IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2019 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

1. MOHAMMED SALEEM S/O LATE M.ABDUL ALI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2. ASLAM PASHA S/O LATE M.ABDUL ALI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

3. NASREEN TAJ D/O LATE M.ABDUL ALI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. ASHRAFUNISSA Digitally signed D/O LATE M.ABDUL ALI by SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARNATAKA HOUSE NO.764, 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU-560 001.

REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MARIGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2018 PASSED IN LAC NO.14/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.18(3)(b) OF LA ACT 1894.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-17) on 03.10.2018 in LAC No.14/2012 whereby the reference application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed as time barred.

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

Petitioners filed an application under Section

18(3)(b) of Land Acquisition Act, praying for re- determination of the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of the land belonging to them to the extent of one acre in SY.No.28/3 of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

4. The said reference application was adjudicated by the learned trial judge after notifying the respondent -

Land Acquisition Officer.

5. Evidence was also recorded and the first petitioner namely Mohammed Salem got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record 5 documents. The 5 documents comprises power of attorney, certified copy of the Judgment passed in LAC No.301/2002, certified copy of the Misc. petition No.383/2006, acknowledgment and endorsement issued by the respondent. Learned trial judge thereafter heard the arguments of the parties. In the light of the contentions heard on behalf of the petitioners, the trial Judge raised following points for consideration:

"1) Whether the respondent be directed to make reference to this court as provided u/s. 18 of L.A.

Act?

2) What order?"

6. While so considering the points, learned trial Judge in paragraphs 10 & 11 held as under and consequently dismissed the reference application.

10. Their Lordships in the ruling reported in ILR

1991KAR 1109 (In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj), among others, have ruled that the land looser/claimants whose lands are acquired if filed petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act within 90 days from the date of service of notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act, the L.A.O. has to make a reference within 90 days after receipt of such petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, failure to which, the claimants shall enforce their right for reference before the Civil court within 3 years 90 days from the date of reference application filed u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act and after 3years 90 days, from the date of such reference, the claimant will loose right to enforce the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act and the L.A.O. has no power to make a reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act. The similar principles are being laid down by their Lordships in the ruling reported in (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 709 (In the case State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman). The relevant portion reads under:

"A. Land Acquisition At, 1894-S. 18(3)(b) & (2) (as in force in Karnataka)-Limitation-Dy. Commissioner's power to mak