IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.26635 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE HERJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HALANURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Location: HIGH TUMAKURU DISTRICT, COURT OF TUMKURU-572101.

KARNATAKA

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SLAO/SR(T)02/2003-04/502 DATED 23.07.2025 /

11.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the endorsement dated 23.07.2025/11.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act” for short) came to be rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to reconsider his application dated 03.08.2020 filed under Section 28A of the LA Act and to re-determine the compensation in respect of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.225, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Halanuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 28A of the LA Act, seeking re-determination of compensation based on an award passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the LA Act in L.A.C.No.257/2006, wherein the compensation was enhanced to `1,00,000/- per gunta. The petitioner, seeking parity with the said award, filed his application on 03.08.2020 before respondent No.3 – the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5. It is contended that the said application was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, as contemplated under Section 28A of the LA Act. The authority observed that the application was delayed by

153 days from the date of the judgment and award dated

29.02.2020 in L.A.C.No.257/2006.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the period consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and award is liable to be excluded in terms of the proviso to Section 28A of the LA Act, and if such exclusion is granted, the application would fall within the prescribed period.

7. Section 28A(1) of the LA Act read thus:

“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.–(1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:

Provided tha