Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:40832

CRP No. 417 of 2018

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 417 OF 2018 (RES)

BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGAPPA
S/O. LATE. SIDDLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO. ALKOLA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 213.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
R. SHEKARAPPA,
S/O. RANGAPPA,
R/AT ALKOLA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 213
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT SHIVAMOGGA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA 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.
For the Respondents: SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH

Court emphasized equality in compensation determination, clarifying that an application under Section 28-A is valid despite delays if based on previous awards for similar land acquisitions.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1961 - Sections 28-A(3) and 18(3)

(B) - Revision petition against dismissal of application for re-determination of compensation after previous award established higher compensation - Petitioner received initial compensation without protest and failed to file application under Section 18 in a timely manner. (Paras 4, 13, 19)

(B) Limitation - The argument presented hinged on the perceived timeliness and applicability of provisions under Section 28-A for the re-determination of compensation when a similar case resulted in higher compensation. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's land was acquired for a project, and compensation was awarded at Rs.1,35,000 per acre. Similar land resulted in higher compensation via a reference petition, leading to this appeal for re-determination based on inequality in compensation. (Paras 5.1, 5.5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial judge erred in stating the application was time-barred, recognizing the necessity for fair compensation in alignment with the previous award. (Paras 18, 23)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the delay for the application under Section 28-A and whether previous higher compensation impacted the entitlement of the petitioner. (Paras 6, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions aim to ensure equality in compensation for similar land acquisitions and that the petitioner's application was justified despite the lengthy delay in seeking re-determination. (Paras 18, 24)

Result: Revision petition allowed; order set aside and compensation awarded at Rs.105 per sq. ft. as determined in the similar case.

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED IN L.A.MISC.PETITION NO.8/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 28-A(3) READ WITH SECTION 18(3)(B) OF KARNATAKA LAND ACQUISITION ACT, SEEKING DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE COURT, FOR JUST DETERMINATION OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

2. 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 25.01.2001 under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of Upper Tunga Project and award came to be passed on 26.03.2003 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre.

5.2. Land of the revision petitioner in Sy.No.61/1 situated at Alkola village, Shivamogga Taluk is acquired by fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- 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.8/2004.

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 27.07.2015.

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.1,35,000/- per acre, the revision petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on 05.10.2015 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.1,35,000/- 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 13 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 15 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. 61/1 situated at Alkola village and out of the said property an extent of 5 gunta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document