The Land Acquisition Officer has jurisdiction to decide prima facie entitlement; referral to Civil Court is only necessary for complicated title issues.

CAV ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), KIADB, under Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in respect of land bearing Survey No.18/12, Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 241.73 square meters.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Nanjappa Reddy, who was the owner and cultivator of several properties, including Survey Nos.18/6, 18/7, 18/8, 18/9 and 18/12 in Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. These lands were originally notified for acquisition by the BDA for formation of a layout between Hosur road and Sarjapur road under preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 and final notification dated 28.11.1986. The State Government withdrew the acquisition and de-notified Survey Nos.18/8 and 18/12 vide notification dated 26.11.2002. After the death of Nanjappa Reddy in 1988, dispute arose inter se among his legal heirs regarding division of his properties, leading to several litigations in O.S No.1800/1982, O.S. No.136/2000, O.S. No.2825/2003, O.S. No.263/2003 and RFA No.1975/2013.

3. In 2019, the KIADB again initiated acquisition of Survey Nos.18/12 and 18/8 for the Metro Rail project. One of the legal heirs submitted representations to the SLAO explaining the title dispute. Since the SLAO failed to act on the representations, W.P. No.5358/2019 was filed and this Court directed the SLAO to consider the representations and hear all the concerned parties. The petitioners filed objection asserting that Survey Nos.18/8 and 18/12 belonged to late Nanjappa Reddy. Despite this, the SLAO passed an award on 26.11.2019 directing release of compensation to certain respondents.

4. The petitioners challenged that award in W.P. No.954/2021. Later, the SLAO issued another notice dated 07.08.2025, stating that the petitioners must produce title documents in compliance with the order passed in W.P. No.24731/2024, where this Court had set aside the general award and directed passing of a consent award subject to verification of title and restoration of general award, if rival claims exist. The petitioners appeared, produced documents and sought reference of the matter to a Civil Court due to the title dispute. The SLAO passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, adjudicating title and directing disbursement of compensation instead of referring the dispute to the jurisdiction of the civil Court.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that, Survey No.18/12 originally belonged to late Nanjappa Reddy and has been the subject of a long- standing dispute inter se among the parties. The SLAO, despite being presented with rival claims, ought to have referred the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act, 1894’ for short). It is submitted that the SLAO had no jurisdiction to decide title, especially when complex issues of inheritance and computing claims are pending adjudication before the Civil Courts including RFA No.1975/2013. It is further contended that only 23 guntas were de-notified in 2002 and petitioners’ rights survive in remaining extent. Therefore, SLAO’s conclusion that the petitioners had no subsisting right is erroneous. It is contended that the very premise on which the SLAO has proceeded is fundamentally flawed. It is contended that ‘there is no concept of consent award’ under th