 for the purpose of formation of Upper Tunga project and awa

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