Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation … vs L.Venkataramana Raju on 21 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 194 OF 2026
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 3799 OF 2024
M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE PETITIONER(S)
SERVICES & ANR.
VERSUS
DR. S SELVAKUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)/
ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)
O R D E R
1. The land of the petitioner was acquired by Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) and handed over to
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited for execution of the Metro
Project in Bangalore City. The controversy was whether the
expropriated land owners are entitled to seek compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) even though their land is
acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966
(KIADA).
2. To avoid undue hardship to the affected land owners, this
Court vide interim order dated 09.02.2024 directed that the
acquisition proceedings will continue and the Award shall be passed
in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In purported
compliance thereto, KIADB passed an alleged award dated 28.11.2022,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
which, according to the respondents, is in accordance with the
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.07.24
10:22:17 IST
Reason:
provisions of the 2013 Act.
1
3. The petitioners, however, have contested this claim as,
according to them, the award does not meet the statutory
requirements of the 2013 Act.
4. Their second grievance is regarding deduction of TDS out of
the compensation amount awarded under the afore-stated award.
5. The aggrieved petitioners, at the same time, filed an
application seeking reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
That application is required to be forwarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector-cum-Officer to the jurisdictional Reference
Court. However, no such reference has been made so far.
6. In this backdrop, the petitioners have three grievances:
(i) The purported award dated 28.11.2022 is not an award in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act;
(ii) Their reference application has not been forwarded to the
Reference Court; and
(iii) No TDS could be deducted out of the compensation amount.
Hence, this contempt proceeding has been initiated before us.
7. So far as the first grievance of the petitioners is concerned,
this can be effectively addressed by the Reference Court and
wherever it is found that provisions of the 2013 Act have not been
complied with, the Reference Court is empowered to suitably modify
the award in accordance with law.
8. As regards the second grievance, namely, the failure of the
Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Officer to forward the reference
application for further enhancement of compensation, we see no
justification for the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Officer to sit
over such references, especially when almost three years have
2
passed. We, accordingly, direct the State of Karnataka and its Land
Acquisition Collector-cum-Officer as well as KIADB to ensure that
the pending applications are immediately forwarded to the
jurisdictional Reference Court. The needful shall be done within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. As regards the deduction of TDS, we are of the considered view
that since the acquisition is deemed to have been made under the
2013 Act in terms of the earlier interim order passed by this
Court, no TDS could be deducted in view of Section 96 of the 2013
Act. The amount deducted towards TDS is, accordingly, directed to
be reimbursed to the farmers as early as possible but not later
than six weeks.
10. The contempt proceedings are disposed of, in the above terms.
……………………CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
……………………..J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2026.
3
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3798/2024
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 27-09-2023 in WA
No. 892/2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
L.VENKATARAMANA RAJU & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ONLY CONMT.PET.(C) No. 194/2026 IS LISTED UNDER THIS ITEM]
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 194/2026 in SLP(C) No. 3799/2024 (IV-A)
(IA No. 86657/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 21-07-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, AOR
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv.
Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv.
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv.
Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR
Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Mr. V.C.bharathi, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR
Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv.
4
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv.
Mr. Sankalp Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR
Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR
Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ishrafil Ansari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 194/2026 in SLP(C) No. 3799/2024
The contempt proceedings are disposed of in terms of the
signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DY. REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
