Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
R
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 100706 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 100224 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100227 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100229 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100230 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100245 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100292 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100294 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
Digitally signed WRIT PETITION NO. 100298 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA WRIT PETITION NO. 100784 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF WRIT PETITION NO. 100785 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
KARNATAKA
WRIT PETITION NO. 103082 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 103322 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 103757 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 105311 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 105586 OF 2023(LA-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 105650 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

IN 100706/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, RANEBENNUR, PIN-
581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT,
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND, BELGAUM-590001

3. BASAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA BANNIKOD
AGE. 80 YEARS,
R/O. MAVINATOP,
TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI, PIN-581208

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. F.V. PATIL. AND
SRI. NANDISH PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.07.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.
TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.16/2010/1027 AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

IN 100224/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. DODDAGOUDA SHIVANGOUDA PATIL
AGE. MAJOR
R/O. NESHAVI
TQ. HIREEKERUR
PIN. 581208

4. CHANDRAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY LR's

4(a) SMT. ANUSUYA
W/O CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
R/O NESHAVI
TQ: RATTIHALLI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

PIN-581208

4(b) SMT. KAVITHA
W/O NAGARAJ GOURAMMNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O. CHALAGERI
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
PIN-581145

4(c) SMT. SHILPA
W/O BASANAGOUDA SHIDENUR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O BENAKANKONDA
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
PIN-581208

4(d) SMT. KAVYA
D/O CHANDRGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: NESHAVI
TQ: RATTIHALLI,
PIN-581208

4(e) SMT. VIDYA
D/O CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: NESHAVI
TQ: RATTIHALLI,
PIN-581208.

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
SRI. AVINASH BANIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4(A-E) S/D)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.245/2013/1023 AND ETC.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

IN 100227/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT RANEBENNUR
PIN 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
D C COMPOUND
BELGAUM 590 001

3. BASAPPA S/O SMT DURGGAVVA MALAGI
AGE MAJOR
ALADAKATTI GRAMA
RANEBENNUR
DIST HAVERI
PIN 581110
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-R2;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

RESPONDENT NO. 1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.
TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.32/2011/1029 AND ETC.

IN 100229/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT RANEBENNUR
PIN 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
D C COMPOUND
BELGAUM 590 001

3. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA RAMANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: GUDDAGUDAPARA,
HALI VASTHI, CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA,
RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI
PIN-581115.
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-R2;
R3-SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO.
TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.9/2008/1028 AND ETC.

IN 100230/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. IRAMMA W/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 65 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

4. SHIVAPPA S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 40 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

5. NEELLAPPA S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 40 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

6. PRAKASH S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 38 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

7. MAHADEVAPPA S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 36 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

8. MRUNTHYUNJAYA S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 30 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115
9. SUBHASHCHANDRA S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 28 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115

10.GURURAJ S/O AJJAPPA UPPAR
AGE. 26 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDAGUDDAPURA
TQ. RANEBENUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581115
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.R. NAIK., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING NO.
TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.3+6/2008-09/1037 AND ETC.

IN 100245/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

3. DODDAGOUDA SHIVANGOUDA PATIL
AGE. MAJOR
R/O. NESHAVI
TQ. HIREEKERUR
PIN. 581208

4. CHANDRAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY LR's

4(a) SMT. ANUSUYA
W/O CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
R/O NESHAVI
DIST: HAVERI
TQ: RATTIHALLI
PIN-581208

4(b) SMT. KAVITHA
W/O NAGARAJ GOURAMMNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O. CHALAGERI
DIST: HAVERI
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
PIN-581145

4(c) SMT. SHILPA
W/O BASANAGOUDA SHIDENUR,
AGE: MAJOR
DIST: HAVERI
R/O BENAKANKONDA
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
PIN-581208

4(d) SMT. KAVYA
D/O CHANDRGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
DIST: HAVERI
R/O: NESHAVI
TQ: RATTIHALLI,
PIN-581208

4(e) SMT. VIDYA
D/O CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

DIST: HAVERI
R/O: NESHAVI
TQ: RATTIHALLI,
PIN-581208.

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
SRI. AVINASH BANIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

IN 100292/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. NINGANGOUDA
S/O BARAMGOUDA MUDIGOUDAR,
AGE. 62 YEARS
R/O. BILLAHALLI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI
PIN. 581208

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.51/2011-12/1032 AND ETC.

IN 100294/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. SHIVAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNATHAMALLI
AGE. 55 YEARS
R/O. SHIRAGAMBI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581116

4. HANUMANTHAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNATHAMALLI
AGE. 53 YEARS
R/O. SHIRAGAMBI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581116

5. LOKAPPA BHARAMAPPA SANNATHAMALLI
AGE. 50 YEARS
R/O. SHIRAGAMBI,
TQ. RANEBENNUR
DIST. HAVERI
PIN. 581116
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3-R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A. VAHI.117/ 2012-13/1033 AND ETC.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

IN 100298/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. SRI. HANAMANTAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA HARALAHALLI,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN:581119.
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
NOTICE TO R3-SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.292/2013-14/1031 AND ETC.

IN 100784/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. KAREBASAPPA
S/O BASAPPA BANNIKOD,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O MAVINATOP,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN:581119.
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
SRI. F.V. PATIL AND
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

SRI. NANDISH PATIL., ADVOCATES FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-G BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.10/2010/1025 AND ETC.

IN 100785/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. TIPPESHAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA MADIVALARA
AGE: 60 YEARS
R/O CHIKKABBAR,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN:581119.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2022, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-G BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A.VAHI.291/2013/1030 AND ETC.

IN 103082/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. BASAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTUR,
AGE: 46 YEARS
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

R/O: MAVINATOP,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN: 581208.

4. KARENGOUDA
S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
R/O: MAVINATOP,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN: 581208.

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., FOR R1-R2;
NOTICE TO R3-R4 S/D)

IN 103322/2023
BETWEEN

1. SMT. DEEPA DILIP NAIK
W/O LATE DILIP ARJUN NAIK
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUMBAI,
NOW AT. MALLAPUR,
KARWR TALUKA, -
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581400. 5620

VITHOBA SHANKAR PHAYADE,
S/O. LATE SHANKAR PHAYADE,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)

2. SMT SHOBHA
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

W/O VITHOBA PHAYDE
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT. DEVAKI BHAVAN TELI RAMJI STREET,
BAAD, KARWAR 581301.

3. SRI RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE VITHOBA SHANKAR PHAYADE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT. DEVAKI BHAVAN TELI RAMJI GALLI,
BAAD, KARWAR 581301.

4. SMT SHEELA MILIND KONKANKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. K.H.B COLONY HUBBALLI,
DIST DHARWAD 580009.

NOTE. PETITONER NO. 2 AND 4 ARE REP BY
THEIR GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO. 3, I.E. RAVISHANKAR VIDHOBA
PHAYDE.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK., SR. COUNSEL FOR
P.G. CHIKKANARGUND., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED,
SHIRWAD RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX,
SHIRWAD 581306.
TALUKA KARWAR.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KONKAN RAILWAY PROJECT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARWAR 577006.
RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA., R2)
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF THE AWARDS PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURES A AND B RESPETIVELY AND ETC.

IN 103757/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. BHEEMAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA BANAKAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O: SHIRAGAMBI TQ: HIREKERUR,
PIN:581208
...RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ISSUE A WRIT,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022, PASSED BY
THE R1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A:VAHI:143/ 2012-13/1034 AND ETC.

IN 105311/2023
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN-562001,
R/BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
RANEBENNUR
PIN. 581115

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
DC COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590001

3. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA SORTUR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O SHIRGAMBI,
HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN-581116
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

4. NINGANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANGOUDA SORTUR,
AGE: MAJOR
R/O SHIRGAMBI,
HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN-581116
...RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ISSUE A WRIT,
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022, PASSED BY
THE R1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-H BEARING
NO.TUMAYO/BHUSWA/28A:VAHI:141/ 2012/1036 AND ETC.

IN 105586/2023
BETWEEN

KONKAN RAILWAY CORORATION LTD
A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BELAPUR BHAVAN SECTOR 11
CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI 400 614
REPRESENTED BY SENIOR REGIONAL ENGINEER
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD, KARWAR
SHRI B S NADAGE
S/O SURENDRA NADAGE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
AT KARWAR
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.R.NAIK., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI &
SRI. OKMKAR KAMBI., ADVOCATES)

AND

1. SMT DEEPA DILIP NAIK
AGED MAJOR
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

W/O LATE ARJUN DILIP NAIK
R/O MUMBAI
NOW AT MALLAPUR IN KARWAR TALUK
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT

2. SPECIAL LAND QCAUISITION OFFICER
KONKAN RAILWAY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KARWAR SUB DIVISION
AT KARWAR 581301
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AT KARWAR 581301
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK., SR COUNSEL REP
SRI. P.B. CHIKKANARGUND., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R2-R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED BY R2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND A1 ARE VITIATED AND NONEST, ALSO ON
ACCOUNT OF HAVING SOUGHT APPROVAL, SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PASSING OF THE SAME VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND M2 AND ETC.

IN 105650/2023
BETWEEN

(BY SRI. M.R.NAIK ., SR. COUNSEL REP
SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI &
SRI. OKMKAR KAMBI., ADVOCATES)

AND

1. SRI VITHOBA SHANKAR PHAYDE
(SINCE DEAD, AS NOTED BY R2 IN THE ORDER
SHEET DATED 24.06.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G)
BUT NOT HAVING BROUGHT LR's ON RECORD
THE 'IMPUGNED AWARD' REMAINS MADE
IN FAVOUR OF A DEAD PERSON)

2. SPECIAL LAND QCAUISITION OFFICER
KONKAN RAILWAY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KARWAR SUB DIVISION
AT KARWAR 581301

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AT KARWAR 581301
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK., SR COUNSEL REP
SRI. P.B. CHIKKANARGUND., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R2-R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED BY R2 IN NO.
BHUSWA: KR/28(A)/VIVA-50/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS
VITIATED AND NON-EST AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2025, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100706/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-
G bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:16/
2010/1027;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

2. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100224/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:245/ 2013/1023;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100227/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-G
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:32/ 2011/1029;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

4. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100229/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-E
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:9/ 2008/1029;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

5. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100230/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

21.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:3+6/ 2008-
09/1037;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

6. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100245/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-
H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:267/2013/
1024;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

7. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100292/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:51/2011-12/
1032;
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

ii. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

iii. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

8. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100294/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

9. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100298/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H
bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:292/2013-14/
1031;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

10. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100784/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-
H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/2010/
1025;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

11. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100785/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-
H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:291/2013/
1030;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

12. The Petitioner in W.P.No.103082/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-
H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/
2010/1025;

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

13. The Petitioners in W.P.No.103322/2023 are before

this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, of mandamus directing the Respondents
to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of
the awards passed by the R2 at Annexures A and B
respectively.

b. Pass such other orders, directions, writ etc., as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice and equity.

14. The Petitioner in W.P.No.103757/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
21.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide
Annexure-H bearing
No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/ 2012-13/1034;
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

15. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105311/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894;

c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and
equity.

16. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105586/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Declaring that the impugned award dated
01.07.2022 and Revised award dated 01.07.2022
passed by the R2 vide Annexure-A and A1 are
vitiated and non-est, also on account of having
sought approval, subsequent to the passing of the
same vide Annexure-M and M2.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

b. Quash the award dated 01.07.2022 passed by the
R2 vide Annexure-A as arbitrary, illegal and having
vitiated and rendered non-est and without
application of mind.

c. Quash the revised award dated 01.07.2022 passed
by the R2 vide Annexure-A1 as arbitrary, illegal
and having vitiated and rendered non-est and in
violation of natural justice.

d. Declaring that, the proceedings in LAC
28(A)/65/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide
Annexure-G are not maintainable, viatiated and
non-est on account of the invalidity of the
application under Section 28-A made by the R1
vide Annexure-F.

e. Quashing the entire proceedings in LAC
28(A)/65/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide
Annexure-G, as illegal and arbitrary and ultra vires
Section 28-A.

f.Issue any appropriate order or directed as this
Hon'ble deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice
and equity.

17. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105650/2023 is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Declaring that the impugned award dated
01.07.2022 and Revised award dated 17.12.2022
passed by the R2 in No. Bhuswa:KR/28(AA)/viva-
50/2012-13 vide Annexure-A is vitiated and non-
est.

b. Quash the award dated 17.12.2022 passed by the
R2 in No. Bhuswa:KR/28(AA)/viva-50/2012-13
vide Annexure-A as arbitrary, illegal and having
vitiated and rendered non-est and without
application of mind.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

c. Declaring that, the proceedings in LAC
28(A)/50/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide
Annexure-G are not maintainable, viatiated and
non-est on account of the invalidity of the
application under Section 28-A made by the R1
vide Annexure-E.

d. Quashing the entire proceedings in LAC
28(A)/50/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide
Annexure-G, as illegal and arbitrary and ultra vires
Section 28-A.

e. Issue any appropriate order or directed as this
Hon'ble deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice
and equity.

18. Essentially there are two sets of Petitioners in all the

above matters, one is Karnataka Neeravari Nigam

Limited [KNNL] and the other is Konkan Railways

Corporation Limited [KRCL], who are aggrieved by

the compensation awarded under Section 28A of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['LA Act' for short].

19. Insofar as the facts in the petitions filed by KNNL are

concerned, KNNL is stated to be the beneficiary of

acquisition proceedings, the acquisition having been

initiated for the Upper Tunga Project [UTP], the

private Respondent in each of the proceedings had
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

filed an application under Section 28A of the LA Act

for the purpose of redetermination of the award

which was allowed by Respondent No.1-Special Land

Acquisition Officer [SLAO] vide various orders. It is

challenging the same, the Petitioners are before this

Court.

20. The following statement would give the necessary

details for consideration of the above matters:

Sl. Case Date Date Name Of Date Date of Date of S. Date Date of
No. No. of S. Land Loser of Enhanc 28A of filing of
4(1) of S. Awar ement Applicatio Passi present
17(4) d u/s 18 n ng Writ
Enha Petition
nced
Awar
d u/s
28A

1. WP No. 21.11. xxx Mattur 22.06. 09.07.2 20.09.2010 20.02. 04.01.2023
100706/ 2002 Shekhappa 2005 010 2020
2023 Shivarudrapp
a

2. WP No. xxx Sri. Patil 03.05. 30.11.2 30.01.2013 20.02. 04.01.2023
100224/ 15.10. Chandragoud 2006 012 2020
2023 2003 a

3. WP No. 29.08. xxx Sri. Maalagi 27.08. 01.04.2 30.06.2011 20.02. 04.01.2023
100227/ 2004 Basappatai 2007 011 2020
2023 Maragappa

4. WP No. 20.08. xxx Sri. Patil 02.01. 01.08.2 30.10.2008 20.02. 04.01.2023
100229/ 2002 Swaminath 2006 008 2020
2023
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

5. WP No. 10.10. xxx Sri.Shivappa 16.03. 01.08.2 25.10.2008 20.02. 04.01.2023
100230/ 2002 2006 008 2020
2023

6. WP No. 11.02. xxx Sri. Patil 03.12. 31.01.2 05.03.2013 20.02. 04.01.2023
100245/ 2005 Rudragouda, 2008 013 2020
2023 Mallanagouda

Hanumanthap
pagouda

7. WP No. 31.07. xxx Sri. 04.02. 06.12.2 10.01.2011 20.02. 04.01.2023
100292/ 2002 Ninganagoud 2004 010 2020
2023 a

8. WP No. 20.12. xxx Sri. 20.04. 18.04.2 28.06.2012 20.02. 04.01.2023
100294/ 2002 Sannathamm 2004 012 2020
2023 alli

9. WP No. 26.12. xxx Sri. 04.02. 23.03.2 06.05.2013 20.02. 04.01.2023
100298/ 2002 Hanamantapp 2006 013 2020
2023 a

10. WP No. 21.11. xxx Sri. 28.05. 09.07.2 14.09.2010 20.02. 04.01.2023
100784/ 2002 Karebasappa 2005 010 2020
2023

11. WP No. 26.12. xxx Sri. 04.02. 23.03.2 06.05.2013 20.02. 04.01.2023
100785/ 2002 Madivalara 2006 013 2020
2023 Tippeshappa

12. WP No. 20.11. xxx Sri. Mattur 28.05. 09.07.2 04.10.2010 20.02. 10.04.2023
103082/ 2003 Shivappa 2005 010 2020
2023

13. WP No. 08.07. xxx Smt. Deepa xxx 31.07.2 05.11.2008 17.12. 10.04.2023
103322/ 1991 Dilip Nayak 008 2022
2023 onward
s

14. WP No. 21.12. xxx Sri. Vithoba 20.04. 18.04.2 12.07.2012 20.02. 06.01.2023
103757/ 2002 Shankar 2004 012 2020
2023 Phayde

15. WP No. 20.12. xxx Sri. xxx 20.04. 18.04.2 12.07.2012 20.02. 10.04.2023
105311/ 2002 2004 012 2020
2023

16. WP No. 08.07. xxx Smt. Deepa Xxxx` 31.07.2 17.11.2008 01.07. 05.09.2023
105586/ 1991 Dilip Nayak 008 2022
2023
onward
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

17. WP No. 01.08. xxx Sri. xxx xxx 31.07.2 05.11.2008 17.12. 05.09.2023
105650/ 1991 008 2022
2023
Onwar
ds

21. KNNL claims to be a wholly owned Government

company having been registered on 09.12.1998 and

responsible for planning, investigation, estimation,

execution, operation and maintenance of all irrigation

projects in its jurisdiction, authorised to sell water

and recover revenues from individuals, groups of

farmers, including those in Command Area

Development Authority [CADA], towns, city

Municipalities and industries and as such, it is

claimed that KNNL comes within the definition of

Section 3(1)(cc) of the LA Act, which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

3(1) (cc) the expression corporation owned or controlled by the
State means any body corporate established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, and includes a Government
company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time
being in force in a State, being a society established or
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

administered by Government and a co-operative society within the
meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time
being in force in any State, being a co-operative society in which
not less than fifty-one per centum of the paid-up share capital is
held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or
Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by
one or more State Governments;

22. The State Government having propounded the Upper

Tunga project, which envisages the construction of a

dam across the Tunga River, 100 metres

downstream of the existing Tunga Anicut near

Gajanur in Shivamogga Taluk and construction of the

Upper Tunga main canal for a length of 270

kilometres, which includes the construction of a

tunnel of 4 kilometres length along with a

distributary network, so as to irrigate 80,494

hectares of agricultural land in Shivamogga,

Davangere and Haveri districts by utilising 12.24

TMC Ft. of water from river Tunga, initiated

acquisition proceedings for acquiring large tracts of

land in and around the villages of Shivamogga

district.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

23. Some of the lands around Mavinathopu Village,

Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District, were also proposed

to be acquired by the issuance of a preliminary

notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the

LA Act read with Subsection (4) of Section 17 of the

LA Act dated 20.11.2002, which was gazetted on

02.01.2003. A declaration under Subsection (1) of

Section 6 was gazetted on 13.11.2003, an award

dated 22.06.2005 was passed under Section 11 of

the LA Act at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre in

respect of dry lands and Rs.52,500/- in respect of

wetlands.

24. One of the landowners of the lands acquired under

the very same notification, i.e., survey No. 75/2A

and 75/2C, admeasuring 2 acres 12 guntas, sought

for reference by filing an application under Section

18 of the LA Act for enhancement of compensation,

which came to be registered as LAC No. 183/2007.

The reference Court, vide its judgment and decree
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

dated 09.07.2010, enhanced the compensation to

Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the private

Respondents, landowners, had filed an application

before Respondent No.2, SLAO, under Section 28A of

the LA Act on 14.09.2010 for the purpose of

redetermination of the compensation amount on the

basis of the Judgment in LAC No. 183/2007.

25. Respondent No. 1, by order dated 13.02.2020, after

a gap of nearly 10 years, allowed the application filed

by the private Respondent under Section 28A.

Respondent No. 3 redetermined the compensation by

applying the Judgment in LAC No. 183/2007 and

directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% for the

first year, and 15% per annum from 28.06.2005 till

the date of the order.

26. KNNL challenged the award dated 22-02-2020 before

this court by filing a writ petition in WP No.

103903/2021, when the writ petition came to be

allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

matter came to be remanded to Respondent No.1 to

adjudicate afresh after issuing a notice to the

beneficiary/KNNL since the beneficiary/KNNL was not

a party to the reference. After the said remand,

Respondent No.1, after hearing the

beneficiary/KNNL, as well as other parties, passed

the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, once again

allowing the application of the claimants under

Section 28A of the LA Act. It is challenging this order

that the Petitioner/KNNL is before this court.

27. Sri. M.R.C. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Petitioner/KNNL would submit that,

27.1. The first award was passed without making

KNNL a party, despite the landowners knowing

of the existence of KNNL and of KNNL

implementing the project, as also of KNNL

being the entity who would be making payment

of the compensation monies. Thus, none of the

important aspects could be placed before the
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

SLAO when the first order was passed. Insofar

as the second order was passed after being

remanded by this court, he submits that the

material which had been placed by KNNL has

not been taken into consideration by

Respondent No.1 SLAO. The contentions of the

beneficiary have not been taken into

consideration, rendering the second order bad

in law. The order passed by the SLAO is vitiated

by delay and latches.

27.2. Though Respondent No.3 had filed an

application on 28.06.2012, the order was

passed by the SLAO on 13.02.2020 after an

inordinate delay of 8 years. The delay being on

part of the SLAO, the beneficiary cannot be

burdened with the responsibility and obligation

of making payment of interest for the delayed

period. The delay being on account of the

claimant and or the SLAO, there being no
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

particular delay on part of KNNL, KNNL cannot

be made liable to make payment of the

aforesaid interest.

27.3. By referring to Section 11A of the LA Act, he

submits that there is a mandate for an award to

be passed within a period of two years from the

date of the final notification. Therefore, the

mandate to pass an award under Section 28A

would also be a period of two years by natural

extension of the requirement of Section 11A,

and it was therefore required for the SLAO to

redetermine the compensation payable under

Section 28A within the aforesaid outer limit of

two years from the date of the application. The

SLAO, having delayed the passing of an award

under Section 28A, no claim can be made as

regards interest against the beneficiary.

27.4. Alternatively, he submits that the SLAO was

required to consider the application under
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Section 28A within a reasonable period of time,

if not withing the aforesaid period of two years.

He refers to Section 34 of the LA Act, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

34. Payment of interest

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or
deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the
Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest
thereon at the rate of nine per annum from the time of so
taking possession until it shall have been so paid or
deposited:

Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is
not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the
date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the
date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount
of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or
deposited before the date of such expiry

27.5. By placing reliance on the aforesaid Section 34

and a conjoint reading of Section 28A, he

submits that the cause of action for filing an

application under Section 28A is the

enhancement of compensation in a similarly

situated matter. Thus, Section 34 could not be

made applicable from the date of taking of
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

possession. Thus, interest, if any, would be

liable to be paid only after the order is passed

by a reference court in a proceeding for

enhancement of compensation under Section

18 of the LA Act.

27.6. Thus, he submits that when compensation is

redetermined under Section 28A, the award of

interest from the date of taking physical

possession would not arise. The

redetermination of compensation taking place

on the date on which the order under section

28A is passed, interest, if any, can only be

calculated from the date of order under Section

28A and not from the date on which the

possession was taken.

27.7. Insofar as the original compensation is

concerned, the said compensation amount as

determined by the SLAO, has already been

deposited in the treasury of the State
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Government, thereafter, the compensation

amount has been accepted by Respondent

No.3, the landowner. The landowner had not

raised any dispute as regards the compensation

awarded. It is only on account of a third party

having filed a reference under Section 18 being

allowed that the landowner has claimed an

additional amount as compensation. This, he

submits, would not entitle the said landowner

for accrual of any interest until the award was

passed by the SLAO under Section 28A.

27.8. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Babua Ram and others -v- State of

U.P. and another1, more particularly para 39

thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

39. The next question is whether the Collector/LAO on
receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of
Section 28A-A is bound to redetermine the
compensation while the award and decree under
Section 26 is pending consideration in the appeal in
1
(1995) 2 SCC 689
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the High Court or appwellate forum. If he does so,
whether award under Section 28A-A(2) is illegal? It is
settled law that the decree of the trial court gets
merged in the decree of the appellate court which
alone is executable. The finality of the determination
of the compensation is attained with the decree of the
appellate forum, be it the High Court or this Court.
Take for instance that 'A', 'B' and 'C' are interested
persons in the land notified under Section 4(1) and
the compensation determined in the award under
Section 11. 'A' received the compensation without
protest. 'B' and 'C' received the compensation under
Section 31 under protest and sought and secured
reference under Section 18. The court enhanced the
compensation from the Collector's award of Rs 10,000
to Rs 20,000. 'B' did not file appeal under Section 54
while 'C' filed the appeal. The High Court, suppose,
further enhances the compensation to Rs 25,000 or
reduces the compensation to Rs 15,000 per acre. 'A'
is a person aggrieved only to the extent of the excess
amount awarded either by the award and decree of
the court under Section 26 but he will not get the
enhancement of further sum of Rs 5000 granted by
the High Court in favour of 'C'. The decree of the High
Court is the executable decree made in favour of 'C'.
Unless redetermination is kept back till the appeal by
the High Court is disposed of, incongruity would
emerge. Suppose the State filed appeal in this Court
under Article 136 against the High Court decree and
this Court confirms the award of the Collector and
sets aside the decree of civil court under Section 26
and of the High Court under Section 54. There is
nothing left for redetermination. With a view to save
'A' or 'B' or the State from the consequences of such
incongruous situations, the Collector/LAO should stay
his hands in the matter of redetermination of
compensation till the appeal is finally disposed of and
he should redetermine the compensation only on the
basis of the final judgment and decree of the
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

appellate forum. Adoption of such course, would not
merely avoid the chance element in the claimants
getting the amounts of redetermined compensation
but also avoids needless burden on public exchequer.
As soon as the award of the civil court is carried in
appeal, it becomes obligatory for the Collector to keep
the application/applications for redetermination of
compensation filed within limitation pending, awaiting
decision by the appellate forum and to redetermine
the compensation on the basis of the final judgment
and decree. Normally the LAO would file the appeal
against the enhanced compensation in a decree of
either the civil court or the High Court and will know
their pendency. In the case of appeal filed by the
interested persons, the latter should inform the
Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise
comes to know of it should keep the applications for
redetermination, received under sub-section (1) of
Section 28A-A within limitation pending, awaiting the
decision by the appellate court. Before proceeding
with the determination, he should obtain an affidavit
from the party making the application under Section
28A-A that no appeal against the award made under
Section 26 relied upon by him was filed or if had been
filed was disposed of by the appellate court and to
produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if
already disposed of.

27.9. By relying on Babua Ram's case, he submits

that when the SLAO is deciding an application

under Section 28A, the earlier judgment would

not be applied on its own, the same amount

need not be given as compensation, where
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

there are differences in nature, quality and

situation of the comparable land. There is an

application of mind required to be made by the

SLAO to assess these factors and thereafter

pass an order under Section 28A.

27.10. His submission is that this aspect has not been

taken note of and applied by the SLAO. The

SLAO, without considering the objection raised

by KNNL that the land, subject matter of

Section 28A proceedings are not similarly

placed lands, has negated the same without

giving any reasons and applied the same order

as passed in a reference under Section 18,

merely because the land acquired was under

the same preliminary notification.

27.11. He submits that even if the lands were acquired

under the very same preliminary notification,

the SLAO ought to have considered the

differences in the nature, quality and situation
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

of the land and ought to have come to a

conclusion that the said land is comparable to

each other before applying the earlier award.

27.12. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Draupadi Devi and others -v- Union

of India and others2, more particularly para

79 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

79. Although, in the written submissions filed before
the High Court as well as in the appeal before this
Court, submissions have been made with regard to
the alternative relief, no arguments were addressed
before us on this issue when the oral submissions
were made by the counsel on both sides. Despite
looking for it, we are unable to locate anything on
record which expressly suggests that this claim had
been expressly given up by the plaintiff during the
trial. We are unable to find out the basis on which the
Division Bench arrived at this conclusion. This fact,
however, does not carry the case of the plaintiff any
further. The burden of establishing that the plaintiff
had sustained damages and the measure of damages
was squarely on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
singularly failed to discharge this onus both by lack of
pleadings and lack of evidence. In the circumstances,
this alternative relief claimed by the plaintiff must
fail.

27.13. Placing reliance on Draupadi Devi's case, he

submits that it is for the claimant to prove by
2
2004 (11) SCC 425
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

leading evidence and producing supporting

documents that the land of the claimant is

similarly situated to the land as regards which

the compensation has been enhanced.

27.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ram Kumar -v- State of Uttar

Pradesh and others3 more particularly para

no. 28A thereof, which is reproduced for easy

reference:

28A. This Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1] has held that non-disclosure of the
relevant and material documents with a view to obtain
an undue advantage would amount to fraud. It has
been held that the judgment or decree obtained by
fraud is to be treated as a nullity. We find that
Respondent 9 has not only suppressed a material fact
but has also tried to mislead the High Court. On this
ground also, the present appeal deserves to be
allowed.

27.15. By referring to Ram Kumar's decision, he

submits that if there is fraud which is played by

any party and an undue advantage is taken in

3
(2022) SCC Online SC 1312
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

pursuance thereof, any decree or award

obtained by fraud would have to be treated as a

nullity and in this regard he submits that there

is fraud played by the claimants in as much as

they have fabricated the documents. The

application under Section 28A was not filed on

the date so indicated.

27.16. He submits that there is collusion between the

claimants and the SLAO, which has resulted in

the impugned order being passed. The SLAO

has wantonly delayed the passing of the award

to favour the claimant.

27.17. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Housing Board

-v- SLAO and others4, more particularly para

No. 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

23. We have considered the view taken by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court and the other High

4
1998 SCC Online Guj 261
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Courts and on an analysis of the aforesaid cases, in
the light of the Supreme Court cases, we find that
so far as the proviso under Section 28A-A and
Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act are concerned,
the same are para materia and what we find is that
only that party which has been handicapped from
filing the application/appeal, etc. within time on
account of the period which is taken in obtaining the
certified copy is entitled to the benefit of such time
for the purpose of limitation. The party which has
not spent such time can never be entitled to claim
benefit under this provision and the party which had
never applied for certified copy and which has not
suffered any handicap on that account, cannot take
the benefit of the disability of some other party is
obtaining the certified copy. Even otherwise, it does
not stand to the reason that a party which never
applied for the certified copy should be given the
benefit of the period taken in obtaining the certified
copy by some other party. The argument raised on
behalf of the learned Counsel for the Respondents
that the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were not parties
to the Reference which had been decided by the
court and therefore they did not come to know
about the Award, is no answer to the question of
limitation for two reasons, firstly, in the facts of this
case, it is not found that they came to know about
the passing of the Award after the expiry of the
period of three months. On the contrary, their case
is that they had approached the learned Advocate
Mr. K.C. Desai for obtaining the certified copy within
three months inasmuch as the date of the
application itself is 25th July 1991, i.e. only 22 days
after the date of the order passed in reference and
therefore the ground with regard to the knowledge
of the order of the reference is of no avail. Secondly,
it has been found as a question of fact on the basis
of the documents in the nature of contemporaneous
evidence that none of the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

had in fact applied for obtaining the certified copy
and as such it cannot be said that it is on account of
the availablility of the certified copy at a later point
of time that they were prevented from filing the
application under Section 28A-A Within the period of
three months for the Case their version that they
had come to know about passing of the order in
Reference on 25th July 1991 is believed, they could
have preferred the application under Section 28A-A
even Without the copy of the order passed 5 in the
Reference and then they could have easily
approached within the period of three months and
they ought not to have Waited for the availability of
the certified Copy because it is the case of the
present Respondents themselves that it is not
necessary to file the certified copy along with the
application under Section 28A-A in case the same is
filed within the prescribed period of three months
from the date of Order in Reference. The learned
counsel for the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 also
submitted that the provisions contained in Section
28A-A are in the nature of benevolent provisions for
those who can not avil remedy of Reference under
Section 18 and therefore in any case two views are
possible and therefore that view may be
countenanced which is in their favour. We find that
on a proper construction of the proviso to Section
28A-A and in the light of various decisions, it cannot
be said that this provision is reasonably capable of
two interpretations. Only one conclusion is possible
that only such party is entitled to the benefit of the
period spent for obtaining the certified copy which
had in fact applied for obtaining the certified copy.
The benevolence as was intended by the Legislature
was only limited to file extent that such party which
fails' to avail the remedy of Reference under Section
18 may also approach the concerned Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28A-A for the
purpose of redetermination of the conmpensation on
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the lines on which it has been granted by the civil
court under Section 18. That part of the
benevolence cannot be accepted for the purpose of
extending the scope of the benefit with regard to the
period of limitation and it will be stretching the
provisions too far to say that whether any party
applies for obtaining certified copy or not, it sholud
be entitled to get the benefit of the period spent for
obtaining the certified copy by some other party.
Lastly Mr. Amin has argued while citing (1979) 4
SCC 176 : AIR 1979, SC 1144, in the case of the
The Madras Port Trust v. Hytnanshu International,
that the Government should not take the plea of
limitation. No doubt, in this judgment, the Supreme
Court has observed that the plea of limitation based
on Section 110 of the Madras Ports Trusts Act is one
which the court always looks upon with disfavour
and that it is unfortunate that a Public Trust like the
Port Trust should in all morality and justice, take up
such a plea to defeat the just claim of the citizen
and further that it is high time that the Government
and public authorities adopt the practice of not
relying upon technical plea for the purpose of
defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is
fair and just to the citizens. Here we find that in the
case at hand, strictly speaking, the question
involved is about the interpretation of statutory
provision as to whether this provision entitles any
party to take the benefit of the period spent in
obtaining the certified copy and therefore the
reasons as have been expressed by the Supreme
Court, the responsibility of the State and public
authorities may not be applied on the question of
interpretation. Nonetheless the Supreme Court itself
has said, in very same para-2 of this judgment that
if the Government or a public authority takes up a
technical plea, the court has to decide it and if the
plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the
court. Mrs. Mehta appearing for the Gujarat Housing
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Board has argued with reference to proviso under
Section 28A-A with vehemence and has assailed the
impugned order on this basis with support of more
than one authorities and judicial pronouncements,
and we find that plea is well founded on facts as well
as law. We accordingly hold that the applications
filed on behalf of the Respondents nos. 3 to 19
under Section 28A-A could not and should not have
been entertained by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer by giving the benefit of the period spent for
obtaining the certified copy on the basis of the
certified copy which had been annexed with the
application under Section 28A-A and in absence of
entitlement for such benefit under proviso to Section
28A-A, the is applications were on the face of it,
time barred. The impugned order dated 31st May
1997 (Annexure-D) passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, therefore, cannot be sustained in
the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and
set aside.

27.18. By relying on Gujarat Housing Board's case,

he submits that it is only the time which is

taken to obtain a certified copy which could be

excluded while calculating the period of

limitation under Subsection (2) of Section 12 of

the Limitation Act. Many of the claimants, not

having filed any application for a certified copy

but having relied on the certified copy availed

of by one of the claimants, he submits that all
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the claimants would not be entitled for the

benefit of extension of time, insofar as the time

spent in obtaining copies are concerned.

27.19. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and

others -v- Union of India and another5

more particularly para no. 45 thereof, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

45. Award of interest under Section 34 is mandatory
inasmuch the word used in the section is "shall". The
scheme of the Act and the express provisions thereof
establish that the interest payable under Section 34 is
statutory. The claim for interest under Section 28A of
the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation
not having been paid, the claimant should be allowed
interest on the enhanced compensation amount. The
award of interest under Section 28A is discretionary
power vested in the court and it has to be exercised in
a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. The use of the
word "may" in Section 28A does not confer any
arbitrary discretion on the court to disallow interest
for no valid or proper reasons. Normally, the court
awards interest if it enhances the compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector,
unless there are exceptional circumstances.

27.20. By relying on Kapil Mehra's case, he submits

that under Section 34 of the LA Act, the

5
(2015) 2 SCC 262
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

awardal of interest is in terms of the first

award. The claim made under Section 28A

being on account of compensation not being

paid, there is a discretionary power vested in

the court to award interest or not, since the

word used is 'may' in Section 28A.

27.21. He relies upon the decision in Pappaya Sastry

-v- Government of AP6 para nos. 22, 26 and

46 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud
on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non
est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or
order--by the first court or by the final court--has to
be treated as nullity by every court, superior or
inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any
time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral
proceedings.

26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing some unfair or
undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of
another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another.
Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they
are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic
collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in
rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of

6
(2007) 4 SCC 221
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an
absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of
oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.

46. Keeping in view totality of facts and attending
circumstances including serious allegations of fraud
said to have been committed by the landowners in
collusion with officers of the Respondent Port Trust
and the Government, report submitted by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), prima facie showing
commission of fraud and initiation of criminal
proceedings, etc. if the High Court was pleased to
recall the earlier order by issuing directions to the
authorities to pass an appropriate order afresh in
accordance with law, it cannot be said that there is
miscarriage of justice which calls for interference in
exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of
this Court. We, therefore, hold that this is not a fit
case which calls for our intervention under Article 136
of the Constitution. We, therefore, decline to do so.

27.22. By relying on Pappaya Sastry's case, he

submits that any judgment obtained by playing

fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a

nullity and is 'non-est' in the eyes of law and

has to be treated as a nullity by every court,

superior or inferior.

27.23. In this case, since the enhancement has been

obtained by playing fraud, this Court ought to

consider the said award passed under Section
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

28A to be a nullity. There is a deliberate

deception on the part of the claimants in order

to secure an unfair advantage. Having gained

an advantage by way of such deception, the

claimants cannot be permitted to continue to

enjoy the said benefit. This court would

therefore, have to issue necessary directions to

conduct an enquiry into the matter.

27.24. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Manoj Kumar, etc. -v- State of

Haryana and others7, more particularly para

nos. 11 and 18 which are reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have
placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh case
[Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine
P&H 19044] , without considering the nature of
transaction relied upon in the said decision. The
decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the
facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such
judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though
they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding
with respect to the determination of the price, that
has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case.

7
(2018) 13 SCC 96
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

However, in the instant case, it appears that the land
in Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of
Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] was situated
just across the road as observed by the High Court as
such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it
could have been taken into consideration due to the
nearness of the area, but at the same time what was
the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said
case was also required to be looked into in an
objective manner. Such decisions in other cases
cannot be adopted without examining the basis for
determining compensation whether sale transaction
referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what
was the distance, size and also bona fide nature of
transaction before such judgments/awards are relied
on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to
accepting determination in a mechanical manner
without considering the merit. Such determination
cannot be said to be binding.

18. This Court has clearly laid down that such
judgment/award cannot be received in evidence and
considered without giving an opportunity of rebuttal
to opposite parties by adducing evidence. At the stage
of appeal if award/judgment has to be read in
evidence, an application has to be filed under Order
41 Rule 27 of the Code to take additional evidence on
record and if allowed, opportunity to lead evidence in
rebuttal has to be allowed.

27.25. By relying on Manoj Kumar's case, he submits

that an earlier decision enhancing

compensation cannot be adopted in its entirety

without examining the basis for determining
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

compensation. What is the distance between

the properties, the size, the bonafide nature of

transactions, and the evidence adduced in each

of the cases? The reference court ought not to

blindly follow the enhancement granted in the

earlier matter. The previous award under

Section 18 is only a piece of evidence which is

required to be established in a manner known

to law. Hence, the award passed under section

28A is bad in law.

27.26. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Union of India -v- Pramod Gupta

and others8,more particularly para nos. 24,

25, 26, 27 thereof, which are reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

24. While determining the amount of compensation
payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State,
the market value therefor indisputably has to be
ascertained. There exist different modes therefor.

8
(2005) 12 SCC 1
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

25. The best method, as is well known, would be the
amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the
owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence,
the court, however, may take recourse to various
other known methods. Evidences admissible therefor
inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in
respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same
village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment
and award, in the absence of any other evidence like
the deed of sale, report of the expert and other
relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.

26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union of
India was a party to the said awards would not by
itself be a ground to invoke the principles of res
judicata and/or estoppel. Despite such awards it may
be open to the Union of India to question the
entitlement of the Respondent claimants to the
amount of compensation and/or the statutory
limitations in respect thereof. It would also be open to
it to raise other contentions relying on or on the basis
of other materials brought on record. It was also open
to the appellant to contend that the lands under
acquisition are not similar to the lands in respect
whereof judgments have been delivered. The area of
the land, the nature thereof, advantages and
disadvantages occurring therein amongst others
would be relevant factors for determining the actual
market value of the property although such
judgments/awards, if duly brought on record, as
stated hereinbefore, would be admissible in evidence.

27. Even if the Union of India had not preferred any
appeal against the said judgment and award, it would
not be estopped and precluded from raising the said
question in a different proceeding as in a given case it
is permissible in law to do the same keeping in view
the larger public interest.
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

27.27. By relying on Pramod Gupta's case, he

submits that even if an award has been passed

earlier in another matter where the Petitioner is

a party, the same would not amount to res-

judicata and or estoppel. The Petitioner in this

case, is entitled to place all the relevant

material for consideration to negate the

compensation paid in the other matter by

distinguishing the nature and or similarity of

the property. Such material having been placed

on record has not been considered by the

SLAO.

27.28. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Rangammal -v-

Kuppuswami and another9, more particularly

para no. 34 thereof, which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

9
(2011) 12 SCC 220
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

34. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in
State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co. [(2006) 12 SCC
198] wherein it was held that the onus is on the
plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of
the material available and it cannot rely on the
weakness or absence of defence to discharge the
onus.

27.29. By relying on Rangammal's case, his

submission is that the burden of proof was on

the claimant to establish that the claimant was

entitled to the same compensation as that

awarded in another matter. This burden, not

having been discharged, the question of the

SLAO applying the same compensation would

not arise.

27.30. Insofar as fraud which has been played, he

refers to the original records which have been

produced.

27.31. In WP 100224/2023, he submits that there is

no inward seal as regards the application filed

under Section 28A. In the register maintained

by the SLAO, there is no entry for receiving the
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Section 28A application, allegedly on

03.01.2013. The notarised copy which has been

produced is much subsequent to the filing of

the claim petition, and as such, the same could

not have been looked into. Similar is the

submission made in respect of

WP100245/2023, WP100785/2023, and

WP100298/2023.

27.32. Insofar as WP no. 100294/2023 is concerned,

he submits that on the Section 28A application,

the date of submission is indicated as

28A.06.2012, whereas in the order passed by

the SLAO, the application is stated to be filed

on 12.07.2012. If it was filed on 12.07.2012,

the application under 28A would have been

barred by limitation and, therefore, could not

have been considered. He therefore, submits

that the above petitions are required to be
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

allowed, and the order passed by the SLAO is

required to be set aside.

28. KONKAN RAILWAY FACTS:

28.1. Insofar as the matters relating to Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. [for short: 'KRCL'] are

concerned, KRCL is stated to be a public sector

undertaking on whose behalf lands were

acquired for the formation of the Konkan

Railway line between Roha in Maharashtra and

Thokkur near Mangalore. KRCL was

incorporated on 19.07.1990 and has built a 760

km railway line connecting Maharashtra, Goa

and Karnataka.

28.2. The lands for the Konkan Railway line were

acquired at different points of time between the

years 1991 to 1995 in various villages of the

three districts of Uttara Kannada, Dakshina

Kanada and Udupi and compensation for the

same was paid to the owners. Some of the
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

owners, not being satisfied with the award

passed under Section 11, had preferred a

reference application under Section 18 of the

LA Act. The reference court enhanced the

compensation, and in pursuance thereof, the

Respondents in WP No.105586/2023 and WP

No. 105650/2023, had filed an application

under Section 28A of the LA Act.

29. FACTS IN W.P. No.105586/2023:

29.1. Respondent No.1 being the owner of survey No.

218/5 in Shirwad village of Karwar taluk, the

said land was acquired under a preliminary

notification dated 08.07.1991, came to be

gazetted on 01.08.1991, final notification

issued on 14.07.1992 and gazetted on

06.08.1992, Respondent No.1 landowner was

awarded compensation under Section 11 by the

SLAO as per the award dated 26.03.1994.
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

29.2. The Landowner sought for reference under

Section 18 of the LA Act which came to be

numbered as LAC No. 162 of 1996, wherein the

Reference Court on 15.02.2008 enhanced the

compensation by Rs.11,500/- per gunta which

is based on the award in LAC No. 174 of 1996

preferred by one Shri. Ramdas.

29.3. The submission in this regard is that the land of

Shri. Ramdas was acquired under notification

dated 19.10.1993, with the final notification

issued on 24.02.1995, much subsequent to the

notification issued in respect of the land of the

Petitioner and as such, the award passed in LAC

No. 174 of 1996 could not be made applicable

to land of Respondent No.1. The claimants in

LAC No. 174 of 1996 had, in turn, relied on the

award passed in LAC No. 24 of 1993 and LAC

No. 53 of 1991.
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

29.4. Respondent No.1 had challenged the award

dated 15.02.2008 in LAC No. 162 of 1996 by

filing appeal in MFA No. 4158 of 2008. The

Petitioner had challenged the same in MFA No.

6916 of 2008. This court, finding that the

evidence required to arrive at the market value

was lacking, set aside the award dated

15.02.2008 and remanded the matter. Upon

such remand, the reference court enhanced the

compensation payable to Rs.18,250/- per gunta

and while doing so, has taken as comparison

the land of the land loser in survey No. 218/2

to be the same as the land in survey no. 238

and 269/2 of Sherwad village, which is stated

to be at different locations.

29.5. Again, an appeal having been filed in MFA No.

21545 of 2011, this court observed that the

compensation awarded could not be considered

as bad in law and dismissed the appeal. The
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

said award was challenged before the Hon'ble

Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 10734 of 2012,

which came to be dismissed on 06.07.2012.

29.6. That being as regards one other land acquired

from Respondent No.1, the subject matter of

the present petition is that subsequently, at the

second instance by issuance of a notification

under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act

on 19.10.1993 gazetted on 16.12.1993, a

further extent of land of the Respondent No.1 in

survey No.218/5 of Shirwad village was

proposed to be acquired. Compensation having

been awarded was accepted by Respondent

No.1 without filing a reference under Section

18. Though the Respondent No. 1 had filed a

reference earlier in respect of the earlier

acquisition.

29.7. It is Sri Ramdas who had filed a reference in

LAC No. 174 of 1996 in regard to his land in
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

survey No. 189/1, 189/2 and 189/3, the

reference court who had awarded compensation

on 31.07.2008 announced the compensation to

be at Rs.11,500/- per gunta. A challenge

having been made, this court dismissed the

appeal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.

11,500/-to Rs.18,500/-per gunta. A Special

Leave Petition in SLP No.18119 of 2012 having

been filed came to be dismissed. It is at that

stage that Respondent No.1 filed an application

under Section 28A seeking for redetermination

of compensation on the basis of the reference

court award dated 31.07.2008.

29.8. It is contended that though the Respondent

No.1 claims that the application was filed on

17.11.2008, as per the extract of the register,

maintained by Respondent No.2, the application

is recorded to have been submitted on

19.01.2009. An application under Section 28A
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

is required to be filed within 90 days from the

date of the award by the court in a similar

matter, the application filed by Respondent

No.1 is beyond the period of 90 days and,

therefore, ought to have been rejected by the

SLAO. Notice came to be issued in the said

proceedings only on 31.12.2012, thus it is

contended that in an application stated to have

been filed on 17.11.2008 or 19.01.2009, notice

could not have been issued so belatedly on

31.12.2012 and it is only subsequently that the

Petitioner came to know of the proceedings

being conducted without being intimated about

the same behind the back of the Petitioner and

it is thereafter the Petitioner appeared in those

proceedings.

29.9. The proceedings have gone on from 19.01.2009

till the date of the impugned award dated

01.07.2022 for over a period of 13 years. There
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of

the SLAO, and there is collusion between the

SLAO and the land loser. The SLAO, having

accepted the belated application filed by the

land loser, though filed belatedly, has delayed

the matter in order to pass a favourable order

in favour of Respondent No.1.

30. Facts in WP 105650/2023

30.1. The beneficiary/acquiring authority - KRCL and

the purpose of acquisition (Konkan Railway

Line) in this petition is the same as in WP No.

105586/2024.

30.2. The facts in this matter are more or less similar

to that as mentioned in WP No. 105586/2024.

30.3. Respondent No.1 in this petition-Sri.Vithoba

Shankar Phayde, as noted by Respondent No.2

vide order sheet dated 24.06.2022 is said to be

dead, and the impugned award has been
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

delivered without bringing on record the 'Legal

Representatives' of Respondent No. 1.

30.4. Respondent No.1 being the owner of survey No.

218/1 in Shirwad village of Karwar taluk, the

said land was acquired under a preliminary

notification dated 08.07.1991, came to be

gazetted on 01.08.1991, final notification

issued on 14.07.1992 and gazetted on

06.08.1992, Respondent No.1 landowner was

awarded compensation under Section 11 by the

SLAO as per the award dated 26.03.1994.

30.5. The landowner sought for reference under

Section 18 of the LA Act, which came to be

numbered as LAC No. 162 of 1996, wherein the

Reference Court on 15.02.2008 enhanced the

compensation by Rs.18,500/- per gunta, which

is based on the award in LAC No. 174 of 1996

preferred by one Shri. Ramdas.
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

30.6. The submission in this regard is that the land of

Shri. Ramdas was proposed to be acquired

under preliminary notification dated

19.10.1993, with the final notification issued on

24.02.1995, much subsequent to the

notification issued in respect of the land of the

Petitioner and as such, the award passed in LAC

No. 174 of 1996 could not be made applicable

to land of Respondent No.1. The claimants in

LAC No. 174 of 1996 had, in turn, relied on the

award passed in LAC No. 24 of 1993 and LAC

No. 53 of 1991.

30.7. Respondent No.1 had challenged the award

dated 15.02.2008 in LAC No. 162 of 1996 by

filing an appeal in MFA No. 4158 of 2008. The

Petitioner had challenged the same in MFA No.

6916 of 2008. This court, finding that the

evidence required to arrive at the market value

was lacking, set aside the award dated
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

15.02.2008 and remanded the matter. Upon

such remand, the reference court enhanced the

compensation payable to Rs.18,250/- per gunta

and, while doing so, has taken as a comparison

the land of the land loser in survey No. 218/2

to be the same as the land in survey no. 238

and 269/2 of Sherwad village, which are stated

to be at different locations.

30.8. Again, an appeal having been filed in MFA No.

22574 of 2009 was decided, along with MFA No.

21545 of 2011, against the award in LAC

162/1. This court observed that the

compensation awarded could not be considered

as bad in law and dismissed the appeal.

Further, this Court enhanced the compensation

amount from 11,500 to 18,500/- in MFA Crob

No.802/2010. The judgement in MFA No. 22574

of 2011 was challenged before the Hon'ble

Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 18119 of 2012 by
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the Petitioner herein, which came to be

dismissed on 06.07.2012.

30.9. That being as regards one other land acquired

from Respondent No.1, subsequently, at the

second instance by the issuance of a

notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of

the LA Act on 19.10.1993 gazetted on

16.12.1993, a further extent of land of the

Respondent No.1 in survey No.218/1 of

Shirwad village was proposed to be acquired.

Compensation having been awarded was

accepted by Respondent No.1 without filing a

reference under Section 18. It is Sri. Ramdas,

who had filed a reference in LAC No. 174 of

1996 in regard to his land in survey No. 189/1,

189/2 and 189/3, the reference court who had

awarded compensation on 31.07.2008

announced the compensation to be at

Rs.11,500/- per gunta. A challenge having been
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

made, this court dismissed the appeal by

enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,500/-

to Rs.18,500/-per gunta. A Special Leave

Petition in SLP No.18119 of 2012, having been

filed, came to be dismissed. It is at that stage

that Respondent No.1 filed an application under

Section 28A seeking for redetermination of

compensation on the basis of the reference

court award dated 31.07.2008.

30.10. It is contended that though the Respondent

No.1 claims that the application was filed on

05.11.2008, as per the extract of the register

maintained by Respondent No.2, the application

is recorded to have been submitted on

19.01.2009. An application under Section 28A

being required to be filed within 90 days from

the date of the award by the court in a similar

matter, the application filed by Respondent

No.1 is beyond the period of 90 days and,
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

therefore, ought to have been rejected by the

SLAO. A notice came to be issued in the said

proceedings only on 29.12.2012. Thus, it is

contended that an application stated to have

been filed on 19.01.2009, notice could not have

been issued so belatedly on 29.12.2012. It is

only subsequently that the Petitioner came to

know of the proceedings being conducted

without being intimated about the same behind

the back of the Petitioner. It is thereafter the

Petitioner appeared in those proceedings.

30.11. The proceedings have gone on from 19.01.2009

till the date of the impugned award dated

17.12.2022 for over a period of 13 years. There

is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of

the SLAO, and there is collusion between the

SLAO and the land loser. The SLAO, having

accepted the belated application filed by the

land loser, has delayed the matter in order to
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

pass a favourable order in favour of Respondent

No.1.

31. Sri. Madhusudan R. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Konkan Railway Corporation

Limited, would submit that:

31.1. The applications filed by Deepa Dilip Nayak and

Vithoba Shankar Phayde were on 17.11.2008

and 05.11.2008, respectively, in pursuance of

enhancement made under Section 18 vide

order dated 31.07.2008 in LAC No.174 of 1996.

31.2. An application under Section 28A-A is to be filed

within a period of three months from the date

of award under Section 18 by the Reference

Court in regard to similar lands involved. The

award in LAC 174 of 1996 was passed on

31.07.2008, the applications unde Section 28A

filed on 17.11.2008 and 05.11.2008 are beyond

the period of three months. Apart therefrom, he
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

submits that the entry in the register of the

SLAO indicates that the applications were

received on 19.01.2009. It is not the date

mentioned on the application but the date of

receipt which is required to be considered. If

the date of receipt on 19.01.2009 is considered,

the applications are way beyond the period of

three months prescribed under Section 28A.

These applications were numbered in the year

2012, after four years. In the case of Deepa

Nayak, as LAC No.28A(A)65/2012-13 and in

respect of Vitobha Shankar Phayde as LAC

No.28A(A)/50/2012-13.

31.3. The fact that they were numbered in the year

2012-13, he submits, would indicate that those

applications had not been filed in time. The only

aspect that could be taken into consideration

for the calculation of the limitation period being

the time spent on receipt of a certified copy
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

from the date of filing of the application, the

period of four years is way beyond the period of

limitation prescribed. This aspect ought to have

been taken into consideration by the SLAO,

which has not been done.

31.4. Insofar as the copying application is concerned,

he submits that the counsel for the claimant in

LAC No. 174 of 1996 had made an application

on 01.08.2008, which was ready on 30.08.2008

and delivered on 19.09.2008. The period from

30.08.2008 to 19.09.2008 cannot be reckoned

because there was a delay on part of the

Counsel. The time which could be considered

was only from 01.08.2008 to 30.08.2008,

which is a period of 30 days. Even then, the

application filed on 19.01.2009 is beyond the

period of 3 months fixed as the limitation

period.
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31.5. The claimants have themselves not applied for

any certified copy but have relied on a certified

copy obtained by the counsel for the claimant in

LAC No.174 of 1996. The present claimants not

having applied for certified copies, the question

of considering the time spent in filing the

application and obtaining the certified copy

being excluded would also not arise.

31.6. He submits that there is no requirement for the

production of a certified copy, a mere

application could have been filed under Section

28A and a certified copy made available later, it

is in view of that fact that the period of three

months fixed would have to be applied with full

rigour. The claimants would not be entitled to

the benefits of the provisio to Section 28A since

they have not made an application for a

certified copy.
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31.7. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Popat Bahiru

Govardhane -v- Land Acquisition Officer10,

more particularly para Nos. 13 and 14 thereof,

which are reproduced here under for easy

reference:

13. This Court in Union of India v. Mangatu Ram
[(1997) 6 SCC 59 : AIR 1997 SC 2704] and Tota Ram
v. State of U.P. [(1997) 6 SCC 28A0] dealt with the
issue involved herein and held that as the Land
Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a
quasi-judicial authority while making the award, the
provisions of the 1963 Act would not apply and,
therefore, the application under Section 28A-A of the
Act, has to be filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed under Section 28A-A of the Act. The said
provisions require that an application for
redetermination is to be filed within 3 months from
the date of the award of the court. The proviso further
provides that the period of limitation is to be
calculated excluding the date on which the award is
made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of
the award.

14. In State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah [(2003) 7 SCC
28A0 : AIR 2003 SC 2949] , this Court reconsidered
the aforesaid judgments including the judgment in
Harish Chandra Raj Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1500] and
held that the statute provides limitation of 3 months
from the date of award by the court excluding the
time required for obtaining the copy from the date of

10
(2013) 10 SCC 765
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

award. It has no relevance so far as the date of
acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is
concerned. In view of the express language of the
statute, the question of knowledge did not arise and,
therefore, the plea of the applicants that limitation of
3 months would begin from the date of knowledge,
was clearly unsustainable and could not be accepted.
The Court also rejected the contention of the
applicants that a beneficial legislation should be given
a liberal interpretation observing that whosoever
wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation
has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action
within the time-limit prescribed under the statute.
Such an applicant must at least be vigilant in making
efforts to find out whether the other landowners have
filed any reference application and if so, what is the
result thereof. If that is not done then the law cannot
help him. The ratio of the judgment in Harish Chandra
Raj Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1500] was held to be non-
applicable in case of Section 28A-A of the Act. The
Court observed : (Marri Venkaiah case [(2003) 7 SCC
28A0 : AIR 2003 SC 2949] , SCC pp. 28A4-85, paras
11-12)

"11. ... In that case, the Court interpreted the proviso
to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause (a) of
the proviso was not applicable in the said case
because the person making the application was not
present or was not represented before the Collector at
the time when he made his award. The Court also
held that notice from the Collector under Section
12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part of
clause (b) of the proviso would not be applicable. The
Court, therefore, referred to the second part of the
proviso which provides that such application can be
made within six months from the date of the
Collector's award. In the context of the scheme of
Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the award
by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of market
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

price by the State for purchase of the property.
Hence, for the said offer, knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the party affected by the award was
an essential requirement of fair play and natural
justice. Therefore, the second part of the proviso
must mean the date when either the award was
communicated to the party or was known by him
either actually or constructively.

12. The aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable
for interpretation of Section 28A-A because there is
no question of issuing notice to such an applicant as
he is not a party to the reference proceeding before
the court. The award passed by the court cannot be
termed as an offer for market price for purchase of
the land. There is no duty cast upon the court to issue
notice to the landowners who have not initiated
proceedings for enhancement of compensation by
filing reference applications; maybe, that their lands
are acquired by a common notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act. As against this, under Section 18
it is the duty of the Collector to issue notice either
under Section 12(2) of the Act at the time of passing
of the award or in any case the date to be pronounced
before passing of the award and if this is not done
then the period prescribed for filing application under
Section 18 is six months from the date of the
Collector's award."

(emphasis added)

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Des
Raj [(2004) 7 SCC 753 : AIR 2004 SC 5003] and
Chitrasen Bhoi [(2009) 17 SCC 74].

31.8. By relying on Popat Bahiru's case, he submits

that the SLAO not being a Court but a quasi-
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

judicial authority, the Limitation Act, 1963

would not apply, and strict application of

limitation under section 28A-A would have to be

followed as regards the 90-day limitation

period. Anyone who wishes to take advantage

of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant

and has to take appropriate action within the

time limit prescribed under the statute.

Respondent No.1, having filed for such

redetermination post this period, is not entitled

to any benefits thereof.

31.9. He submits that, therefore, in terms of Section

28A, an application for redetermination was

required to be filed on or before 31.10.2008,

the application having been claimed to be made

on 05.11.2008, though actually filed on

19.01.2009 is beyond a period of limitation.

31.10. In so far as Vithoba Phayde's case, he submits

that it is clearly stated by the claimant therein
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

that a Xerox copy of the judgment has been

produced. Thus, no certified copy had been

produced, and the question of applying the

proviso to section 28A would not arise. The

copy of the award which has been produced by

Phayde is the same copy which has been

produced by Deepa Nayak.

31.11. In view of the award, he submits that both the

applications of Deepa Nayak and Phayde were

not within time and, as such, were not valid

under Section 28A, and in this regard, he relies

upon the decision of Babua Ram [supra],

which is also relied upon by Shri M. R. C. Ravi,

learned Senior Counsel.

31.12. He relies upon a decision of the Division Bench

of this court in the case of Konkan Railway

Corporation Limited vs. K. Gopalkrishna

Prabhu11, more particularly para nos. 3, 6 and

11
WA No. 4854 of 2013
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the law
declared by the Apex Court in the decisions
mentioned above would clearly hold that an
application under Section 28A is to be filed within
three months from the date of the award passed by
the reference Court. No application could be
entertained beyond the period of three months, from
the date of the award. The learned Senior Counsel
would further submit that this position has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc., /vs./Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Anr.4, reported in (2013) 10
SCC 765.

6. The provision in Section 28A of the Act, as
enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Mangatu
Ram and Ors, Tota Ram, Marri Venkaiah and
reiterated in Popat Bahiru (supra) leaves no room to
doubt that an application under Section 28A is
required to be filed within a period of three months
from the date of the award passed by the Reference
Court. The provision further provides that the period
of limitation is to be calculate excluding the date on
which the award is made and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award. In view of the express
language of the statutes, the question of knowledge of
the applicant did nor arise. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the Court/Authority has no power
to extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds.

7. Since the provision does not contemplate filing of
application within 3 months from the date of
knowledge of the award having been passed, the
question of holding an enquiry by the LAO, to find out
if the application is in time and whether the delay
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

could be condoned, does not arise. Such an argument
at the hands of the Respondent No.1, cannot be
countenanced.

31.13. By relying on Gopalkrishna Prabhu's case, he

submits that it is well-settled law by a catena of

judgements by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the

three-month limitation period to seek

redetermination cannot be condoned and the

authority has no power to do so. No equitable

grounds are available either and hence the

impugned award passed is bad in law.

31.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Bhagti (Smt)

(Deceased) Through her Lr's Jagdish Ram

Sharma vs. State of Haryana12, more

particularly para nos. 4 and 6 thereof, which

are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

4. It is contended that the Petitioner is entitled to
redetermination of compensation on a par with others
and the question of limitation does not stand in the
way. The question, therefore, is as to when the
limitation begins to run for the purpose of filing of an

12
(1997) 4 SCC 473
- 91 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

application under Section 28A-A of the Act? The
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 introducing Section 28A-A
had come into force with effect from 24-9-1984.
Section 28A-A envisages giving of benefit to a person
who had accepted the award made under Section 11
without protest and did not avail of the reference
under Section 18 for further enhancement while
others covered by the same notification had the
award of enhanced compensation. He has been given
right to make a written application to the LAO within
30 days (sic within three months) from the date of the
award of the court excluding the time taken to obtain
a certified copy of the award of the court. It is now a
fairly well-settled legal proposition that the award of
the court is the award of the Reference Court under
Section 18. That is clear from the Statement of
Objects and Reasons as also from the unequivocal
language used in Section 28A-A(1) of the Act. It is an
equally well-settled legal position that once time has
begun to run, it will continue to run until it is stayed
by an appropriate court. The remedy, thereafter
stands barred. The proviso to Section 28A-A(1) only
excludes the time actually taken in obtaining the
certified copy, while computing the period of three
months' limitation prescribed under Section 28A-A(1).
In other words, the time taken to obtain certified copy
alone is to be excluded in computation of limitation of
three months. The reference in Jose Antonio case
[(1996) 1 SCC 88 : JT (1995) 8 SC 328A] was
confined to the question as to which of the two
awards, when there is more than one award passed
by the Reference Court in respect of the land covered
under the same notification published under Section
4(1), would give cause of action and to the question
of limitation to file application under Section 28A-
A(1). In other words, the question therein was which
of the two dates of the two awards, furnishes the
period of limitation of three months. In the present
case in hand that question does not arise. There are
- 92 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

no two awards of the Reference Court. In Scheduled
Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of
India [(1991) 1 SCC 174 : AIR 1991 SC 730] a Bench
of three Judges of this Court held that: (SCC p. 178,
para 4)

"It is obvious on a plain reading of sub-section (1) of
Section 28A-A that it applies only to those claimants
who had failed to seek a reference under Section 18
of the Act. The redetermination has to be done by the
Collector on the basis of the compensation awarded
by the Court in the reference under Section 18 and an
application in that behalf has to be made to the
Collector within 30 days from the date of the award."

The order of the High Court does not give right to file
application under Section 28A-A(1).

6. Thus only those claimants who had failed to apply
for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are
conferred with the right to apply for redetermination
under Section 28A-A(1). But all those who had not
only sought a reference under Section 18 but had also
filed an appeal in the High Court against the award
made by the Reference Court are not entitled to avail
of the remedy under Section 28A-A. Equally, the right
and remedy of redetermination would be available
only when the Reference Court under Section 18 has
enhanced the compensation in an award and decree
under Section 26. Within three months from the date
of the Reference Court excluding the time taken under
the proviso, the applicant whose land was acquired
under the same notification but who failed to avail of
the remedy under Section 18, would be entitled to
avail of the right and remedy under Section 28A-A.
The order and judgment of the High Court does not
give such right. Thus, this Court held that Section
28A-A does not apply to an order made by the High
Court for redetermination of the compensation. Thus,
we hold that the question of reference to the
- 93 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Constitution Bench does not arise. The claimants are
not entitled to make an application for
redetermination of compensation under Section 28A-
A(1) after the judgment of the High Court; nor are the
claimants entitled to avail of that award which is more
beneficial to the claimants, i.e., the High Court
judgment.

31.15. By relying on Jagdish Ram Sharma's case his

submission is that the 90-day limitation period

runs from the date of the award, excluding the

time taken for obtaining a certified copy. An

order of enhancement passed by the High Court

would not confer any right under section 28A-A.

31.16. He further relies upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS

Ispat and Power Limited and Others13,

more particularly para Nos. 30 and 32 thereof,

which are reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

30. Section 12 of the Limitation Act provides
guidance on reckoning the period of limitation and
excludes the time taken by a party for obtaining a

13
(2022) 2 SCC 244
- 94 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

certified copy of the order it seeks to appeal.
However, the Explanation clarifies that the time
taken by the court in preparing the order before an
application for a copy is filed by the aggrieved party,
is not excluded from the computation of limitation:

"12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.--(1)
In computing the period of limitation for any suit,
appeal or application, the day from which such period
is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for an
appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for
revision or for review of a judgment, the day on
which the judgment complained of was pronounced
and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the
decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to
be revised or reviewed shall be excluded.

(3) Where a decree or order is appealed from or
sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an
application is made for leave to appeal from a decree
or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the judgment shall also be excluded.

(4) In computing the period of limitation for an
application to set aside an award, the time requisite
for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

Explanation.--In computing under this section the
time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an
order, any time taken by the court to prepare the
decree or order before an application for a copy
thereof is made shall not be excluded."

(emphasis supplied)

32. The appellant had argued that the order of Nclat
notes that NCLT Registry had objected to the appeal
in regard to limitation, to which the appellant had
filed a reply stating that the limitation period would
- 95 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

begin from the date of the uploading of the order,
which was 12-3-2020. The appellant submitted that
the suo motu order of this Court dated 23-3-2020
[Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020)
19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801 ("suo motu
order")] , taking retrospective effect from 15-3-2020,
made under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended
the limitation until further orders, which renders the
appeal filed on 8-6-2020 within limitation. However it
is important to note that this Court had only
extended the period of limitation applicable in the
proceedings, only in cases where such period had not
ended before 15-3-2020. In this case, owing to the
specific language of Sections 61(1) and 61(2), it is
evident that limitation commenced once the order
was pronounced and the time taken by the court to
provide the appellant with a certified copy would
have been excluded, as clarified in Section 12(2) of
the Limitation Act, if the appellant had applied for a
certified copy within the prescribed period of
limitation under Section 61(2) IBC. The construction
of the law does not import the absurdity the
appellant alleges of an impossible act of filing an
appeal against an order which was uploaded on 12-3-
2020. However, the mandate of the law is to impose
an obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified
copy once the order was pronounced by NCLT on 31-
12-2019 , by virtue of Section 61(2) IBC read with
Rule 22(2) of the Nclat Rules. In the event the
appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct
copy of the order was not available until 20-3-2020,
the appellant would not have received a certified
copy in spite of the application till such date and
accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu
order of this Court which came into effect on 15-3-
2020. However, in the absence of an application for a
certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation
much prior to the suo motu direction of this Court,
even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of
- 96 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not
empowered to condone delays beyond statutory
prescriptions in special statutes containing a
provision for limitation.

31.17. By relying on V. Nagarajan's case, he submits

that although the act provides for the exclusion

of calculating the time taken to obtain a

certified copy of the judgement/award, any

time taken to make available such

judgement/award from the date of the order

shall not be excluded/condoned and would have

to be computed while deciding the limitation

period applicable.

31.18. He submits that the liability to make payment

of interest cannot be mulcted on the beneficiary

on account of the delay in the Petitioner's filing

a claim under Section 28A, the administrative

delays in registering such a claim petition and

finally, the time taken by the SLAO in the

disposal of the proceedings. The application
- 97 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

under Section 28A is required to be filed within

three months' time, the intention of the

legislature was that any such application is

required to be disposed of as early as possible

by making available the enhanced

compensation to any person so entitled to, who

is also required to make such application within

a period of three months or from the date on

which the enhancement has been made.

31.19. In the present case, he submits that firstly,

there is a delay in filing the petition under

Section 28A. The said application ought to have

been filed by 31.10.2008, but the register

shows the application to have been received on

19.01.2009. The application came to be

numbered in the year 2012, the order of the

SLAO was passed on 01.07.2022. Even if

assuming that the application filed by the land

loser was to be within time, the delay of nearly
- 98 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

14 years in disposal by the SLAO as regards

which the beneficiary has been asked to make

payment of interest, the beneficiary not being

responsible for the delay cannot be mulcted

with such interest.

31.20. His submission is also that many times, the

acquisition is on behalf of public enterprises;

thus, any amount required to be paid comes

from the public exchequer. This delay by the

SLAO would be a drain on the public exchequer.

He relies on Section 11 of the LA Act 1894,

which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

11. Enquiry and award by Collector

On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the
enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall
proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which
any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice
given under section 9 to the measurements made
under section 8, and into the value of the land [at
the date of the publication of the notification under
section 4, sub-section (1)] [Inserted by Act 38 of
1923, Section 5.], and into the respective interest of
the persons claiming the compensation and shall
make an award under his hand of-
- 99 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

(i)the true area of the land;

(ii)the compensation which in his opinion should be
allowed for the land; and

(iii)the apportionment of the said compensation
among all the persons known or believed to be
interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims,
he has information, whether or not they have
respectively appeared before him:

[Provided that no award shall be made by the
Collector under this sub-section without the previous
approval of the appropriate Government or of such
officer as the appropriate Government may authorise
in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the
appropriate Government to direct that the Collector
may make such award without such approval in such
class of cases as the appropriate Government may
specify in this behalf.]

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector
is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land
who appeared before him have agreed in writing on
the matters to be included in the award of the
Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the
appropriate Government, he may, without making
further enquiry, make an award according to the
terms of such agreement.

(3)The determination of compensation for any land
under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the
determination of compensation in respect of other
lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance
with the other provisions of this Act.
- 100 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement
made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to
registration under that Act.]

31.21. By referring to Section 11, he submits that

when a final notification is issued under

Subsection (1) of Section 6, an award is

required to be passed within two years from the

date of final notification. If the award is not

passed within that time, the entire acquisition

can be brought into question. When such rigour

is applied to the initial acquisition, his

submission is that the rigour that would have to

be applied to a Section 28A application would

have to be much more stringent, and those

kinds of applications would have to be disposed

of as early as possible, preferably within a

period of six months of such filing.

31.22. Insofar as proceedings under Section 18 of the

LA Act, he submits that there is again a huge
- 101 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

delay which has caused in passing orders under

such a reference. Thus, not only the time spent

on the Section 18 application but the time

spent on the Section 28A application would

require the beneficiary to make payment of

interest. Thus, a beneficiary who has no control

over these matters would be required to make

payment of huge amounts as interest.

31.23. His submission is that if the principles of

Section 11 are to be applied to a reference

under Section 18, the proceedings under

Section 18 would have to be disposed of within

a period of much less than 2 years, and if the

very same principles are applied to applications

under Section 28A, those applications would

have to be disposed of in even lesser time,

preferably within a period of 6 months. This he

submits without prejudice to the argument that

Section 28A by itself does not contemplate
- 102 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

making payment of interest, Section 28A only

contemplates making payment of additional

compensation in terms of the enhanced

compensation awarded to similarly situated

lands.

31.24. Section 28A, not contemplating any interest, his

submission in the alternative is that no interest

would be required to be paid on the amount

which is awarded under Section 28A.In this

regard, he submits that Section 34 of the LA

Act 1894 would not be applicable to

proceedings under Section 28A. Section 34 is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

34. Payment of interest

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or
deposited on or before taking possession of the land,
the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with
interest thereon at the rate of per annum from the
time of so taking possession until it shall have been so
paid or deposited:

Provided that if such compensation or any part
thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one
year from the date on which possession is taken,
interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said
period of one year on the amount of compensation or
part thereof which has not been paid or deposited
before the date of such expiry.

31.25. He submits that the usage of the word in

Section 34 is 'compensation' and not 'enhanced

compensation'. Therefore, Section 34 would

apply only to compensation awarded under

Section 11 and not to enhanced compensation

either under Section 18 or Section 28A.

31.26. He relies upon the decision in the case of Delhi

Development Authority vs. Mahendra

Singh and Another14, more particularly para

nos. 5, 7 and 9 thereof, which are reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

5. The Act is a complete code and lays down detailed
procedure for acquisition of land, payment of
compensation including solatium and additional market
value. It is to be noted that under Section 34 interest
@ 9% from the date of taking over the possession till
payment for the first year @ 15% for subsequent
years is payable. Section 28A is the only other
provision which deals with the award of interest. The
said provision empowers the court to award interest on

14
(2009)5 SCC 339
- 104 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the excess amount awarded over and above the
amount awarded by the Collector.

7. There is no dispute that apart from Sections 28A
and 34 which deal with payment of interest to persons
entitled to receive compensation, there is no other
provision envisaging payment of interest. The
Collector, Land Acquisition is liable to pay interest on
statutory rates to such persons only when possession
has been taken over before the payment of the entire
compensation to them under Section 34.

9. Similar view was expressed in State of H.P. v.
Dharam Das [(1995) 5 SCC 683] . It was held that
when the statute provides for payment of interest to
the landowners, a court has no power to award
interest in a manner other than the one prescribed by
the statute. It was specifically observed that there is
no other provision empowering the court to award
interest on equitable ground as equitable consideration
has no role to play in determination of the
compensation and the manner of awarding interest as
enjoined under the Act. The same has to be
administered in the manner laid down in the Act and in
no other way. As a concomitance, the equity
jurisdiction of the court is taken out and the Act
enjoins the court to grant interest as per the statutory
rates specified in the Act.

31.27. By relying on Mahendra Singh's case, he

submits that it is only Section 28A and Section

34 of the LA Act, which deals with payment of

interest. Apart therefrom, there is no other

provision which would enable the awardal of
- 105 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

interest and or payment of interest there being

no equitable ground or equitable consideration

which could be taken into consideration for

such payment of interest.

31.28. He relies on the decision in State of H.P. and

others -v- Dharam Das15, more particularly

para nos. 3 and 4 thereof, which are

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

3. Following that direction the award has been made
thus:
"Accordingly, the award was announced by the
Land Acquisition Collector and the Respondent was
paid as under:

(a) Compensation for the land Rs 1750.00

Interest @ 12% on Rs 1750 (from Oct.
(b)
1972 to 31-3-1987)

in the nature of equitable compensation as per

order dated 23-7-1986 of Hon'ble High Court. Rs. 3045.00

to March 1987 under Section 23(1-A)

15
(1995) 5 SCC 683
- 106 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

of the Land Acquisition Act. Rs. 3045.00

(d) Solatium @ 30% Rs 525.00

Rs 8365.00"

A reading thereof clearly indicates that advance
possession was taken in 1972, though notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 19-2-
1986. The Court has awarded under Section 23(1-A)
additional amount at 12% per annum of the
compensation from 19-10-1972 to March 1987. The
question, therefore, is whether the Court is
empowered to award 12% interest, in addition to
benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as amended
under Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The controversy is
no longer res integra. It is settled law by catena of
decisions of this Court. In Mir Fazeelath
Hussain v. Special Dy. Collector, Land
Acquisition [(1995) 3 SCC 208] , a Bench of three
Judges, to which one of us B.L. Hansaria, J. was a
member, dealt with the power of the Court to grant
interest on equitable consideration and held thus:
(SCC pp. 213-14)

"10. It has also been submitted by Shri Madhava
Reddy that higher rate of interest may be ordered to
do equity between the parties. We are unable to
concede, as, had the present been a case of non-
awarding of any interest, we would have done so,
because, interest in such cases may become payable
on equity, for it is meant to make good the loss
suffered by a person due to delayed payment. This
view has been reiterated recently by this Court
in Kalimpong Land & Building Ltd. v. State of
W.B. [(1994) 6 SCC 720] in which payment of interest
was ordered, even when acquisition was under
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act, 1952, which statute has made no specific
provision, unlike the Act at hand, for payment of
interest. But equity has no role when the question
relates to rate of interest. Whether the rate of interest
- 107 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

should be 6% or 9% is not a matter which would
require invocation of court's equitable jurisdiction. The
same has to be governed by statutory provision. Had
the rate of interest been too low, we could have
perhaps on equity granted some relief. But 6% has
been the rate for a very long period insofar as the Act
is concerned as the enhancement came only in 1984
whereas the Act is of 1894. So, we are not satisfied if
equity demands granting of relief in question."

Similar view was taken by this Court in several
decisions. It is settled legal position that when the
statute deals with payment of interest to the claimants
either under Section 31 or Section 28A of the Act, the
Court has no power to award interest in a manner
other than the one in which the statute prescribes
payment. It is seen that in a case where decision has
been taken exercising the urgency power under
Section 17(4) of the Act and the award was made
subsequent to the taking over possession, obviously
the claimant would be entitled to payment of interest
under Section 31 from the date of taking possession
till the amount is deposited pursuant to the award of
the Collector under Section 11. On reference, if the
compensation is enhanced under Section 28A of the
Act and the proviso thereto the claimants would be
entitled to the rates of interest specified therein. Apart
from these two provisions, there is no other provision
under the Act empowering the Court to award interest
on equitable grounds, in addition to statutory rates of
interest prescribed under the Act. Equitable
consideration has no role to play in determination of
the compensation and the manner of awarding interest
as enjoined under the Act. The Act is to be
administered in the manner laid in the Act and in no
other way. As a concomitance, the equity jurisdiction
of the Court is taken out and the Act enjoins the Court
to grant interest as per the statutory rates specified in
the Act.

4. Thus, we hold that the finding of the High Court
that the claimants would be entitled to payment of
interest @ 12% on equitable grounds from the date of
taking possession till date of deposit under Section 12
- 108 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

in addition to the statutory rates of interest and 12%
additional amount under Section 23(1-A) for the same
period is clearly illegal.

31.29. By relying on Dharamdas's case, he again

submits that no equitable aspects can be taken

into consideration for the award of interest.

31.30. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi

High Court in Net Ram & another -v- Union

of India and others16, more particularly para

5, 6 and 7 thereof, which are reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

5. There is no dispute to the position that apart from
Sections 28A and 34 which deal with payment of
interest to persons entitled to receive compensation,
there is no other provision envisaging payment of
interest. Collector, Land Acquisition is liable to pay
interest on statutory rates to such persons only when
possession has been taken over before the payment
of the entire compensation to them under Section 34.
In Union of India v. Budh Singh (1995) 6 SCC 233,
the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with Sections
28A and 34 and it was observed that these were the
only provisions which deal with the payment of
interest to land owners. While considering the scope
and ambit of these Sections, the Apex Court
observed:

"Thus, it could be seen that the statute covers the
entire field of operation of the liability of the State to

16
2000 (54) DRJ (FB)
- 109 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

make payment of interest and entitlement thereof by
the owner when land has been taken over and
possession in consequence, thereof, the land owner
was deprived of the enjoyment thereof. Thus, it could
be seen that the Court has no power to impose any
condition to pay interest in excess of the rate of
manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a
period anterior to the publication of Section 4(1)
notification under this Act."

6. Similar view was expressed in State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Dharam Das, (1995) 5 SCC 683. It was
held that when the statute provides for payment of
interest to the land owners, a Court has no power to
award interest in a manner other than the one
prescribed by the statute. It was specifically observed
that there is no other provision empowering the Court
to award interest on equitable grounds as equitable
consideration has no role to play in determination of
the compensation and the manner of awarding
interest as enjoined under the Act. The same has to
be administered in the manner laid in the Act and in
no other way. As a concomitance the equity
jurisdiction of the Court is taken out and the Act
enjoins the Court to grant interest as per the
statutory rates specified in the Act. A plea was taken
in a case before the Apex Court in a matter relating to
Jammu & Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immoveable Property Act, 1968 which omitted
provision for payment of solatium and interest, that in
spite of the absence of the provision for solatium and
interest in the said Act the State was bound to pay
solatium and interest to the land owners on equitable
grounds. The Apex Court negatived the contention. It
was observed that there was no substance in the plea
that by legislative omission to pay solatium the State
enriches itself unjustly at the expense of the private
party. (See Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, (1996)
5 SCC 44) In Ashok Nagar Plot Holders Association v.
- 110 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

State of U.P., (1997) 10 SCC 77, the Apex Court
again observed that liability to pay interest to the
claimant arises only in accordance with Section 34 of
the Act. As the Act is a self-contained code, common
law principles of justice, equity and good conscience
cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to
or beyond provisions of the statute.

7. In view of what has been indicated above,
conclusion is irresistible that while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, there is no scope for direction to pay interest in
a manner not contemplated by either Section 28A or
34. That being the position, decisions rendered by this
Court in Sher Singh and Ram Pal cases (supra) and in
CWP 1483/96 do not indicate the correct position in
law.

31.31. By relying on Net Ram's case, he submits that

interest can only be paid in terms of Section 34

of the Act. Section 34, if not contemplating

interest, no interest would be liable to be paid.

31.32. His submission is that payment of interest or a

direction for payment of interest would have

far-reaching financial consequences, and unless

the provisions of the Act provide specifically for

payment of interest, there cannot be a direction
- 111 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to make payment of interest, and in that

background, he submits that Section 34 would

not have any application to a redetermined

award under Section 28A of the Act. Section 34

being found in Chapter-V of the LA Act applies

only to an award made under Section 11 of the

LA Act. The proviso to Section 34 was inserted

by way of amendment in the year 1984. The

word 'compensation' referred to in Section 34

or its proviso can only be referred to as

compensation awarded under Section 11.

31.33. If the legislature intended to make available

the benefit of Section 34 to a redetermined

compensation under Section 28A, the reference

in Section 34 would have been to both the

initial award and the redetermined award.

There being no such usage made in the

aforesaid provision, he again contends that

Section 34 would not be applicable to
- 112 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

redetermined award under Section 28A, more

so when Section 28A was also introduced by

way of amendment in 1984, the Parliament

having brought in the proviso to Section 34 as

well as Section 28A into force by way of the

same amendment, the Parliament has

consciously avoided reference of interest to the

redetermined compensation amount under

Section 28A.

31.34. Without prejudice to the above, he submits that

even if interest is payable under Section 34 to

redetermine compensation under Section 28A,

it is required of the authorities to redetermine

the compensation at the earliest. The delay on

the part of the authorities cannot result in the

beneficiary being mulcted with the liability to

pay interest.

31.35. He relies upon the decision of this Court in

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs.
- 113 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

The Special Acquisition Officer17, more

particularly para no. 10 thereof, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

10. Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy also submits that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the
award computing interest from the date of the award
notwithstanding the fact that the applications for
redetermination are filed in the year 2010-13 and the
redetermination process is delayed for reasons that
cannot be attributed to the Petitioner; if the Petitioner
cannot be held accountable for the delay, the
Petitioner cannot be saddled with interest.
Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy is categorical that though it
is settled that upon redetermination of compensation
the interest is payable from the date of the award, the
question whether beneficiaries should be saddled with
the responsibility to pay interest for the delay in the
redetermination process though the delay cannot be
attributed to the Petitioners is not settled. He submits
that this question is not considered as of now either
by this Court or by the Apex Court, and hence the
Petitioner would have had an opportunity to canvass
that it could not have been called upon to pay interest
from the date of the award.

31.36. By referring to KNNL's case, he submits that

the argument advanced in that matter has not

been considered and would have to be so

considered in the present matter.

17
WP No. 101820 of 2021
- 114 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31.37. He relies upon the decision of this Court in The

Special Land Acquisition Officer -v- Srikant

Pundalik Banakar and others18, more

particularly para nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15

thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

11. The conduct of the State and its officers, one
cannot but notice, the lethargy, inaction, and rank
indiscipline by the officers in the discharge of duties
under the Act. The failure to address the Respondents'
applications under section 28A-A by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer despite passage of four years from
the date of filing speaks volumes of the nature of
business transacted by the officer in charge of the
said post and the entire hierarchy of the executive,
bordering on lack of accountability and responsibility.
In my opinion, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
failed to discharge duties entrusted resulting in the
Respondents-persons interested, driven to
exasperation, from being kept away from adequate
compensation for lands acquired by the State, on
account of submergence due to Upper Krishna Project,
filed petitions before the civil court. The duties,
functions and responsibilities attached to the office of
Special Land Acquisition Officer, are deliberately
flouted. I say deliberate because, despite receiving
the applications, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested, in him,
resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. Even during
the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer having contested the petitions

18
ILR 2007 Kar 4112
- 115 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

contending that it was he who is required to consider
the applications for re-determining the compensation
under section 28A-A of the Act, nevertheless, failed to
do so.

12. Learned AGA submits that on account of re-
determination of the compensation payable to the
applicants, the State will have to pay interest at the
rate of 15% over the amount of compensation, (after
re-determination) being 50% in addition to award
amount, as also on solatium. Question therefore is
who should pay the said sum? Is the State vicariously
responsible for the inaction on the part of its officers
or the officers personally?

13. Learned AGA submits that necessary instructions
having been issued to the officer concerned to
consider the Respondents' applications filed under
section 28A-A, an enquiry would be initiated by
issuing notices to all the persons interested, in due
compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 28A-A of the
Act and the proceedings concluded within two months
from today.

14. The explanation offered by the officers in the
affidavits referred to supra, at this stage of the
proceedings, in my considered opinion are
unacceptable. I think it appropriate to direct the
Revenue Secretary to hold an enquiry, extend an
opportunity of hearing to the officers concerned, fix
the responsibility and take a decision as to whether
the officers are to pay the amount towards interest
noticed above personally, and recover the same from
out of their pay and emoluments. It is hoped that this
would be an eye opener for the Land Acquisition
Officers in the State of Karnataka to sensitize
themselves to their duties and responsibilities,
towards claimants who have lost their lands on
account of acquisition by the State.
- 116 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

15. In the circumstances, these Revision petitions are
allowed. The orders impugned are set-aside. The
applications filed by the Respondents before the Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn), Athani stand rejected as not
maintainable. The Secretary, Revenue Department is
directed to hold an enquiry as noticed supra, and file
an action taken report with the Registrar of this court,
within four months form today.

31.38. By referring to Srikant Pundalik Bankar's

case, he submits that this court has

categorically observed that there cannot be a

delay in passing orders on an application under

Section 28A. Any such delay would amount to

failure on the part of the SLAO in the discharge

of the duties entrusted to him. The delay is on

the part of the officer of the State, it should be

the State who would be vicariously responsible

for the inaction on the part of the SLAO. The

beneficiary cannot be made liable to make

payment of the interest, and if the delay is by

certain officers, it is those officers who have
- 117 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

delayed without reasons who would have to be

made liable to make payment of the interest.

31.39. It relies on Union of India & Anr. vs.

Pradeep Kumari and Ors.19, more particularly

para no. 13 thereof, which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

13. Shri Goswamy has next contended that while
redetermining the amount of compensation under
Section 28A-A it is not permissible for the Collector to
award interest on the additional amount of
compensation awarded by him for the reason that
under Section 28A of the Act only the court can direct
payment of interest on the excess amount awarded as
compensation and no such power is conferred on the
Collector and, therefore, interest cannot be awarded
by the Collector on the additional amount of
compensation determined under Section 28A-A. It is
no doubt true that under Section 28A only the court
can direct payment of interest on the excess amount
awarded as compensation and the Collector is not
competent to award interest on the additional amount
of compensation under the said provision. But sub-
section (2) of Section 28A-A provides that after an
application has been submitted under sub-section (1)
of Section 28A-A the Collector after conducting an
inquiry makes an award determining the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants and under
sub-section (3) of Section 28A-A any person who has
not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may
move the Collector requiring that the matter be
referred for determination to the court and the

19
(1995) 2 SCC 736
- 118 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

provisions of Sections 18 to 28A have been made
applicable to such reference. This would show that
after an application has been submitted under Section
28A-A(1) for redetermination of the amount of
compensation the process of such redetermination
results in making of an award by the Collector and a
person not accepting the said award can move the
Collector to refer the matter to the court for
determination and such reference is governed by
Sections 18 to 28A. If that is so, Section 34 of the Act
would be applicable to the award that is made by the
Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 28A-A and
it would be permissible for him to award interest
under Section 34 on the additional amount of
compensation awarded by him. The second contention
urged by Shri Goswamy is, therefore, rejected.

31.40. By relying on Pradeep Kumari's case, he

again seeks to contend that on passing of an

award, if no reference under Section 18 is filed,

then a land loser is deemed to have accepted

the award. It is only because compensation is

enhanced in some other matter on a reference

being made under Section 18 that another land

loser would get a right to file an application on

Section 28A.
- 119 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31.41. Until the filing of Section 28A application, there

was no demand on the part of the land loser for

enhancement of compensation. Therefore, in

the alternative, he submits that interest, if any,

can only be calculated from the date on which

the application under Section 28A was filed and

not prior thereto. Though Pradeep Kumari's

case (supra) held that interest is payable, the

date from which the interest was liable to be

paid has not been fixed in the said judgement.

His submission in this regard is that it is only

after the redetermination under Section 28A

would the interest be liable to be paid and not

for any point of time earlier.

31.42. Insofar as the present matters are concerned,

he submits that the SLAO has also reviewed the

award inasmuch as the calculation sheet having

been forwarded on 01.07.2022 and

17.12.2022, the calculation sheet has been
- 120 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

revised, and the amounts reworked. In this

regard, he submits that the SLAO has no power

to review the calculation sheet, which amounts

to a review of an award passed. The award

having been passed on 01.07.2022, the Deputy

Commissioner had communicated to the

Regional Commissioner requesting approval,

and on such communication, the Deputy

Commissioner had called upon the SLAO to

examine the date of notification, on which basis

the calculation was reworked, which is not

permissible. In this regard, he relies upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh

Kumar and Others vs. Government (NCT of

Delhi)20, more particularly para nos. 10-14

thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

10. In our considered view, the review award could
not have been passed under Section 13-A of the Act,

20
(2019) 9 SCC 416
- 121 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

which is meant only for correction of any clerical or
arithmetical mistake. There is no other provision in
the Act under which the said order dated 14-7-2004
could have been passed.

11. In the present case, the compensation for the
structure on the land has been deducted from the
award dated 1-10-2003 by the review award dated
14-7-2004 on the ground of the same being illegal
structure, which actually amounts to review of the
award and cannot be said to be a correction of any
clerical or arithmetical mistake. The question whether
the structure on the land of the appellants was legal
or illegal could only be decided after the parties were
given opportunity to adduce evidence, which
correction cannot be termed as correction of any
clerical or arithmetical mistake. There being no
provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
review of the award, the passing of the order dated
14-7-2004 in Review Award No. 16/03-04 cannot be
justified in law.

12. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the
award of the Collector shall become final on the same
being filed in the Collector's office, of which the
Collector shall give immediate notice to the persons
interested. From the facts of this case, it is clear that
the award dated 1-10-2003, of which due notice had
been given to the appellants and part compensation
had also been paid to the appellants in pursuance
thereto, had become final and the same could not
have been reviewed, and that too beyond a period of
six months, within which period only clerical or
arithmetical mistakes could have been corrected.

13. It is settled law that the power of review can be
exercised only when the statute provides for the
same. In the absence of any such provision in the
statute concerned, such power of review cannot be
exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in
- 122 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath
Narichania [Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 : (2010) 3
SCC (Civ) 808] , has held as under: (SCC pp. 445-46,
paras 12-14)

"... 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the
statute/rules so permit, the review application is not
maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders.
In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an
express power of review, it is manifest that a review
could not be made and the order in review, if passed,
is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao
Jambekar [Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao
Khanderao Jambekar, AIR 1965 SC 1457] and
Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh [Harbhajan Singh v.
Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji
Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman
Singhji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844] , Chandra
Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan [Chandra Bhan
Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, (1979) 1 SCC 321] ,
Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya
[Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya,
(1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 491] , State of
Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement
[State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records &
Settlement, (1998) 7 SCC 162] and Sunita Jain v.
Pawan Kumar Jain [Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain,
(2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537] this
Court held that the power to [Ed.: The matter
between two asterisks has been emphasised in
original as well.] review is not an inherent power. It
must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically
or by necessary implication [Ed.: The matter between
two asterisks has been emphasised in original as
well.] and in the absence of any provision in the
Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible
- 123 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of
review can be derived only from the statute and thus,
any order of review in the absence of any statutory
provision for the same is a nullity, being without
jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the
point can be summarised to the effect that in the
absence of any statutory provision providing for
review, entertaining an application for review or under
the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not
permissible."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the award
dated 1-10-2003 could not have been reviewed by the
Collector, and thus we allow these appeals and quash
the order dated 4-7-2004 passed by the Collector in
Review Award No. 16/03-04 as well as the order
dated 4-3-2010 passed by the Delhi High Court in
Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Naresh Kumar
v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 977 :
(2010) 174 DLT 355] . The appellants shall thus be
entitled to the compensation as awarded in terms of
the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 1-
10-2003, and the supplementary award dated 27-10-
2004. No orders as to costs.

31.43. By relying on Naresh Kumar's he submits that

only calculation could be corrected under

Section 13A of the LA Act if it arises due to an

arithmetical mistake and not for any other

purpose. In the present matter, there is no
- 124 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

such clerical or arithmetic mistake which has

occurred, the compensation amount having

been recalculated, it would amount to a review

which would not come within the purview of

Section 13A of the LA Act.

31.44. He relies upon the decision of this Court in

Deve Gowda and Ors. vs. State of

Karnataka, Chief Secretary, Bangalore and

Ors.21, more particularly para nos. 2, 3 and 9

thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

2. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions the
Land Acquisition Officer passed a second award dated
6.6.2003 at the instance of the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan. The Petitioners made
application before the Court seeking for amendment
of the prayer in these Writ Petitions to quash the
second award also. The said application was allowed
and an order was passed on 23-10-2003 quashing
the second award dated 6-6-2003 and directing the
Respondents to release the amount of compensation
to the Petitioners.

2A. Aggrieved by the said award the Respondent
State preferred W.A. 635-55/2003 before the
Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench

21
ILR 2004 Kar 3159
- 125 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

allowed the writ appeals and remanded the matter
for fresh consideration. The ground on which the
Division Bench appears to have allowed the writ
appeals is; that Section 12-A of the Land Acquisition
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has not been
noticed by the Single Judge while disposing of the
Writ Petitions. Even assuming that Section 12-A of
the Act has not been noticed, the Division Bench
itself could have considered the case with reference
to Section 12-A of the Act instead of remitting the
matter. But, since the Division Bench has remitted
the matter for fresh consideration these Writ
Petitions are heard afresh.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that
the second award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is virtually a fresh award in place of the first
award and therefore, it is without jurisdiction. The
Learned Advocate General appearing for the
Respondents submits that if there is any bonafide
mistake in the award, it is open for the Land
Acquisition Officer to pass a second award by virtue
of the power conferred on him under Section 12-A of
the Act as amended by the State Act.

Section 12-A of the Act reads as follows:--

"Any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or
errors arising therein from accidental slips or
omission may, at any time not later than six months
from the date of the award, be corrected by the
Deputy Commissioner either on his motion or on the
application of the person interested and the award so
corrected shall be deemed to have been corrected
accordingly".

From the facts in this case it is seen that the first
award is dated 25-8-2002 and approved on 7-11-
2002. The second award is dated 6-6-2003. If that is
so, the second award passed by the Land Acquisition
- 126 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Officer is beyond six months from the date of the
first award. Further, the power conferred on the Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 12-A of the Act is to
correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an
award or the error arising therein from accidental
slips or omission. In the instant case, the second
award is virtually an award in place of the first
award. The Land Acquisition Officer has not pointed
out any clerical or arithmetical mistake or errors
arising therein from accidental slips or omission so as
to replace the first award by passing the second
award. Therefore, the argument advanced by the
learned Advocate General that the Land Acquisition
Officer has power to pass a second award and the
said power is traceable to Section 12-A of the Act is
Liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.

9. The Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions
before this Court seeking for a direction to release
the compensation as per the award dated 25-8-2002,
since the compensation has not been released even
though the said award was approved. When the
matter was pending before this Court it is not known
how the Land Acquisition Officer could pass a second
award nullifying the old award without any notice to
the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the beneficiaries
of the first award. If that is so, any adverse order to
be passed is only after notice to the persons who
derived the benefit. But in the instant case,
surprisingly the Land Acquisition officer has passed
the second award without any notice to the
Petitioners in violation of the principles of natural
justice.

31.45. By relying on Deve Gowda's case, he submits

that this review of the earlier award amounts to
- 127 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

a fresh award. The SLAO does not have the

power to pass two awards except to correct

only the clerical or arithmetic mistakes.

31.46. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant

22
Vimalnath Narichania , more particularly

para nos. 12 and 14 thereof, which are

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the
statute/rules so permit, the review application is not
maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In
the absence of any provision in the Act granting an
express power of review, it is manifest that a review
could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is
ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel
Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar
[AIR 1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam
Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the
point can be summarised to the effect that in the
absence of any statutory provision providing for review,
entertaining an application for review or under the garb
of clarification/modification/correction is not
permissible.

31.47. By relying on Kalabharati's case, he submits

that unless the statute provides for review, no

22
2010 9 SCC 437
- 128 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

review can be made of any award. As regards

the claim of Vithoba Shankar Phyade, he

submits that it is only on 24.06.2022 that the

expiry of Vithoba Shankar Phyade was recorded

and adjourned to 22.07.22, 12.08.22 and

23.09.2022, it is only on 14.10.2022 that his

legal heirs were brought on record and an

award was passed on 07.12.2022 without the

legal representatives being brought on record.

Thus, the award is as regards a dead person.

Now the legal representatives have come on

record in the present petition, as also by filing a

separate petition in WP number xxx blank. No

steps have been taken to bring the legal

representatives of Vithoba Shankar Phyade on

record, the application filed by him under

Section 28A is required to be dismissed.

31.48. As regards Deepa Dilip Nayak's case, he

submits that once earlier as regards the
- 129 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

acquisition of certain other land, she had filed a

reference under Section 18, in LAC No. 162 of

1996. As regards the present matter, no

reference was filed, but she sought to take

advantage of the enhanced compensation in

one other land losers' matter where

compensation has been enhanced by filing an

application as Section 28A. She having

complete legal knowledge knowing her rights,

ought to have filed an application as Section

18, which should have been considered on

merits instead of claiming rights under Section

28A. He, therefore, submits that the conduct of

Deepa Dilip Nayak would also have to be looked

into by this court while awarding interest.

31.49. Insofar as the writ petition in WP No. 103322 of

2023 is concerned, Sri. Madhusudhan Nayak,

learned Senior counsel, in reply, would submit

that no writ could lie to execute an award. If at
- 130 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

all the Petitioners are aggrieved, they should

have filed execution proceedings. In this

regard, he relies upon the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Venkatswamy Gowda vs.

Gangahanumaiah23, more particularly para

nos. 5 and 6 thereof, which are reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that at the first instance, this Hon'ble-
Court could not have entertained a Writ Petition
because when once a Reference Court has passed
and award u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has
been passed, if the Respondents have failed to
honour the decree of the Reference Court, the
natural course open to the contempt
Petitioner/Decree Holder to get the decree executed
by invoking Order 21 of CPC. Instead of filing an
Execution before the Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn), Gubbi,
the Writ Petition was filed.

6. According to us, this Hon'ble Curt could not have
entertained, since the scope of Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution are entirely distinct and
separate. Articles 226 or 227 can be invoked by a
person when there is no other alternative and
efficacious remedy available to him. In the instant
case, the Petitioner herein cannot contend that the
award passed by the Reference Court was an-

23
2014 SCC online Kar 1808
- 131 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

executable. When a statutory remedy is provided to
get the decree executed under Order 21 CPC, this
Court could not have entertained a Writ Petition.
Even though the court has entertained a Writ
Petition, based on the concession shown by the
Learned Govt. Advocate, this court cannot initiate
contempt because it is not an executable order.

31.50. By relying on Venkatswamy Gowda's case,

his submission is that the Petitioner cannot

bypass a statutory remedy provided under

Order 21 of the CPC for the execution of the

award. A writ petition cannot be entertained on

account of non-payment of the compensation

amount awarded. When a statutory award is

provided for execution of a decree/award under

Order 21 of CPC, there being alternative and

efficacious remedy, the writ petition cannot be

entertained.

31.51. He places reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in National Highways

Authority Of India vs Sheetal Jaidev Vade
- 132 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

and Ors.24 more particularly para nos. 6, 6.2

and 7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
private Respondents herein - original writ Petitioners
filed the writ petition before the High Court and
prayed for the following reliefs in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

"(a) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

(b) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the
direction like in nature the Respondents No.1 and
2 may kindly be directed to deposit the amount
with Respondent No.3 in pursuance of the award
dated 12.06.2018 vide No.2016/LA/NH351/CR 01
passed by the Respondent No.3 forthwith.

(c) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the
directions like in nature the Respondent No.3 may
kindly be directed to make the payment to
Petitioners forthwith after the Respondents No.1
and 2 deposit the amount." 6.1 Therefore, reliefs
which have been sought by the private
Respondents herein original writ Petitioners were
in the nature of execution of the award passed by
the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court.

6.2 Apart from the fact that the award dated
12.06.2018 has been challenged by the NHAI by
initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act which are reported to be pending, the
High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by
the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award
passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court is to be

24
CA No. 5256 of 2022
- 133 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

executed by initiating an execution proceeding
before the concerned Executing Court.

But, by passing the impugned order/directions the
High Court has virtually converted itself into
Executing Court. Therefore, once the original writ
Petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative
remedy to execute the award passed by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate
execution proceeding before the competent
Executing Court, the High Court ought to have
relegated the original writ Petitioners to avail the
said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which
was filed to execute the award passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert
itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded
with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by
the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral
Court.

7. We disapprove the entertaining of such writ
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to execute the award passed by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the
judgment creditor in whose favour the award is
passed to file an execution proceeding before the
competent Executing Court.

31.52. By relying on Sheetal Jaidev Vade's case, he

submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has

categorically held that the High Court ought not

to have entertained a writ petition under Article

226 for the execution of an award passed by an

Arbitral Tribunal. He submits that the same
- 134 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court would equally

apply to the present matter.

31.53. He relies upon the decision of a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmibai

Vamanrao Kulkarni vs. State of

Karnataka25, more particularly para no. 3

thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

3. I failed to understand as to how a writ of
mandamus can be sought, virtually to execute the
award dated 4.4.2000, passed in LAC No.83/1986
vide Annexure-B. If the Court, wherein execution
petition was filed, did not entertain the petition on the
ground of want of jurisdiction, the course open was to
have filed the execution case in the Court which has
the jurisdiction or if the order at Annexure-C is bad in
law, to question the same, in the manner provided
under law. Without resorting to either of the said
courses, a representation vide Annexure-A having
been submitted, this writ petition was filed alleging
inaction on the part of the 2nd Respondent.

31.54. By relying on Vamanrao Kulkarni's case, he

submits that the coordinate Bench of this court

has also held that it is always open for the

25
WP No.81005 of 2013
- 135 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Petitioner to file an execution case in respect of

a compensation award on account of land

acquisition, and the said decision would apply

to the present fact situation.

31.55. He relies upon another decision of a coordinate

Bench of this court in the case of Pandurang

vs Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue,

Govt. of Karnataka26, more particularly para

no. 2 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

2. From the aforesaid materials, it is clear that the
Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on a
request made by the Petitioner and the matter was
referred to Reference Court for determination of
compensation. The Reference Court has enhanced
the compensation. For non-payment of the said
amount, Execution petition is filed. Instead of
prosecuting the execution petition diligently, on the
pretext that this Court had issued a direction in
similar matters, these writ petitions are filed. When
alternative and efficacious remedy is available by
way of Execution of the award passed by the
Reference Court, there is no need for interference in
these writ petitions or otherwise, it would open a
floodgate and this Court would become an
Executing Court for executing these awards. There
is no merit in these petitions. Petitions are
dismissed.

26
WP No. 80071-72 of 2012
- 136 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31.56. By relying on Pandurang's case, he submits

that an alternative efficacious remedy being

available by way of execution of the award

passed by the reference court, no writ petition

could be entertained.

31.57. On all the above grounds, he submits that the

writ petition in WP no. 100706 of , WP no.

105650 of 2023 and WP no. 105586 of 2023

are required to be allowed and WP no. 103322

of 2023 filed by Vithoba Phayde and Deepa

Dilip Nayak are required to be dismissed.

32. Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, the counsel appearing

for Deepa Dilip Nayak and Vithoba Shankar Phyade

submits that,

32.1. The fact of Deepa Dilip Nayak having sought a

reference under Section 18 on the earlier

occasion would not mean that even on the next
- 137 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

occasion, a reference ought to have been

sought for. Whether Deepa Dilip Nayak is

knowledgeable about worldly affairs or not is of

no consequence. It is the benefit of

enhancement in compensation awarded in

another proceeding under Section 18, which

she would be entitled to statutorily under

Section 28A. The compensation having been

enhanced, it was required for the Respondents

to make payment of the due amounts. Not

having paid the amounts, they have filed WP

No. 103322 of 2023, seeking a mandamus

directing the Respondents to make payment of

the due amounts, which he submits is required

to be allowed.

32.2. The Respondents, namely Deepa Dilip Nayak

and Vithobha Phayde in the aforesaid writ

petitions, had filed an application under Section

28A of the LA Act on account of enhancement
- 138 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

of compensation in a reference filed by one

other land loser under Section 18 of the LA Act.

The said Respondents are entitled to file such

an application, no fault can be found in relation

thereto. It is the duty of the SLAO to make

payment of the compensation amount, as paid

to another land user, to Deepa Dilip Nayak and

Phyade.

32.3. The Parliament, having amended the Land

Acquisition Act by introducing Section 28A, has

provided an opportunity to a land loser who has

not filed a reference under Section 18 of the LA

Act to seek for enhancement of compensation if

compensation for similarly situated land has

been enhanced by the reference court. This

statutory right, which is vested with the said

Deepa Dilip Nayak and Phyarde or any other

land loser, cannot be questioned by the

beneficiary.
- 139 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

32.4. The entitlement under Section 28A is

specifically that of land losers who had not filed

a reference under Section 18 and who have

been given the benefit of the enhanced

compensation under Section 28A. Merely

because Deepa Dilip Nayak had filed a

reference in respect of an earlier reference

under Section 18 of LA Act, as regards an

earlier acquisition and did not file a reference

under Section 18 as regards the present

acquisition would not deprive her of the benefit

of the enhanced compensation awarded in

another proceedings. The certified copy which

has been obtained is by the lawyer who had

appeared for the person who had filed the

reference under Section 18, the usage of the

said certified copy by the said Deepa Dilip

Nayak and Phayde cannot be said to be bad in

law.
- 140 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

32.5. It was not required for them to have filed a

separate application for a certified copy, they

being entitled to make use of the certified copy

obtained by somebody else, the same would

enure to their benefit. He submits that in fact

there is no requirement for production of a

certified copy of the judgment when an

application under Section 28A is filed. Thus, not

much can be made out by the applicant for the

non-production of the certified copy being a

defect on the part of the advocate.

32.6. As regards the delay in registering the

application under Section 28A, he submitted

that they had filed the application at the

relevant point of time, which has been duly

acknowledged. The registration of the

application on a subsequent date cannot be

attributed to the land loser, the same being an

administrative act of the SLAO's office, the land
- 141 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

loser cannot be held to be responsible for the

delay so long as the application has been filed

within time.

32.7. As regards the delay in disposal of the matter

by the SLAO, he submits that the land losers

have been time and again visiting the office of

the SLAO, who had not taken up the matter.

His submission is also that there were several

transfers of the SLAO, and on several

occasions, certain other officials were

discharging their role as in-charge SLAO who

did not take up any of the matters, and no

orders were passed in those proceedings. The

delay on the part of the SLAO in the disposal of

the matter cannot be attributed to the land

loser. The land loser was always wanting to

receive the compensation at the earliest point

of time.
- 142 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

32.8. He reiterated the submission of Sri.Madhusudan

Nayak, learned Senior Council that when there

is a mandate for an award to be passed within

two years from the date of final notification

being issued. A time limit was required to be

fixed for orders to be passed both under the

Section 18 reference and as well as an

application filed under Section 28A. The land

loser wanting to receive the compensation at

the earliest; there is no benefit that the land

loser will receive on account of the delay except

for interest, which does not in any manner

benefit the land loser. The rupee value

decreasing with time, the interest will not serve

any purpose.

32.9. He submits that the land losers have been

made to run from pillar to post to receive their

due compensation, and even now, there is a

delay in making payment of the compensation,
- 143 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

which cannot be countenanced either in law or

fact.

32.10. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Union of India and

Another vs. Pradeep Kumari and Ors.27,

more particularly para nos. 8, 11 and 12

thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

8. We may, at the outset, state that having regard to
the Statement of Objects and Reasons, referred to
earlier, the object underlying the enactment of
Section 28A-A is to remove inequality in the payment
of compensation for same or similar quality of land
arising on account of inarticulate and poor people not
being able to take advantage of the right of reference
to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. This is
sought to be achieved by providing an opportunity to
all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the
same notification to seek redetermination once any of
them has obtained orders for payment of higher
compensation from the reference court under Section
18 of the Act. Section 28A-A is, therefore, in the
nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove
inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and
poor people who are not able to take advantage of
right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of
the Act. In relation to beneficent legislation, the law is
well-settled that while construing the provisions of
such a legislation the court should adopt a

27
(1995) 2 SCC 736
- 144 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

construction which advances the policy of the
legislation to extend the benefit rather than a
construction which has the effect of curtailing the
benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28A-
A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the
object underlying the said provision.

11. Since the cause of action for moving the
application for redetermination of compensation under
Section 28A-A arises from the award on the basis of
which redetermination of compensation is sought, the
principle that "once the limitation begins to run, it
runs in its full course until its running is interdicted by
an order of the court" can have no application
because the limitation for moving the application
under Section 28A-A will begin to run only from the
date of the award on the basis of which
redetermination of compensation is sought.

12. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view
expressed in Babua Ram [(1995) 2 SCC 689 : JT
(1994) 7 SC 377] and Karnail Singh [(1995) 2 SCC
728A : (1995) 1 Scale 21] that application under
Section 28A-A for redetermination of compensation
can only be made on the basis of the first award that
is made after the coming into force of Section 28A-A.
In our opinion, the benefit of redetermination of
amount of compensation under Section 28A-A can be
availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that
has been made by the court after the coming into
force of Section 28A-A provided the applicant seeking
such benefit makes the application under Section
28A-A within the prescribed period of three months
from the making of the award on the basis of which
redetermination is sought. The first contention urged
by Shri Goswamy in support of the review petitions is,
therefore, rejected.
- 145 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

32.11. By relying on Pradeep Kumari's case, he

submits that the object of Section 28A is to

remove inequality in the payment of

compensation on account of the payment of

enhanced compensation in reference under

Section 18. The cause of action for moving an

application under Section 28A would only arise

once an award has been passed under Section

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically

held that even as regards a proceeding under

Section 28A, interest is required to be paid. As

such, the beneficiary of the acquisition cannot

claim that no interest is required to be paid.

Insofar as who is required to make payment of

interest, he submits that it doesn't matter to

the land loser whether the beneficiary pays the

interest or the State or the SLAO, so long as

the land loser receives the interest.
- 146 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

32.12. He relies upon the decision in Union of India

vs. Munshi Ram (Dead) by LR'S and

others28, more particularly para no. 9 thereof,

which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

9. We hold that under Section 28A-A of the Act, the
compensation payable to the applicants is the same
which is finally payable to those claimants who sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act. In case of
reduction of compensation by the superior courts, the
applicants under Section 28A-A may be directed to
refund the excess amount received by them in the
light of reduced compensation finally awarded.

32.13. By relying on Munshiram's case, he submits

that the compensation payable under Section

28A is the same which is paid under Section 18,

and that cannot be found any fault therewith.

32.14. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of

India29, more particularly para No. 38 thereof,

28
(2006) 4 SCC 538
29
(2006) 8 SCC 457
- 147 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

38. This shows that there is no distinction made
between land value and solatium on the one hand and
the interest awardable on the other, under Section
23(1-A) of the Act. It is on this sum that the interest
under Section 34 of the Act is awarded and if it were a
reference, awarded under Section 28A of the Act, in
addition to costs, if any. Thus, the award by the
Collector and the deemed decree passed on reference
contain the components of compensation and interest
in the first, and interest and costs in the second.

32.15. By relying on Guru Preet Singh's case, he

submits that there is no difference or distinction

between the concomitants of the award made

initially and that made under Section 18.

Hence, interest, solatium and the like, would

have to be paid even if an order is passed

under Section 28A.

32.16. He relies upon the decision in Hari Krishna

Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and

Ors.30, more particularly para no. 100 thereof,

30
(2020) 9 SCC 356
- 148 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only
have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the
nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise
such power, where the Government or a public
authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly
exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or
a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has
exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant
consideration.

32.17. By relying on Hari Krishna Mandir's case, he

submits that when compensation is not paid by

the state, even though the land loser may have

an alternative to efficacious remedy in terms of

execution proceedings, this court could exercise

its powers and Article 226 to issue a mandamus

directing the official Respondents to perform

their duties.

32.18. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Union of India vs. Hansoli Devi31,

31
2002 7 SCC 273
- 149 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

more particularly para no. 11 thereof, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

11. Coming to the second question for reference the
receipt of compensation with or without protest
pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition
Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of
making a fresh application under Section 28A-A. If a
person has not filed an application under Section 18
of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of
the fact whether he has received the compensation
awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he
would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of
Section 28A-A and would be entitled to make an
application when some other landowner's application
for reference is answered by the reference court. It is
apparent on the plain language of the provisions of
Section 28A-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount
to adding one more condition, not contemplated or
stipulated by the legislature itself to deny the benefit
of substantial right conferred upon the owner.

32.19. By relying on Hansoli Devi's case, he submits

that a right under Section 28A is a statutory

right.

32.20. He relies upon a judgment of the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of

Puttalingaiah vs. The State of Karnataka32,

32
WP No. 2758 of 2020
- 150 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

more particularly para nos. 2 and 5 thereof,

which are reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

2. The Petitioners submit that the an order came to be
passed under Section 28A(A)(1) of Karnataka Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby the compensation was
re-determined. The names of Petitioner are found in
the table at page 39 at Sl.Nos.1,2,3,4,5 and 7.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that necessary requisition will be made by Respondent
No.3 from the beneficiary as regards to the
compensation amount payable to the Petitioners.

32.21. By relying on Puttalingaiah's case, he submits

that the entitlement of a land loser under

Section 28A would also include interest.

32.22. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in

Chandrakanth vs. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer 33, more particularly Para

nos. 13.5 to 13.10 thereof, which are

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

13.5. It is with this purport and intent that Section
28A of the LA Act was introduced by way of an
amendment. Section 28A of the LA Act reads as
under:

33
MSA No. 200186 of 2019
- 151 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

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 that in computing the period of three
months within which an application to the Collector
shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be
excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application
under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving
notice to all the persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an
award determining the amount of Compensation
payable to the applicants. (

3) Any person who has not accepted the award under
sub-section (2) may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may
be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under section 18.

13.6. A reading of the aforesaid Section would
indicate that this amendment which was introduced
in the year 1984, took into consideration that there
would be a lot of inarticulate and poor people who
- 152 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

may not be in a position to approach the Court which
right is usually exercised only by comparatively
affluent landowners and this causes considerable
inequality in the payment of Compensation for the
same or similar quality of land to different parties.

13.7. It is with an intention to provide an opportunity
to all the aggrieved parties whose land is covered
under the same notification that Section 28A came to
be introduced. The statement and object for
introducing the amendment is as under:

"Considering that the right of reference to the
Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act is not
usually takes advantage of by inarticulate and
poor people and is usually exercised only by the
comparatively affluent landowners and that this
causes considerable inequality in the payment of
compensation for the same for similar quality of
land to different interested parties, it is proposed
to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties
whose land is covered under the same notification
to seek re-determination of compensation once
any one of them has obtained orders for payment
of higher compensation from the reference Court
under Section 18 of the Act."

13.8. Section 28A of the LA Act envisages a
person who had not approached the Reference
Court initially to approach the Reference Court on
enhancement of Compensation on an application
filed by any other land owner thereby seeking for
redetermination of Compensation in the same
manner as that done in respect of a person who
had approached the Reference Court and thereby
entitling the latter to the same benefit as that
received by the 20 person approaching the
Reference Court. Thus, under Section 28A of the
LA Act, the principle of equal Compensation for
similarly situate land acquired under the very
same notification is crystalised and made a part of
the LA Act, therefore requiring that the
Compensation awarded to any person who has
approached the Reference Court should be made
available and or made applicable to the lands of a
- 153 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

person who has not approached the Reference
Court. Though it does not contemplate automatic
entitlement, it requires a party to approach a
Court seeking for enhancement of Compensation
in a similar manner.

13.9. The Apex Court in the case of MEWA RAM
(DECEASED) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
HARYANA, THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR, GURGAON reported in (1986) 4 SCC 151
has held as under:

2. At the resumed hearing Shri S.N. Kacker,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, confines his
submission to the change in law by the
introduction of ss. 25 and 28A by the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of
1984) and places particular emphasis to Para
(ix) of the objects and Reasons, to the effect:

"Considering that the right of reference to the
civil Court under section 18 of the Act is not
usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and
poor people and is usually exercised only by
the comparatively affluent landowners and
that this causes considerable inequality in the
payment of Compensation for the same or
similar quality of land to different interested
parties, it is proposed to provide an
opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land
is covered under the same notification to seek
redetermination of Compensation, once any
one of them has obtained orders for payment
of higher Compensation from the reference
court under section 18 of the Act. "

4. Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the
petitioners, with his usual fairness, accepts
that section 28A in terms does not apply to the
case of the petitioners for more than one
reason. In the first place, they do not belong
to that class of society for whose benefit the
provision is in-tended and meant i.e.,
inarticulate and poor people who by reason of
their poverty and ignorance have failed to take
- 154 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

advantage of the right of reference to the civil
Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. On the contrary, the petitioners
belong to an affluent class, and they are not
persons who have been deprived of property
without payment of Compensation. The
petitioners had all applied for reference under
section 18 of the Act and the civil Court by
adopting a different basis for computation,
namely. treating the land to be potential
building site, substantially enhanced the
amount of Compensation. On appeal. there
was further enhancement by the High Court.
The petitioners have withdrawn large sums of
money at each stage. For instance, the
petitioner Mewa Ram withdrew on February 6,
1976 consequent upon the award of the Land
Acquisition Collector Rs.1,19,000, an additional
sum of Rs.28,938.20p. On March 23, 1978
after the Judgment of the learned Additional
District Judge, and Rs.2,75, 105.42p. after the
Judgment of the High Court between
December 11, 1981 and February 13, 1982.
The Judgment of the High Court not having
been appealed from has admittedly become
final. Evidently, the petitioners felt satisfied
with the enhanced amount of Compensation as
awarded by the High Court @ Rs.12.25 per
square yard because they did not apply for
grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution for more than three years. Merely
because this Court in the 23 two cases of Paltu
Singh and Nand Kishore enhanced the rate of
Compensation to Rs.17.50 per square yard,
could not furnish a ground for condonation of
delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

13.10. The Apex Court in the case of BABUA
RAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND
ANOTHER reported in (1995) 2 SCC 689 at
paragraphs 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 35 has
held as under which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
- 155 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

6. It is' contended for the State Governments
that Section 28-A since speaks of persons
"interested" and "aggrieved", a claimant who
received Compensation without protest,
becomes disentitled to make an application
under Section 18 because of the second
proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31. He
being a non-protester cannot be an aggrieved
person. A claimant who. receives
Compensation under protest but makes no
application under Section 18, becomes a
person aggrieved under Section 28-A of the
Act and is entitled to seek redetermination for
higher Compensation. The question of
redetermination of Compensation would arise
only if an award under Section 11 had been
made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector
after the Amendment Act had come into force,
namely, September 24, 1984. In other words,
their contention was that Section 28-A is
prospective in operation and 24 has no
application to any award made by the
Collector/L.A.O., prior to the Amendment Act
had come into force. It was also contended
that such an application should be made within
three months from the date of the award of
the Court, i.e., civil Court on reference under
Section 18 and not on each successive award
or a decree in appeal. The limitation of three
months should be computed from the date of
the award of the civil Court, first in point of
time and that neither the subsequent award
under Section 26 or the Judgment or decree of
the High Court under Section 54 or of this
Court, does furnish any cause of action nor
does the limitation of three months under
Section 28-A start running from the later
dates. When an appeal was filed by the
State/beneficiary against the award and
decree of the civil Court, the Collector/L.A.O.
has to await the decision of the High Court or
of this Court before redetermining the
Compensation under Section 28A(2). Be it the
award made before the Act came into force, or
the award of the Court made after the
- 156 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Amendment Act has come into force, no
application under Section 28-A would lie. The
award of the Court envisaged under Section
28-A can only be of the civil Court made on a
reference under Section 18 and not the
Judgment and decree of the High Court or of
this Court. The claimants who did not receive
Compensation under protest or unsuccessful
applicants under Sections 18 or 54 of the Act
or under Article 136 etc. are not the persons
aggrieved when the Compensation was further
enhanced under Section 26 or by the High
Court under Section 54 or by this Court. It was
also contended that the person aggrieved
under Section 28-A, must be one who has an
interest in the land which is sine qua non to
claim for higher Compensation. Even one who
was handicapped due to illiteracy, ignorance or
poverty had to receive the Compensation only
under protest. Only that class of persons who
would have received the Compensation under
protest could be aggrieved persons to avail of
the right to claim 25 redetermination of
Compensation. Section 28A is transitional one
and does not apply to future awards. The
Collector when redetermined the
Compensation under Section 28A(2), the
beneficiary being person interested not having
accepted the award, such person becomes
entitled to seek reference under Section28-
A(3). 11. The State having regard to the
Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of
the Constitution which has to undertake
diverse measures in a massive scale to
promote public welfare an to accelerate
economic development has to inevitably
acquire land needed for public purposes -
industrial development, housing, educational
institutions etc. Cases of land acquisition of
land have become far more numerous than
ever before. Exercising the power of eminent
domain when the State takes recourse to
acquisition of lands of the individuals or
institutions for public purpose, to balance the
right of the individual whose land is acquired
- 157 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

for promotion of the public purpose, the
deprived owner of the land is required to be
adequately compensated for his own
rehabilitation keeping in view the sacrifice he
makes in the larger public interest. Taking into
consideration the stark realities that many a
poor and inarticulate owner of acquired land
are not usually taking advantage of the
reference provided in Section 18 for obtaining
adequate Compensation for their acquired
lands, Parliament while bring about certain
amendments to the Act, has enacted Section
28-A through the reintroduced 1984-Bill, with
the object mentioned in para 2(IX) of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, which
says: "Considering that the right of reference
to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is
not usually taken advantage by poor and
inarticulate and is usually exercised only by
the comparatively affluent land owners and
that this causes 26 considerable inequality in
the payment of compensation for the same or
similar quality of land to different interested
persons, it was proposed to provide an
opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land
is covered under the same Notification to seek
redetermination of compensation, once any
one of them has obtained orders of payment of
higher compensation from the reference court
under Section 18 of the Act." In para 3 of the
Financial Memorandum, it is stated thus:-
"Clause (19) of the Bill seeks to commensurate
a new Section 28A of the Act which provides
that if a party in a land acquisition proceeding
obtains the orders of the Court under Section
18 of the Act for higher Compensation,
another person whose lands are covered under
the same Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act and who may have reasons to be similarly
aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may
file to the Collector for redetermination of their
amount of Compensation payable to them on
the basis of the amount of Compensation
awarded by the Court. 12. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons, as seen eloquently
- 158 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

manifests the legislative animation in enacting
Section 28A of the Act. This Court in Utkal
Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa : [1987] 3 SCR 317 held that the safest
guide to the interpretation of statutes is the
reason for it, which can be discovered through
the external and internal aids, the external
aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons
when the Bill was presented in Parliament and
internal aids are the preamble, the scheme
and the provisions of the Act. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons can be referred to
ascertain the mischief sought to be remedied
by the statute vide S.C. Prashar, Income Tax
Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, Shivnarayan
Kabra vs. State of Madras, Workmen of
Firestone Tyre & 27 Rubber Co. of India v.
Management and Ors. and in A.C. Sharma v.
Delhi Administration. 15. The first question
that arises for determination is, who is a
person "aggrieved" within the meaning of
Section 28-A(1) of the Act. Para 2(IX) of the
Statement of the Objects and Reasons read
with para 3 of the Financial Memorandum
would indicate that Section 28-A was
introduced for the first time in the second Bill
to benefit poor and inarticulate people who by
reason of their poverty, ignorance and
illiteracy fail to take advantage of their right of
reference to the Civil Court under Section 18.
By operation of second proviso to Sub-section
(2) of Section 31 and Section 18(1), though
such people are interested persons, if due to
their ignorance, illiteracy or indigence, receive
Compensation for their lands without protest,
would be denied of their right to obtain higher
Compensation while the comparatively affluent
land owners of their neighboring lands who
take advantage of the reference under Section
18 would get higher Compensation determined
by the Court. Hence Section 28-A makes the
award under Section 26, the foundation for
obtaining higher Compensation by poor and
inarticulate people. In Mewa Ram v. State of
Haryana : this Court held that the right and
- 159 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

remedy under Section 28- A was meant for
that class of persons who were poor and
inarticulate and by reason for their poverty
and ignorance, should have failed to take
advantage of the right of reference to the
Court for higher Compensation under Section
18. However, this Court concluded that to avail
of the remedy under Section 28-A, the
conditions laid down or therein were to be
fulfilled. 16. In K. Rangiah V. Special Dy
Collector (Land Acquisition) this Court
observed that in an acquisition proceedings,
lands situated in the same locality and in the
neighbouring locality when are possessed of
the same comparable advantages, the 28
owner of the former lands are entitled to the
same rate of Compensation as the owners of
other lands as determined by the Judgment of
the High Court which had become final as
otherwise, it would be inequitable and
discriminatory. In other words, the owners of
the lands possessing the same kind and same
quality etc. are entitled to parity in payment of
Compensation for their lands. Section 28-A(1)
is intended to overcome the hurdle created by
Section 18(1) and 2nd proviso to Section
31(2) in the matter of obtaining equal
Compensation for similar acquired lands. Equal
Compensation for similar acquired lands could
be got by all the interested persons, if their
lands are acquired under the same
Notification. In other words, if an owner fails to
avail of the right and remedy under Section
18(1), Section 28- A(1) grants an extra right
and remedy for redetermination of the
Compensation payable to him for his land on
the basis of an award of the Court giving to an
owner of another land covered by the same
Notification under Section 4(1) and under the
same award. The payment of higher
Compensation to his neighbouring land owner
makes an applicant an aggrieved person to
claim redetermination of the Compensation
payable to him for his land. The person
aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would
- 160 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

mean a person who had suffered legal injury
or one who has been unjustly deprived or
denied of something, which he would be
interested to obtain in the usual course or
similar benefits or advantage or results in
wrongful affectation of his title to
Compensation. 18. The person aggrieved
must, therefore, be one who has suffered a
legal grievance because of a decision
pronounced by Civil Court giving higher 29
Compensation for an acquired lands similar to
his own while he is denied of such higher
Compensation for his land because of
operation of Section 18 read with Section 31 of
the Act resulting in affectation of his pecuniary
interest in his acquired land is directly and
adversely in that award of the Collector made
under s. 11, he becomes as such aggrieved
person and entitled to avail of the right and
remedy conferred upon him under Section
28A(1) to make good his denied right to
receive Compensation in excess of the amount
awarded by the Collector/L.A.O. Acceptance of
the contention of Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned
senior counsel and his companions, that
person who under protest received payment of
Compensation for their lands but failed to avail
of the right and remedy under Section 18
waiting in the wings for success of the land
owners of the adjoining lands to get higher
Compensation under Section 28-A(1) as
person aggrieved robs the poor and
inarticulate who by reason of their poverty or
ignorance failed to avail of the right and
remedy under Section 18, and creates not only
invidious discrimination between same class of
person similarly situated but would be highly
unjust arbitrary offending Article 14 of the
Constitution, apart from flying in the face of
express animation of the statute as espoused
in its Statement of Objects and Reasons and
the Financial Memorandum. In this context, we
make it clear that we have looked into
Statement of Objects and Reasons and the
Financial Memorandum to know what is in that
- 161 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

induced the introduction of the Bill but not as
an aid to interpret Section 28-A(1). Therefore,
we have no hesitation to hold that any
interested person in the land acquired under
the same Notification published under Section
4(1) who 30 failed to avail the right and
remedy under Section 18(1) read with second
proviso to Section 31(2), becomes a person
aggrieved under Section 28- A(1) of the Act,
when the owner of the another land covered
by the same notification is awarded higher
Compensation by the Civil Court on a
reference got made by him under Section 18.
35. As regards claim for higher Compensation,
Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A envisages the
awarding of higher Compensation by the Court
on reference under Section 18 in excess of the
amount awarded under section 11 by the
Collector. The aggrieved person must be the
person interested in all other lands covered by
the same Notification of Section 4(1) and the
amount of the Compensation determined by
the Court is relatable to the land similarly
situated, possessed of the same value or
potentialities etc. Despite their failure to seek
and secure reference under Section 18, they
became entitled to make an application in
writing to the Collector within the prescribed
three months' limitation. Therefore, any other
nonapplicant is not entitled to the benefit of
the award of the Collector made on
redetermination under Sub-section (1) of
Section 28-A. The contention of B.D. Aggrawal,
learned Counsel for the claimants, that all
persons despite their failure to make an
application for redetermination of the
Compensation, are entitled to Compensation
under the redetermined award under Sub-
section (1) of Section 28-A, is without
substance. It is accordingly rejected. Sub-
section (1) of Section 28- A would apply only
to a person who had failed to seek and secure
reference under Section 18 when one or other
persons similarly interested in the land
covered under the same Notification published
- 162 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

31 under Section 4(1) received on reference
under Section 18 higher Compensation in an
award under Section 26 and should make a
written application under Section 28A(1). The
Collector then is enjoined to redetermine the
Compensation in the manner laid in Section
28-A (1) and to make an award under Section
28-A (2).

13.5. It is with this purport and intent that Section 28A of
the LA Act was introduced by way of an amendment.
Section 28A of the LA Act reads as under:

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 that in
computing the period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made under this
sub-section, the day on which the award was
pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy
of the award shall be excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application
under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving
notice to all the persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an
- 163 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

award determining the amount of Compensation
payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under
sub-section (2) may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of sections 18 to 28A shall, so far as may be,
apply to such reference as they apply to a reference
under section 18.

13.6. A reading of the aforesaid Section would indicate
that this amendment which was introduced in the year
1984, took into consideration that there would be a lot
of inarticulate and poor people who may not be in a
position to approach the Court which right is usually
exercised only by comparatively affluent landowners
and this causes considerable inequality in the payment
of Compensation for the same or similar quality of land
to different parties.

13.7. It is with an intention to provide an opportunity
to all the aggrieved parties whose land is covered under
the same notification that Section 28A came to be
introduced. The statement and object for introducing
the amendment is as under:

"Considering that the right of reference to the Civil
Court under Section 18 of the Act is not usually takes
advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is
usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent
landowners and that this causes considerable inequality
in the payment of compensation for the same for
similar quality of land to different interested parties, it
is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved
parties whose land is covered under the same
notification to seek re-determination of compensation
- 164 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

once any one of them has obtained orders for payment
of higher compensation from the reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act."

Thus, under Section 28A of the LA Act, the principle of
equal Compensation for similarly situate land acquired
under the very same notification is crystalised and
made a part of the LA Act, therefore requiring that the
Compensation awarded to any person who has
approached the Reference Court should be made
available and or made applicable to the lands of a
person who has not approached the Reference Court.
Though it does not contemplate automatic entitlement,
it requires a party to approach a Court seeking for
enhancement of Compensation in a similar manner.

13.9. The Apex Court in the case of MEWA RAM
(DECEASED) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
HARYANA, THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR, GURGAON reported in (1986) 4 SCC 151
has held as under:

2. At the resumed hearing Shri S.N. Kacker, learned
Counsel for the Petitioners, confines his submission to
the change in law by the introduction of ss. 25 and 28A
by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68
of 1984) and places particular emphasis to Para (ix) of
the objects and Reasons, to the effect:
- 165 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

"Considering that the right of reference to the civil
Court under section 18 of the Act is not usually taken
advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is
usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent
landowners and that this causes considerable inequality
in the payment of Compensation for the same or similar
quality of land to different interested parties, it is
proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved
parties whose land is covered under the same
notification to seek redetermination of Compensation,
once any one of them has obtained orders for payment
of higher Compensation from the reference court under
section 18 of the Act. "

4. Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the Petitioners, with
his usual fairness, accepts that section 28A in terms
does not apply to the case of the Petitioners for more
than one reason. In the first place, they do not belong
to that class of society for whose benefit the provision
is in-tended and meant i.e., inarticulate and poor
people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance
have failed to take advantage of the right of reference
to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. On the contrary, the Petitioners
belong to an affluent class, and they are not persons
who have been deprived of property without payment
of Compensation. The Petitioners had all applied for
reference under section 18 of the Act and the civil Court
by adopting a different basis for computation, namely.
treating the land to be potential building site,
substantially enhanced the amount of Compensation.
On appeal. there was further enhancement by the High
Court. The Petitioners have withdrawn large sums of
money at each stage. For instance, the Petitioner Mewa
Ram withdrew on February 6, 1976 consequent upon
the award of the Land Acquisition Collector
Rs.1,19,000, an additional sum of Rs.28A,938.20p. On
March 23, 1978 after the Judgment of the learned
Additional District Judge, and Rs.2,75,105.42p. after
- 166 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the Judgment of the High Court between December 11,
1981 and February 13, 1982. The Judgment of the High
Court not having been appealed from has admittedly
become final. Evidently, the Petitioners felt satisfied
with the enhanced amount of Compensation as
awarded by the High Court @ Rs.12.25 per square yard
because they did not apply for grant of special leave
under Art. 136 of the Constitution for more than three
years. Merely because this Court in the two cases of
Paltu Singh and Nand Kishore enhanced the rate of
Compensation to Rs.17.50 per square yard, could not
furnish a ground for condonation of delay under section
5 of the Limitation Act.

6. It is' contended for the State Governments that
Section 28A-A since speaks of persons "interested" and
"aggrieved", a claimant who received Compensation
without protest, becomes disentitled to make an
application under Section 18 because of the second
proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31. He being a
non-protester cannot be an aggrieved person. A
claimant who. Receives Compensation under protest
but makes no application under Section 18, becomes a
person aggrieved under Section 28A-A of the Act and is
entitled to seek redetermination for higher
Compensation. The question of redetermination of
Compensation would arise only if an award under
Section 11 had been made by the Land Acquisition
Officer/Collector after the Amendment Act had come
into force, namely, September 24, 1984. In other
words, their contention was that Section 28A-A is
prospective in operation and has no application to any
award made by the Collector/L.A.O., prior to the
Amendment Act had come into force. It was also
- 167 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

contended that such an application should be made
within three months from the date of the award of the
Court, i.e., civil Court on reference under Section 18
and not on each successive award or a decree in
appeal. The limitation of three months should be
computed from the date of the award of the civil Court,
first in point of time and that neither the subsequent
award under Section 26 or the Judgment or decree of
the High Court under Section 54 or of this Court, does
furnish any cause of action nor does the limitation of
three months under Section 28A-A start running from
the later dates. When an appeal was filed by the
State/beneficiary against the award and decree of the
civil Court, the Collector/L.A.O. has to await the
decision of the High Court or of this Court before
redetermining the Compensation under Section 28A(2).
Be it the award made before the Act came into force, or
the award of the Court made after the Amendment Act
has come into force, no application under Section 28A-
A would lie. The award of the Court envisaged under
Section 28A-A can only be of the civil Court made on a
reference under Section 18 and not the Judgment and
decree of the High Court or of this Court. The claimants
who did not receive Compensation under protest or
unsuccessful applicants under Sections 18 or 54 of the
Act or under Article 136 etc. are not the persons
aggrieved when the Compensation was further
enhanced under Section 26 or by the High Court under
Section 54 or by this Court. It was also contended that
the person aggrieved under Section 28A-A, must be
one who has an interest in the land which is sine qua
non to claim for higher Compensation. Even one who
was handicapped due to illiteracy, ignorance or poverty
had to receive the Compensation only under protest.
Only that class of persons who would have received the
Compensation under protest could be aggrieved
persons redetermination of Compensation. Section 28A
is transitional one and does not apply to future awards.
The Collector when redetermined the Compensation
- 168 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

under Section 28A(2), the beneficiary being person
interested not having accepted the award, such person
becomes entitled to seek reference under Section28A-
A(3).

11. The State having regard to the Directive Principles
of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution which has
to undertake diverse measures in a massive scale to
promote public welfare an to accelerate economic
development has to inevitably acquire land needed for
public purposes - industrial development, housing,
educational institutions etc. Cases of land acquisition of
land have become far more numerous than ever before.
Exercising the power of eminent domain when the State
takes recourse to acquisition of lands of the individuals
or institutions for public purpose, to balance the right of
the individual whose land is acquired for promotion of
the public purpose, the deprived owner of the land is
required to be adequately compensated for his own
rehabilitation keeping in view the sacrifice he makes in
the larger public interest. Taking into consideration the
stark realities that many a poor and inarticulate owner
of acquired land are not usually taking advantage of the
reference provided in Section 18 for obtaining adequate
Compensation for their acquired lands, Parliament while
bring about certain amendments to the Act, has
enacted Section 28A-A through the reintroduced 1984-
Bill, with the object mentioned in para 2(IX) of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, which says:

"Considering that the right of reference to the civil court
under Section 18 of the Act is not usually taken
advantage by poor and inarticulate and is usually
exercised only by the comparatively affluent26
considerable inequality in the payment of compensation
for the same or similar quality of land to different
interested persons, it was proposed to provide an
opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is
- 169 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

covered under the same Notification to seek
redetermination of compensation, once any one of them
has obtained orders of payment of higher compensation
from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act."

In para 3 of the Financial Memorandum, it is stated
thus:-

"Clause (19) of the Bill seeks to commensurate a
new Section 28A of the Act which provides that if a
party in a land acquisition proceeding obtains the
orders of the Court under Section 18 of the Act for
higher Compensation, another person whose lands
are covered under the same Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act and who may have reasons
to be similarly aggrieved by the award of the
Collector, may file to the Collector for
redetermination of their amount of Compensation
payable to them on the basis of the amount of
Compensation awarded by the Court.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as seen
eloquently manifests the legislative animation in
enacting Section 28A of the Act. This Court in Utkal
Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa :
[1987] 3 SCR 317 held that the safest guide to the
interpretation of statutes is the reason for it, which can
be discovered through the external and internal aids,
the external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons
when the Bill was presented in Parliament and internal
aids are the preamble, the scheme and the provisions
of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons can
be referred to ascertain the mischief sought to be
remedied by the statute vide S.C. Prashar, Income Tax
Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, Shivnarayan Kabra vs.
State Rubber Co. of India v. Management and Ors. and
in A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration.

15. The first question that arises for determination is,
who is a person "aggrieved" within the meaning of
Section 28A-A(1) of the Act. Para 2(IX) of the
Statement of the Objects and Reasons read with para 3
- 170 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

of the Financial Memorandum would indicate that
Section 28A-A was introduced for the first time in the
second Bill to benefit poor and inarticulate people who
by reason of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy fail
to take advantage of their right of reference to the Civil
Court under Section 18. By operation of second proviso
to Sub-section (2) of Section 31 and Section 18(1),
though such people are interested persons, if due to
their ignorance, illiteracy or indigence, receive
Compensation for their lands without protest, would be
denied of their right to obtain higher Compensation
while the comparatively affluent land owners of their
neighboring lands who take advantage of the reference
under Section 18 would get higher Compensation
determined by the Court. Hence Section 28A-A makes
the award under Section 26, the foundation for
obtaining higher Compensation by poor and inarticulate
people. In Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana : this Court
held that the right and remedy under Section 28A- A
was meant for that class of persons who were poor and
inarticulate and by reason for their poverty and
ignorance, should have failed to take advantage of the
right of reference to the Court for higher Compensation
under Section 18. However, this Court concluded that
to avail of the remedy under Section 28A-A, the
conditions laid down or therein were to be fulfilled.

16. In K. Rangiah V. Special Dy Collector (Land
Acquisition) this Court observed that in an acquisition
proceedings, lands situated in the same locality and in
the neighbouring locality when are possessed of the
same comparable advantages, the owner of the former
lands are entitled to the same rate of Compensation as
the owners of other lands as determined by the
Judgment of the High Court which had become final as
otherwise, it would be inequitable and discriminatory.
In other words, the owners of the lands possessing the
same kind and same quality etc. are entitled to parity in
payment of Compensation for their lands. Section 28A-
- 171 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

A(1) is intended to overcome the hurdle created by
Section 18(1) and 2nd proviso to Section 31(2) in the
matter of obtaining equal Compensation for similar
acquired lands. Equal Compensation for similar acquired
lands could be got by all the interested persons, if their
lands are acquired under the same Notification. In other
words, if an owner fails to avail of the right and remedy
under Section 18(1), Section 28A-A(1) grants an extra
right and remedy for redetermination of the
Compensation payable to him for his land on the basis
of an award of the Court giving to an owner of another
land covered by the same Notification under Section
4(1) and under the same award. The payment of higher
Compensation to his neighbouring land owner makes an
applicant an aggrieved person to claim redetermination
of the Compensation payable to him for his land. The
person aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would
mean a person who had suffered legal injury or one
who has been unjustly deprived or denied of
something, which he would be interested to obtain in
the usual course or similar benefits or advantage or
results in wrongful affectation of his title to
Compensation.

18. The person aggrieved must, therefore, be one who
has suffered a legal grievance because of a decision
Compensation for an acquired lands similar to his own
while he is denied of such higher Compensation for his
land because of operation of Section 18 read with
Section 31 of the Act resulting in affectation of his
pecuniary interest in his acquired land is directly and
adversely in that award of the Collector made under s.
11, he becomes as such aggrieved person and entitled
to avail of the right and remedy conferred upon him
under Section 28A(1) to make good his denied right to
receive Compensation in excess of the amount awarded
by the Collector/L.A.O. Acceptance of the contention of
Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel and his
companions, that person who under protest received
- 172 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

payment of Compensation for their lands but failed to
avail of the right and remedy under Section 18 waiting
in the wings for success of the land owners of the
adjoining lands to get higher Compensation under
Section 28A-A(1) as person aggrieved robs the poor
and inarticulate who by reason of their poverty or
ignorance failed to avail of the right and remedy under
Section 18, and creates not only invidious
discrimination between same class of person similarly
situated but would be highly unjust arbitrary offending
Article 14 of the Constitution, apart from flying in the
face of express animation of the statute as espoused in
its Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Financial
Memorandum. In this context, we make it clear that we
have looked into Statement of Objects and Reasons and
the Financial Memorandum to know what is in that
induced the introduction of the Bill but not as an aid to
interpret Section 28A-A(1). Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that any interested person in the land
acquired under the same Notification published under
Section 4(1) who failed to avail the right and remedy
under Section 18(1) read with second proviso to
Section 31(2), becomes a person aggrieved under
Section 28A-A(1) of the Act, when the owner of the
another land covered by the same notification is
awarded higher Compensation by the Civil Court on a
reference got made by him under Section 18. As
regards claim for higher Compensation, Sub-section (1)
of Section 28A-A envisages the awarding of higher
Compensation by the Court on reference under Section
18 in excess of the amount awarded under section 11
by the Collector. The aggrieved person must be the
person interested in all other lands covered by the
same Notification of Section 4(1) and the amount of the
Compensation determined by the Court is relatable to
the land similarly situated, possessed of the same value
or potentialities etc. Despite their failure to seek and
secure reference under Section 18, they became
entitled to make an application in writing to the
- 173 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Collector within the prescribed three months' limitation.
Therefore, any other non- applicant is not entitled to
the benefit of the award of the Collector made on
redetermination under Sub-section (1) of Section 28A-
A. The contention of B.D. Aggrawal, learned Counsel for
the claimants, that all persons despite their failure to
make an application for redetermination of the
Compensation, are entitled to Compensation under the
redetermined award under Sub-section (1) of Section
28A-A, is without substance. It is accordingly rejected.
Sub-section (1) of Section 28A-A would apply only to a
person who had failed to seek and secure reference
under Section 18 when one or other persons similarly
interested in the land covered under the same
Notification published under Section 4(1) received on
reference under Section 18 higher Compensation in an
award under Section 26 and should make a written
application under Section 28A(1). The Collector then is
enjoined to redetermine the Compensation in the
manner laid in Section 28A-A (1) and to make an award
under Section 28A-A (2).

32.23. He relies on the judgment of a coordinate

Bench of this court in SHIVAKUMAR VS. SPL.

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER34 more

particularly para no. 35 and 36 thereof, which

are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

34
MFA No. 24829 of 2010
- 174 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

35. The other acquired lands are contiguous parcels of
lands to land bearing RS No.220/1 having similar
topography except that they are abutting the mud
roads. The object of the repealed Land Acquisition Act
which was a beneficial legislation was to protect the
interest of land losers. The Section 28A of the Act
specifies that if the court allows to the applicant any
amount of compensation in excess of the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer,
the persons interested in all other lands covered under
the same notification and who have not made an
application under Section 18 of the Act before the
Reference Court by written application to the LAO
within three months from the date of award of the
court require that the amount of compensation payable
to them may be redetermined on the basis of amount
of compensation awarded by the court. Hence, it can
be implied that the object of compensation for
acquired lands covered under the same notification.

36. In the present case, all the subject lands are small
tracts of lands and similar in nature except that land
bearing R.S.No.220/1 is abutting the asphalted road
and other lands are abutting the mud road. The
owners of these lands which are small tracts of lands
cannot be deprived of uniform compensation, when
their lands are acquired for the same purpose covered
under the same notification and their entire extent of
acquired lands is utilized for the purpose of
construction of the canal and there is no scope for
further development. It would be discriminatory, if the
land losers of small tracts of lands who are farmers are
deprived of uniform compensation when their lands are
compulsorily acquired and any amount of enhanced
compensation with interest will be inadequate for them
to purchase an alternative land since by passage of
time, the market value of agricultural land would have
increased manifold. The enhanced compensation with
interest will be paid to the land losers after knocking
- 175 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the doors of the Courts of law and the enhanced
compensation is paid to the land losers after several
years though they are legally entitled to receive just
and proper compensation immediately after passing of
the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further it
would be impractical to adopt belting method for
determining the market value of these lands. So as to
avoid discrimination in the matter of fixing market
value of these lands and also having regard to the fact
that these lands are small tracts of lands, and to meets
the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to
redetermine the market value of these lands also at
Rs.14,400/- per gunta.

32.24. By relying on Shivakumar's case, his

submission is that land losers of smaller parcels

of land, if deprived of uniform compensation,

would be aggrieved by such amounts that are

not in proportion to market value due to delay

in enhancement. Hence, Section 28A is a

beneficial provision that ensures an opportunity

for just compensation.

33. Sri. F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the land

losers, submits as under:
- 176 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

33.1. His submission is that any contentions as

regards the Neeravari Nigam may required to

be raised in execution proceedings and not by

way of a writ petition. As regards the alleged

revision, he submits that there is no revision of

enhanced compensation, it is only a calculation

which has been made, the error in calculation

having been rectified.

33.2. He relies upon the decision of the Constitution

Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder vs

Union of India35 more particularly para nos.

23 and 24 thereof, which are reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

23. In deciding the question as to what amount would
bear interest Under Section 34 of the Act a peep into
Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That
Sub-section says; "On making an award Under Section
11, the Collector shall tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the award, and
shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or
more of the contingencies mentioned in the next Sub-
section." The remaining Sub-sections in that provision
only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector
has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the

35
(2001) SCC 3516
- 177 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

party concerned, It is the legal obligation of the
Collector to pay "the compensation awarded by him"
to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the
'compensation awarded would include not only the
total sum arrived at as per Sub-section (1) of Section
23 but the remaining Sub-sections thereof as well. It
is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression
"awarded amount" would mean the amount of
compensation worked out in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 23, including all the
Sub-sections thereof.

24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the
position further dear. The proviso says that "if such
compensation" is not paid within one year from the
date of taking possession of the land, interest shall
stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of
expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount
of compensation or part thereof which has not been
paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is
inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract
only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of
one year and that there would be no interest on
solatium during the preceding period.
What the legislature intended was to make the
aggregate amount Under Section 23 of the Act to reach
the hands of the person as and when the award is
passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the
possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of
the said sum should enable the party to have interest on
the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up
the compensation into different components for the
purpose of payment of interest Under Section 34 was
not in the contemplation of the legislature when that
section was framed or enacted.

33.3. By relying on Sunder's case, he submits that

interest is required to be paid on the amount

awarded in terms of Section 34. If the
- 178 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

compensation is not paid within one year from

the date of taking possession of the land,

interest is to be calculated at 15% p.a., which

would apply even to the enhanced

compensation. His submission is that all the

applications under Section 28A have been filed

within time, and there is no delay in filing. As

regards delay by SLAO, his submission is that

the land loser is not responsible for the same,

the delay if any is by the concerned authorities.

33.4. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in

S.Nagaraj -v- State of Karnataka and

Another36, more particularly para no. 18

thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers.
Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law
can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not
be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is
adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in
Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law
bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction
36
(1993) 4 SCC 595
- 179 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity
and fairness. If the Court finds that the order was
passed under a mistake and it would not have
exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous
assumption which in fact did not exist and its
perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then
it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying
the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall
an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and
scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or
law. But the root from which the power flows is the
anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or
inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of
the Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still
wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of
the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal
obligation to set it right by recalling its order. Here as
explained, the Bench of which one of us (Sahai, J.)
was a member did commit an error in placing all the
stipendiary graduates in the scale of First Division
Assistants due to State's failure to bring correct facts
on record. But that obviously cannot stand in the way
of the Court correcting its mistake. Such inequitable
consequences as have surfaced now due to vague
affidavit filed by the State cannot be permitted to
continue.

33.5. By relying on S. Nagaraj's case, he submits

that Judicial review powers are exercised to

render justice, more so to avoid injustice.

Technicalities ought not to come in the way of

rendering justice. If there is an error or a
- 180 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

mistake committed by the concerned authority,

the same would have to be rectified by the

Constitutional Court exercising the powers of

judicial review. In the present matter, the

delay, if any, caused by SLAO would require

action to be taken against the SLAO and not

deprive the benefit to the land loser merely on

account of the delay on part of the SLAO.

33.6. He relies upon the decision in Royal Aquarium

and Summer and Winter Garden Society

Limited v. Pearson37, more particularly the

extract hereunder reproduced for easy

reference:

The defendant contends that the Local Government
Act, 1888, has conferred this absolute privilege upon
members of the county council, because there has
been transferred to them by that Act certain business
of the quarter sessions in respect of which they have
judicial duties to perform. The word "judicial" has two
meanings. It may refer to the discharge of duties
exercisable by a judge or by justices in court, or to
administrative duties which need not be performed in
court, but in respect of which it is necessary to bring

37
1892 1 QB 431
- 181 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to bear a judicial mind - that is, a mind to determine
what is fair and just in respect of the matters under
consideration. Justices, for instance, act judicially
when administering the law in court, and they also act
judicially when determining in their private room what
is right and fair in some administrative matter brought
before them, as, for instance, levying a rate.

It becomes, therefore, necessary to consider the Local
Government Act, 1888. The material sections are ss.
8, 28A, and 78. Section 8 transfers to the county
council the administrative business of the justices of
the county in quarter sessions assembled. It is
admitted that all that is transferred by this section is
administrative business, business which was
transacted out of court by the quarter sessions. except
under sub-s. (5) of s. 3, viz., the licensing of houses
and other places for music and dancing, which is the
matter with which we are especially concerned in this
case, and with which I will deal later on. Section 28A
gives to the county council in respect of the business
transferred, taking it shortly and calling in aid the
definition of "powers" in s. 100, all the privileges and
immunities which the quarter sessions, or any
committee thereof, or any justice or justices, had part
of s. 78 is material. It runs thus:

"Provided that the transfer of powers and duties
enacted by this Act shall not authorise any county
council, or any committee or member thereof, (a)
to exercise any of the powers of a court of
record; or (b) to administer an oath; or (c) to
exercise any jurisdiction under the Summary
Jurisdiction Acts, or to perform any judicial
business, or otherwise act as justices or a justice
of the peace."

I understand that the legislature intended that all the
administrative business of the quarter sessions was to
be transferred to the county council, and they were in
all respects to be placed in the same position as the
justices had pre- viously occupied with respect to that
administrative business, and in respect of it were to
enjoy the same privileges and immunities which the
justices had previously enjoyed, but they were not to
- 182 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

have any jurisdiction to perform any duties which the
justices discharged in court. That part of the judicial
business of justices of the peace was to remain
undisturbed in the justices. If this is a correct view,
the county council did not acquire the absolute
privilege now con- tended for. The justices never had
it when discharging administrative duties in their
private room. They could only invoke it when
administering the law in court. The county council
have not that jurisdiction to which only the absolute
privilege can attach.

33.7. By relying on Royal Aquarium's case, he

draws a distinction between administrative

actions and judicial/quasi-judicial actions. The

delay in rendering an award, he submits, is

administrative in nature. It is only the award

which can said to be quasi-judicial. Improper

administrative functioning of an authority

cannot render a quasi-judicial order bad in law.

Administrative duties though, must be

discharged judicially, the improper rendering of

such duties cannot result in the award being set

aside. At the most, on account of the delay

caused by the SLAO, action can be taken

against the said SLAO, the land loser cannot be
- 183 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

deprived of the benefit of the award mainly

because there was a delay.

33.8. He also relies upon the decision of this court in

Chandrakant vs. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer38, which has also been

referred to by Sri. Murthy Dayanand Nayak,

learned Senior Counsel and he, reiterates that

when compensation of some landowners is

enhanced, the other landowners whose land is

acquired under the same notification would

automatically be entitled to enhanced

compensation. In this regard, he relies upon

para 13.25, which is reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

13.25 In view thereof, I answer point No.3 by holding
that in case of the Compensation of some landowners
is enhanced, the other landowners of lands acquired
under the same notification would automatically be
entitled to enhanced Compensation, and it would be
the duty of the State to notify all the landowners who
have lost their lands under a particular notification of
38
MSA no. 200186 of 2019
- 184 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the enhanced Compensation awarded to any other
land owner either by the reference court or on an
appeal therefrom by the Appellate Courts.

33.9. On the basis of all the above, he submits that

the petitions filed by KNNL are required to be

dismissed and a suitable direction to be issued

to KNNL to make payment of the due amounts

as expeditiously as possible considering that

there is a long delay in the land losers receiving

the enhanced compensation.

34. Heard Sri.M.R.C.Ravi, learned Senior counsel for

Sri.Shivaraj C.Bellakai, learned counsel for the

petitioner-Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited in WP

Nos.100706, 100224, 100227, 100229, 100230,

100245, 100292, 100294, 100298, 100784, 100785,

103082 and 105311 of 2023, Sri.Madhusudan

R.Naik, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Rakesh M.Bilki

and Sri.Omkar Kambi, learned counsel for the

petitioner-Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., in W.P.
- 185 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Nos.105586, 105650 of 2023 and Sri.D.Murthy

D.Nayak, learned Senior counsel for

Sri.P.G.Chikkanargund, learned counsel for

petitioners in W.P.103322 of 2023,

Sri.V.S.Kalsurmath, learned AGA for the SLAO and

Special Deputy Commissioner, Sri.F.V.Patil and

Sri.Nandish Patil, learned counsel for respondent

No.3 in W.P. No.100706/2023; Sri.Avinash Banakar,

learned counsel for respondent No.3 in WP 100224,

100227, 100245 of 2023, for respondents No.3 to 5

in WP No.100294 OF 2023. Perused papers.

35. The points that would arise for the consideration of

this Court are:

1. Whether a land loser filing an application
under Section 28A is required to obtain a
separate certified copy in the name of the
land loser to file such an application under
Section 28A?

2. Is the period of three months mentioned in
Subsection (1) of Section 28A and the
proviso thereof required to be calculated
from the date of the award passed under
Section 18 enhancing the compensation,
or is it from the date of knowledge of the
- 186 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

applicant making an application under
Section 28A?

3. Whether the period of three months
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section
28A and the probability thereof, whether
the applications filed under Section 28A
insofar as Konkan Railway acquisition
matters are concerned have been filed
within 90 days of the award having been
passed under Section 18?

4. Whether the delay caused by the SLAO in
disposing the matter under Section 28A
can be excluded for the purpose of
calculation of the interest on the enhanced
compensation? If so, what would be the
remedy available for the land loser on
account of such delay?

5. Whether the period of two years
statutorily imposed for rendering an award
under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 would also have to be made
applicable to an award passed on a
reference made under Section 18 and an
application made under Section 28A?

6. Whether in this particular case, the delay
caused by the SLAO of more than a decade
would require disciplinary proceedings to
be initiated against the SLAO?

7. Whether there is a review made by the
SLAO of the award as contended by
Konkan Railways?
- 187 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

8. Whether the award passed insofar as
Phayde's case is an award which has been
passed against a dead person?

9. Whether the writ petition in WP
No.103322 of 2023 by Deepa Dilip Nayak
and Vithoba Shankar Phayde seeking for
the releief of mandamus as sought for are
maintainable?

10. Whether the award passed by the SLAO
under Section 28A in the present matter
requires any interference at the hands of
this court?

11. What Order?

36. I answer the above points as under:

37. Answer to point No.1: Whether a land loser

filing an application under Section 28A is

required to obtain a separate certified copy in

the name of the landloser to file such an

application under Section 28A?

37.1. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"28-A. Re-determination of the amount of
compensation on the basis of the award of
- 188 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the Court [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984,
Section 19 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]

(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 that in computing the period of
three months within which an application to
the Collector shall be made under this sub-
section, the day on which the award was
pronounced and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award shall be
excluded.

(2)The Collector shall, on receipt of an
application under sub-section (1), conduct
an inquiry after giving notice to all the
persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and
make an award determining the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants.

(3)Any person who has not accepted the
award under sub-section (2) may, by
written application to the Collector, require
that the matter be referred by the Collector
for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far
as may be, apply to such reference as they
apply to a reference under section 18."
- 189 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

37.2. The aforesaid Section 28-A was inserted by way

of amendment Act 68 of 1984, which came into

effect from 24.09.1984. The said provision is a

salutary provision which has been introduced to

cater to a situation where a land loser has not

made an application for enhancement of

compensation, if compensation is enhanced in

respect of a property acquired under the very

same notification, which is similarly situated

then by virtue of Section 28-A, the benefit of

such enhancement is provided to a land loser,

who had not sought for enhancement of

compensation under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act 1894.

37.3. A perusal of Section 28-A(1) would indicate that

when an award is passed under the Act, even if

a reference has not been made to the collector

under Section 18 of the Act, such land loser by

written application to the collector within three
- 190 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

months from the date of the award of the Court

under Section 18, may require that the amount

of compensation payable may be re-determined

on the basis of the amount of compensation

awarded by the Court under Section 18.

37.4. In terms of proviso to Section 28-A(1) of the

Act, for the purpose of computing the period of

three months within which time an application

to the collector has to be made under Section

28-A, the date on which the award was

pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining

a copy of the award shall be excluded. Section

28-A does not require a certified copy of the

award to be produced, what it requires firstly is

an application to be made within three months

of the enhancement of compensation under

Section 18, and if a copy were to be applied for,

the time requisite for obtaining the copy is to

be excluded.
- 191 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

37.5. Thus, the land loser could either enclose a copy

of the award under Section 18, if available with

the land loser, or could apply for and obtain a

certified copy and produce it. Section 28-A does

not prohibit or injunct a copy of the award

passed under Section 18 available with the land

loser who had filed Section 18 to be produced,

referred or made use of by another land loser if

an application is filed under Section 28-A, nor

does it mandate that the Applicant under

Section 28A has to apply for and obtain his own

certified copy of the award passed under

Section 18.

37.6. Needless to say, if such an action is to be taken

by the applicant in producing the copy or

certified copy of the award obtained by the

person who has filed a reference, I am of the

considered opinion, that the time taken by such

a land loser who had filed a reference, in
- 192 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

obtaining a certified copy of the award would

also have to be excluded. Since, whether a

certified copy is filed by the land loser who filed

Section 18 reference or has been obtained by a

land loser, who has not filed a reference under

Section 18 from the land loser, who had filed a

reference under Section 18, the time for

issuance of a certified copy is required to be

excluded since the time taken for issuance of a

certified copy is that time taken by the

authority under Section 18 to issue a certified

copy and not the time taken for applying a

certified copy.

37.7. The distinction which has sought to be made by

Sri.M.R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel on a

certified copy filed by a person, who has filed a

reference under Section 18 being entitled to the

benefit of the proviso to Section 28-A and a

person, who has not filed a reference under
- 193 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Section 18 not being entitled to the benefit of

the proviso to Section 28-A(1) is a distinction

without any basis. Since as indicated supra, the

time taken to issue a certified copy is by the

authority and not by the land loser, who has

filed a reference under Section 18.

37.8. The further contention that a certified copy

would have to be produced is also of no

consequence. Since what is required is a copy

of the award passed under Section 18 at the

time of filing of the application under Section

28-A to indicate that a claim has been made in

view of the enhancement under Section 18.

Merely because an application is filed under

Section 28-A would not result in enhancement

of the compensation in favour of the applicant

under Section 28-A, the same would require an

adjudication by the authority under Section 28-

A to ascertain if an applicant under Section 28-
- 194 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

A stands in the same footing as the applicant

under Section 18, the lands which are subject

matter of the acquisition are under the same

notification, if the lands are identically situate

requiring the enhancement of compensation,

etc.

37.9. These are all aspects of proof which can be

entertained and decided upon by the authority

under Section 28-A, after issuance of notice

and conducting an inquiry. This being so, since

in terms of Section 28-A(2), the Collector on

receipt of application of Section 28-A(1) is

required to conduct an enquiry after giving

notice to all the persons interested and giving

them a reasonable opportunity of having been

heard and then make an award determining the

amount of compensation payable to the

applicant under Section 28-A.
- 195 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

37.10. The enquiry which is required to be conducted

contemplates the production of documents and

evidence to indicate how the lands are similarly

situated and how the applicant under Section

28-A would be entitled to the same

enhancement granted under Section 18. The

issue to be noted here is that an applicant

under Section 28-A would not be entitled to

compensation more than what is granted in a

reference under Section 18, the compensation

granted under Section 18 could be the basis for

determination of compensation under Section

28-A after due enquiry.

37.11. The decision relied upon by Sri.M.R.C.Ravi,

learned Senior Counsel in the Gujarat

Housing Board's case (supra), was one where

the High Court of Gujarat came to the

conclusion that the benefit of the proviso to

Section 28-A(1) would not be available to a
- 196 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

person, who has not applied for a certified copy

of an award passed in a reference under

Section 18. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has

categorically held that filing a certified copy of

the award under Section 18 is not a

prerequisite for filing an application under

Section 28-A and that there would be no

requirement for a land loser to wait to obtain a

certified copy and it is in that background that

the said Court came to a conclusion that the

benefit of the proviso to Section 28-A(1) could

only be available to a person, who had made an

application for obtaining copies.

37.12. The time taken for issuance of certified copy is

by the authority and not by the applicant, the

proviso to Section 28-A having been introduced

to make available the compensation paid under

Section 18 even to a land loser, who had not

filed an application under Section 18 by filing
- 197 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

an application under Section 28-A, such

benevolent beneficial legislation and the benefit

thereof cannot be deprived on the basis of

narrow pedantic interpretation of the proviso to

Section 28-A(1) while doing so, the authority

under Section 28-A would have to take into

consideration the rival rights of the applicant

making an application under Section 28-A, the

acquiring authority would make payment of the

compensation including the beneficiary so that

no harm or injustice is caused to any one of

them.

37.13. Looked at from another angle, though the

proviso to Section 28-A(1) provides for a period

of three months, what would have also been

taken into account by the Court seized of the

application under Section 28-A, as also by this

Court is that there is no time limit, which has

been fixed for passing an award under Section
- 198 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

18 and that the award passed under Section 18

is not communicated to all the land losers. The

obligation is on the land loser to make

enquiries, ascertain and follow up on the status

of applications filed under Section 18,

references filed under Section 18 and on

coming to know of any such award being

passed, file an application under Section 28-A

within a period of three months.

37.14. The legislature, having provided a beneficial

provision under Section 28-A, which has been

introduced by an amendment taking into

account, the injustice which was being caused

to a land-loser, on account of a prior low

determination of compensation and an award

passed under Section 11, has also taken into

account that all land-losers may not have the

benefit of legal advice or the wherewithal to file

a reference under Section 18. The legislature,
- 199 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

in its wisdom, has thought it fit to make

available the benefit of an award under Section

18 to a person, who has not filed a reference

under Section 18 by filing an application under

Section 28-A.

37.15. In my considered opinion, the proviso to

Section 28-A(1) would also have to be

beneficially interpreted so as not to deprive an

applicant under Section 28-A as held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Hansoli Devi's case.

The right under Section 28-A is a substantial

right granted by a statute and would have to be

given due effect to.

37.16. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1

by holding that an application under Section

28-A can be filed by referring to an award

passed under Section 18 without producing a

certified copy of the said award under Section

18. However, by making a reference to said
- 200 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

award, the aspect of whether the award made

under Section 18 would be applicable to the

application filed under Section 28-A would have

to be determined after due enquiry and hearing

the parties and considering the necessary

criteria to establish that the applicant under

Section 28-A is entitled to the benefit of the

award passed under Section 18.

37.17. If an application is filed under Section 28-A,

enclosing a copy of the certified copy or a

certified copy obtained by any other person,

including the person who had filed the

reference under Section 18, then the benefit of

exclusion of the time taken in obtaining such

certified copy either by the applicant under

Section 18, by the applicant under Section 28-

A, by any of their representatives, be it a

lawyer or otherwise, or even a certified copy

obtained by a third party, who may or may not
- 201 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

be an applicant under Section 28-A would have

to be excluded as indicated supra.

38. Answer to Point No.2: Is the period of three
months mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section
28A and the proviso thereof required to be
calculated from the date of the award passed
under Section 18 enhancing the compensation,
or is it from the date of knowledge of the
applicant making an application under Section
28A?

38.1. The submission of Sri.M.R.C Ravi, learned

counsel appearing for Karnataka Neeravari

Nigam, and Shri M R Naik, Leaned Senio

Counsel appearing for Konkan railways, is that

the period of three months mentioned in

Section 28-A(1) and the proviso thereof is

required to be calculated from the date of the

award passed under Section 18 and not the

date of the knowledge of the applicant under

Section 28-A of the award passed under

Section 18. Their submission is also that there

is no requirement for the production of a
- 202 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

certified copy. A mere application could have

been filed under Section 28-A and a certified

copy made available later, which aspect has

been considered by me while answering point

No.1. The initial award under Section 18, which

is relied upon insofar as Konkan Railways is

concerned, was passed in LAC No.174/1996 on

31-07-2008. As such, any application filed

under Section 28-A ought to have been filed

before 30-10-2008, and on that basis, it is

contended that the application filed on 17-11-

2008 and 05-11-2008 by Smt.Deepa Nayak and

Sri.Vithoba Shankar Phayde, respectively, is

beyond a period of three months and this again

is premised on the basis that neither

Smt.Deepa Nayak nor Sri.Vithoba Shankar

Phayde had made an application for issuance of

a certified copy of the award in LAC 174/1996.
- 203 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Thus, they would not be entitled to the benefit

of the proviso to Section 28-A(1).

38.2. This aspect has been dealt with to some extent

in answer to point No.1. What remains to be

considered in answer to this point is whether an

application under Section 28-A has to be filed

within three months from the date of

knowledge of the applicant or from the date of

the award passed under Section 18. By relying

on Gopalkrishna Prabhu's case, the

submission of Shrrri M R Naik Learned Senio

counsel is that this Hon'ble Court has come to a

categorical conclusion that any delay beyond

the three months period cannot be condoned

and an application filed beyond the three

months period under Section 28-A would have

to be dismissed. In this regard, he has also

relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Jagdish Ram Sharma's case, supra,
- 204 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to contend that it is the date of the award

passed in a reference under Section 18 and not

the date of an order passed by the High Court

upholding the award passed under Section 18

which is required to be considered, nor is

enhancement of compensation by the High

Court in an appeal filed by a land loser, which

could be taken into consideration.

38.3. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2

by holding that three months' time mentioned

in Section 28-A(1) and the proviso thereof is

required to be calculated from the date of the

award passed under Section 18, enhancing the

compensation and not from the date of

knowledge of the applicant under Section 28-A

of the enhancement under Section 18.

39. Answer to point No.3: Whether the period of
three months mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 28A and the probability thereof,
whether the applications filed under Section
28A insofar as Konkan Railway acquisition
matters are concerned have been filed within
- 205 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

90 days of the award having been passed under
Section 18?

39.1. Much arguments have been advanced by

Sri.M.R.Nayak, learned Senior counsel that the

applications filed by Vithoba Shankar Phayde

and Deepa Nayak have not been filed within

time. His submission is that two portions of

property of Deepa Nayak had been acquired. As

regards one portion, a reference had been

made under Section 18, where an award had

been passed in her favor.

39.2. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, she

had not made a reference under Section 18

but, relying on an award passed in some other

matter, filed an application under Section 28A.

His contentions are two-fold.

39.3. Firstly, that Deepa Nayak being aware of the

procedure to be followed for filing a reference

for enhancement of compensation, even as

regards the second acquisition, she ought to
- 206 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

have filed a reference under Section 18. Having

not filed a reference under Section 18, she is

deemed to have accepted the compensation

which had been awarded and as such could not

file an application under Section 28A.

39.4. Secondly, his submission is that in the

reference filed as regards the second

acquisition by Sri.Ramdas in LAC No.174 of

1996 Enhanced compensation was awarded on

31.07.2008, enhancing the compensation to

Rs.11,500/- per gunta, which came to be

enhanced by this Court to Rs.18,500/- per

gunda, and the Special Leave Petition filed in

regard thereto came to be dismissed.

39.5. The application filed by Ms Deepa Nayak was on

17.11.2008, which is beyond a period of 90

days from the date of the award in Section 18

proceeding on 31.07.2008. The filing of the

application was recorded in the registers on
- 207 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

19.01.2009 and notice came to be issued only

on 31.12.2012. Hence, he submitted that

firstly, the application alleged to have been filed

on 17.11.2008 was not within 90 days.

Secondly, the said application was not taken on

record within 90 days but was taken on record

on 19.01.2009, which is nearly six months after

the award under Section 18.

39.6. Notice was issued on 31.12.2012, which is

nearly four and a half years after the award

passed under Section 18. The submission is

that the application is required to be filed within

90 days from 31.07.2008 since Deepa Nayak

did not make an application for obtaining a

certified copy and would not be entitled to any

time spent in obtaining a certified copy, and as

such, 90 days has to be calculated from

01.08.2008 and as such, the said application of

Section 28A ought to have been filed by 29th
- 208 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

October 2008. The application, having been

allegedly filed on 17.11.2008, is beyond a

period fixed.

39.7. Insofar as the first argument is concerned, I

have already dealt with in answer to point No.1

and I have come to a conclusion that

irrespective of whether the applicant under

Section 28A was to make an application for

obtaining certified copy of the award under

Section 18 or someone else had made an

application, then the benefit of the provision to

sub-section (1) of Section 28A would be

available to even such person that is Deepa

Nayak, in this case.

39.8. Irrespective of whether an application is made

or not, the time taken for the office of the

concerned authority to process and make

available a certified copy of the award passed

under Section 18 would have to be excluded for
- 209 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

all persons, and there cannot be discrimination

in relation thereto. If that were to be taken into

consideration and applied to the present

matter, though Deepa Nayak had not made an

application for obtaining certified copy, but had

relied on the application filed by the Counsel for

the applicant in LAC No.174 of 1996, the time

spent in obtaining such an award copy by the

counsel for the applicant in LAC No.174 of 1996

would have to be excluded. If that were to be

so excluded, then the application which had

been filed on 17.11.2008 is proper and correct.

39.9. As regards the second set of submission, that

the said application in Section 28A was taken

on record only on 19.01.2009 and notice was

issued on 31.12.2012, therefore it is

31.12.2012 which is required to be taken into

consideration for the purposes of determining
- 210 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the date on which the application under Section

28A was filed.

39.10. I am of the considered opinion that such an

argument is not sustainable. What is required is

for the applicant to file the application in terms

of Sub-section (1) of Section 28A, the time

taken by the authority to register the

application, take it on record, issue notice, etc.

is not something which can be said to be in

control of the applicant to make the applicant

liable or responsible for it. If that be so, the

applicant under Section 28A cannot be deprived

of the benefits solely on account of the delay

which has been caused by the authorities

concerned.

39.11. Insofar as Vithoba Shankar Phayde is

concerned, again he also did not make an

application for obtaining certified copy but

relied on the application, relied on certified
- 211 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

copy published on an application filed by the

counsel for Sri.Ramdas.

39.12. In W.P. No.105650/2023 Vithoba Shankar

Phayde filed an application under Section 28A

on 05.11.2008. It was also entered in the

on 29.12.2012. The issue relating to Phayde's

case is similar to that of Deepa Nayak for the

very same reason, the said application has to

be held to have been filed within time.

39.13. It is not in dispute that the application for

certified copy was filed by the counsel on

01.08.2008 and copy was ready on 30.08.2008.

Therefore, the period from 01.08.2008 to

30.08.2008 i.e., 30 days would have to be

excluded. The application filed by Ms.Deepa

Nayak on 19.11.2008 instead of 29.10.2008,

though it is beyond a period of 90 days, but if

the period of 30 days in obtaining the copy
- 212 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

were to be taken into consideration, the said

application would be within time.

39.14. Though the application filed by Sri.Phayde on

05.11.2008 was beyond a period of 90 days as

referred supra, if the period of 30 days in

obtaining the copy were to be excluded, the

application filed on 05.11.2008 is to be held to

be within time.

39.15. The reference being made to Popat Bahiru's

case to contend that there is a special period of

limitation which has been fixed under LA Act

1894 and as such. Section 5 of the Limitation

Act 1963 would not further the case of the

Konkan Railway case inasmuch as I have come

to a conclusion that the filing made by Deepa

Nayak and Phayde was within the time

permissible. Hence, there is neither a question

of seeking for condonation of delay or
- 213 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

condonation of delay to be made by the

authorities.

39.16. Similarly, the decision in Gopalkrishna

Prabhu, Jagdish Ram Sharma,

V.Nagarajan's case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that condonation of delay is not

permissible, arre not required to be considered

in the present matter since no condonation of

delay is sought for.

39.17. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding:

i. Section 28A being a beneficial

provision brought in by way of an

amendment so as to make available the

very same compensation as made

available to another land loser who had

filed an application as Section 18, even if

the second land loser were not to file a

reference under Section 18, such person

would be entitled to the benefit of filing
- 214 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

an application under Section 28A on the

basis of an award passed in a reference

filed by one other land loser.

ii. The above would be the case even if

the applicant under Section 28A had filed

a reference under Section 18, as regards

any other land, it is the option of the land

loser to file a reference under Section 18

or not. Such a land loser can choose to

wait for an award to be passed under

Section 18 and thereafter relying on such

an award, file an application under

Section 28A.

iii. Insofar as the time period for filing an

application under Section 28A, the same

is prescribed as 90 days which is required

to be calculated from the date of an

award passed under Section 18,

excluding the time taken for obtaining a
- 215 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

copy. This aspect would however require

further consideration, which may now be

academic in view of LA Act 1894 having

been repealed and the LA Act 2013

replacing it. This being so for the reason

that the limitation period for the filing of

an application under Section 28A has

been fixed with reference to an award

passed in a proceeding of which the

applicant under Section 28A was not a

party and as such, there can be no

presumption of the knowledge of the

award on the applicant under Section 28A

unless he or she was a party.

iv. Thus, the aspect of the date of

calculation of the limitation period,

whether it is from the date of the award

or date of the knowledge would require

consideration inasmuch as a land loser
- 216 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

having lost his or her land would be

entitled for just compensation, which

could be so determined by taking into

account compensation which has been

awarded in a similar manner.

40. Answer to point No.4: Whether the delay
caused by the SLAO in disposing the matter
under Section 28A can be excluded for the
purpose of calculation of the interest on the
enhanced compensation? If so, what would be
the remedy available for the land loser on
account of such delay?

AND

Answer to point No.5: Whether the period of
two years statutorily imposed for rendering an
award under Section 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 would also have to be
made applicable to an award passed on a
reference made under Section 18 and an
application made under Section 28A?

40.1. Sri.M.R.C. Ravi, learned Senior counsel

appearing for KNNL had submitted that insofar

as Section 28A application in KNNL matters are

concerned, the application of Section 28A was

filed in June 2012, but orders were passed by
- 217 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the SLO on those applications on 13-02.2020

after an inordinate delay of nearly 8 years. His

submission is that there is a bounden duty on

the part of the SLAO to dispose of the matter as

early as possible. The SLAO not having done

the needful, the interest for the delayed period

cannot be mulked on the beneficiary of the

acquisition. If at all, the SLAO being an officer

or delegate of the State, it is for the State to

make payment of the interest. The beneficiary

cannot again be called upon to make payment

of the interest. The beneficiary can only be

called upon to make payment of the enhanced

compensation. This he submits without

prejudice to his contention that the lands as

regards which the compensation has been

enhanced and the lands as regards which

Section 28A application has been filed, are not

similarly situated and could not be have been
- 218 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

considered for the purpose of grant of

compensation under Section 28A.

40.2. By referring to Section 34 of LA Act extracted

hereinabove, has contended that interest on

compensation is required to be paid only on the

amount awarded and not as regard the

compensation enhanced. Thus, at the most the

land loser would be entitled only for the

enhanced compensation and not interest

thereon. As regard which he submits that the

earlier award amount has already been paid,

what could only be directed to be paid in the

present matter by KNNL is the enhanced

compensation and no interest.

40.3. The submission of Sri.Madhusudan R.Nayak.,

learned Senior counsel appearing for Konkan

Railways is also similar. His further submission

is that there being a time limit for filing an

application under Section 28A, which has been
- 219 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

restricted to a short period of three months, it

was required for the SLAO to also have

considered and pass orders within a reasonable

period of time as expeditiously as possible.

40.4. Insofar as Konkan Railway matter is concerned,

the application allegedly having been filed in

November 2008, though taken on record, on

19.01.2009, the impugned award of the SLAO

was passed on 01.07.2022, that is after nearly

13 years. In that background, Konkan Railway

cannot be directed to make payment of interest

for this delay. He also reiterates that the land of

Deepa Nayak or Vithoba Shankar Phayde is not

similarly situated to the land of Sri Ramdas and

as such the SLAO has not considered the

aspects in a proper manner.

40.5. There being a period of two years which have

been fixed for an award to be passed under

Section 11 of the LA Act 1894, with reference
- 220 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to the date of the final notification, under Sub-

section (1) of Section 6, he submits that when

the rigour of the law is for an award to be

passed within two years under the threat that

the acquisition itself would lapse if such an

award is not passed within the time frame.

There is no such time frame which has been

fixed under Section 18 for passing of an award

in a reference application, nor is the time frame

fixed for passing an award and an application

under Section 28A and it is for that reason that

there has been such a huge, delay in as much

as Konkan Railway matter is concerned.

40.6. The preliminary notification under sub-section

(1) of Section 4 was issued on 08.07.91, The

final notification under sub-section (1) of

Section 6, final notification on 14.07.92, award

had been passed under Section 11 on

26.03.94., the award under reference under
- 221 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Section 18 was passed on 31.07.2008 after 14

years after the first award. The award under

Section 28A was passed on 21.07-2022 which

is nearly 14 years after the award passed under

Section 18 and 28 years after the award passed

under Section 11, 30 years from the date of the

final notification.

40.7. By referring to these dates, his submission is

that the first award having been passed in the

year 1994, an award under Section 28A having

been passed in the year 2022, the delay being

on part of the authorities concerned while

passing an award under Section 18 and

subsequently by the authorities concerned

under Section 28A, the beneficiary of the

acquisition cannot be called upon to make

payment of interest for this 26 years of delay.

He also reiterates that the SLAO being a

delegate of the State, it would be for the State
- 222 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to make payment of any interest, the

beneficiary cannot be called upon to make

payment of such interest. He refers to Section

34 of the LA Act and submits that Section 28A

not contemplating any interest, Section 34 only

contemplating interest as regards the initial

award. No interest could be directed to be paid

on an award passed under Section 28A since

the word used under Section 34 is

'compensation' and not 'enhanced

compensation'. Reference in this regard has

been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Mahendra Singh's case, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that apart

from Section 34 of the LA Act, 1894, there is no

other provision which deals with awardal of

interest.

40.8. Reference is also made to Dharam Das' case

to contend that insofar as interest is concerned,
- 223 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

there are no equitable aspects which should be

taken into consideration. The applicability of

Section 34 would have to be strictly construed.

Reference is also made to Naresh's case to

contend that interest, as contemplated in

Section 34, can only be awarded.

40.9. He refers to the decision of a Coordinate Bench

of this Court in KNNL v. SLAO [in WP 101820

of 2021] to contend that though similar

argument had been advanced in that matter,

the same was left open for consideration and as

such this court is required to consider the

argument that a beneficiary cannot be made

liable to make payment of interest for a delay

on part of the state and its authorities.

40.10. By referring to Srikant Pundalik Banker's

case, he has submitted that the inordinate

delay by the SLAO in passing the award is a

failure on part of the SLAO to discharge his
- 224 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

duties. Such failure would make the State

vicariously liable. The beneficiary cannot be

liable to make payment of interest. For a

similar end, he relies upon a decision in

Pradeep Kumari's case referred to supra and

submits if at all interest is liable to be directed

to be paid, the same is to be paid from the date

of the application made under Section 28A.

40.11. Sri.Murthy R.Naik, learned Senior counsel

appearing for Deepa Dilip Nayak and Vithoba

Shankar Phayade submitted that the application

which has been filed by them under Section

28A is within time. The delay on part of the

SLAO and the other authorities cannot be held

against the land losers. He also submits that if

at all the SLAO is to be held to be personally

liable or the State to be vicariously liable on

account of the actions of their delegatee, even

then the interest would have to be paid by
- 225 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

someone. The land loser is not concerned as to

who pays the interest, whether it's the

beneficiary or the State so long as the interest

is paid.

40.12. Insofar as the time period is concerned, he

supports the submissions of both Sri.M.R.C.

Ravi and Sri.M. R.Nayak and contends that it is

a land loser who has been waiting from 1994 to

2022 and continues to wait even today for just

compensation amounts to be paid and

therefore, there is required to be a time limit

prescribed for both an award to be passed

under Section 18 as also under Section 28A. He

also refers to Pradeep Kumari's case and

submits that the intent of the legislature under

Section 28A is to remove inequality and make

available the same compensation as that

received by another land loser.
- 226 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

40.13. By referring to Munshi Ram's case, he

submits that a right has been recognized by the

legislature of a land loser to obtain the same

compensation under Section 28A as that

awarded under Section 18. For similar purpose,

he has relied on Guru Preet Singh's case and

Ansoli Devi's and Puttalingaiah's case.

40.14. Sri F.V.Patil., learned counsel who appears for

the land losers in KNNL matter, adopts the

submission of Sri.Murthy Dayanand Naik,

learned Senior counsel. He further submits by

relying upon the decision in Sundar's case that

so long as compensation was not paid within

one year from the date of taking possession of

land, interest at the rate of 15% would have to

be calculated and made payment of, which

would apply to even the enhanced

compensation under Section 28A.
- 227 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

40.15. The usage of the word 'compensation' in

Section 34 would enue to the benefit of the

land loser who has been awarded enhanced

compensation. Thus, he submits that insofar as

the land loser is concerned, the land loser

would be entitled to interest in terms of Section

34. The land loser is not concerned as to who

pays the interest.

40.16. In the present matter, there is no dispute as

regards the delay which has been caused. In

terms of Section 11 of the LA Act 1894, the

SLAO is required to pass an award within two

years from the date of the final notification,

failing which the acquisition would lapse. It is

for that reason that in most acquisition matters

under LA Act 1894, an award is passed within

that time frame and if not so passed, this Court

would come to the rescue of the land loser,

quashing the acquisition procedure.
- 228 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

40.17. The reason for fixation of such time is not far to

see, inasmuch as when a State were to exercise

the powers of eminent domain to acquire the

land of a private citizen. It is the bounden duty

on part of the State to ensure that the

compensation amount is received by the land

loser at the earliest. It is to balance the equities

between the state excising eminent domain and

the land loser that the legislature as also the

judgments of the this court and the Hon'ble

Apex Court as referred to Supra have made it

clear that an Awarrd would have to be passed

within a period of two years from the date of

the final notification.

40.18. Under Section 18 of the LA Act any person

interested who has not accepted the award may

make an application to the Collector for the

matter to be referred by the Collector for

determination of the compensation amount to a
- 229 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

court as regards the measurement, the amount

of compensation, the person to whom

compensation is to be paid, etc.

40.19. Section 18 is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

18. Reference to Court

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector
for the determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it
is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested.

(2)The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made,

(a)if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his
award, within six weeks from the date of the
Collectors award;

(b)in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-
section (2), or within six months from the date of the
Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.

40.20. A perusal of Clause (a) to Sub-section (2) of

Section 18 makes it clear that such an

application for reference is to be made within a
- 230 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

period of 6 weeks from the date of the award

passed by the Collector under Section 11, if

such person was present or represented before

the Collector. A perusal of Clause (b) to sub-

section (2) of Section 18 indicates that such an

application could be filed within six weeks of

the receipt of the notice from the collector

under sub-section (2) of Section 12 or within

six months from the date of the collector's

award, whichever period shall first expire. Thus,

there is a specific time frame which has been

fixed even for a reference to be made under

Section 18 insofar as the land loser is

concerned but no time frame has been fixed for

an order to be passed on the reference.

40.21. If in the reference under Section 18 the

compensation amount is enhanced Section 28A

which was introduced by way of an amendment

to bring about equitable payment of
- 231 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

compensation provides for any other land loser

who has lost the land due to acquisition under

same notification the land being similarly

situated to file an application for

redetermination of the compensation amount

awarded to such land loser on the basis of the

compensation awarded under Section 18 by the

Reference Court.

40.22. The time period of three months, which has

been fixed for making an application under

Section 28A. However, again under Section

28A, there is no time period fixed for the SLAO

to redetermine the amount of compensation on

the basis of the application filed with reference

to the award passed under Section 18 by the

Reference Court. From the perusal of the

above, it is clear that at the first instance, there

is a time period fixed on the SLAO to pass an
- 232 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

award within a period of 2 years from the date

on which the final notification was issued.

40.23. The land-loser can make a reference within a

period of six weeks from the date on which the

award was passed if he was so present, or

within a period of six weeks from the date on

which notice was received under sub-section

(2) of Section 12. If no notice is received within

a period of six months from the date of the

award being published.

40.24. Under Section 28A, a period of three months

has been fixed for land-loser to make an

application for redetermination of compensation

once the compensation has been enhanced

under Section 18 by the reference Court.

40.25. Since time has been prescribed as above, at the

first instance, the SLAO normally, if an

application for reference is not made within the

time period under Section 18, such application
- 233 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

would be dismissed as having been filed beyond

the period of limitation. Similarly, an application

filed under Section 28A would also be dismissed

if not filed within the time period prescribed of

3 months. It is in the second and third situation

that there is no time period which has been

prescribed either for the reference court or for

the SLAO, reference court under Section 18 or

the SLAO under Section 28 to pass their

respective awards it is that which has given rise

to the present matter.

40.26. Inasmuch as the award under Section 11 had

been passed in the year 1994 the award under

Section 18 was passed in the year 2008 insofar

as Konkan Railway is concerned and the

redetermined award was passed in the year

2022. It is this delay which is causing angst to

both KNNL and Konkan Railway since they are
- 234 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

now required to make payment of interest for

this delayed period.

40.27. The submission of Sri. Madhusudan R.Naik is

that though the compensation has been

enhanced only by Rs.18,500/- per gunta, if

interest of 15% is taken into consideration from

the year 1992 to 2022, that is nearly 30 years,

the interest itself would be Rs.83,250/- per

gunta, and if the entire land is taken into

consideration which has been acquired, crores

of rupees would have to be paid.

40.28. Though there is a practical difficulty which has

been brought about by Sri.M.R.C.Ravi and Sri.

Madhusudan R.Nayak., learned Senior counsels,

these contentions have been taken up by KNNL

and or Konkan Railway for the first time before

this Court, they being parties to the

proceedings before the reference Court, such a

contention had not been taken up by them, nor
- 235 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

did they file any application for expeditious

disposal of the matter by the reference Court.

40.29. In fact, insofar as KNNL is concerned, the

reference court having passed an award, that

came to be challenged by KNNL, contending

that KNNL having been formed and the liability

of payment of compensation having been

transferred by the State to KNNL, KNNL was

not made a party to the proceedings before the

reference court and as such, in that background

the award which had been passed by the

reference court was set aside and matter

remanded for fresh consideration after

providing an opportunity to KNNL to make its

submissions. Thus KNNL was responsible for

this delay.

40.30. The obligation of making payment of

compensation being that of KNNL and prior to

that being that of the State, KNNL now having
- 236 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

succeeded to both the rights and obligations of

the State, any dispute that KNNL may have

with the State is required to be taken up by

KNNL with the State and not against the land

loser by contending that there is a delay or

otherwise in the disposal of the matter.

40.31. The proceedings which were pending before the

reference Court was also to the knowledge of

KNNL. KNNL chose not to intervene in the

matter, it chose not to make any enquiry as to

how many matters are pending under Section

11 but only after an award was passed and it

was sought to be executed against KNNL, that

the award passed by the reference court was

challenged.

40.32. Insofar as Konkan Railway is concerned,

Konkan Railway was a party to the proceedings

under Section 28A before the Reference Court.

Konkan Railway did not take up any contention
- 237 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

as regards the so-called delay by the reference

Court. They did not file an application for early

disposal. They did not approach this court to

exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 for a

direction for expeditious disposal, nor did

Konkan Railway do anything to assist in the

expeditious disposal of the matter before the

Reference Court.

40.33. The delay of any proceedings before the

Reference Court cannot be blamed on the

Reference Court alone. It is for the parties to a

litigation and its counsel to move the matter

and take proactive steps for completion of the

adjudication in those matters.

40.34. As is well known, the judge-to-litigation ratio as

well as the judge-to-population ratio in our

country is very low, thereby resulting in a huge

number of matters being pending before each

court to be taken up. In such circumstances,
- 238 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

the court would take up matter where both the

parties are ready and if at least one of the

parties is ready and opposes an adjournment

by the other to put the party seeking for

adjournment on terms, but in the present case

neither the landloser nor the beneficiary have

apparently been proactive. They definitely have

not taken any steps for expeditious disposal

either before the reference court or before the

SLAO.

40.35. The submission made by Sri.Madhusudan

R.Nayak, learned Senior counsel is that the

SLAOs kept changing many a time the post was

vacant, there were in-charge SLAOs who were

handling these matters as regards Konkan

railway matters are concerned, the in-charge

SLAOs would not take up the matter because

they had their own work to do.
- 239 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

40.36. This is a very serious contention which has been

raised which is also apparent from the files

which have been placed on record wherein it is

clearly seen that the matter was adjourned on

several occasions and no effective proceedings

were taken up by the SLAO in the application

under Section 28A.

40.37. It is for the Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka and the Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department to look into this aspect and ensure

that these kind of proceedings are handled in a

proper and required manner and not delayed

for decades, depriving the land loser of just

compensation and interest and mulking the

beneficiary with interest due to delay on part of

the SLAO.

40.38. Of course, the contention of Sri.Murthy D. Naik,

learned Senior Counsel on part of the land loser

that the delay would only enure to the benefit
- 240 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

of the beneficiary since the payment of the

compensation amount is delayed on account of

such delay cannot be ignored.

40.39. In the present case, from the records, the

submissions made and examination of the

facts, it is clear that each of the parties is

responsible for the delay. Insofar as KNNL

matters are concerned, initially the reference

court and the State of Karnataka were parties

before it. Subsequently, on an award being

passed, the same was challenged by KNNL and

matter was remanded, thereafter, it was KNNL

and the landloser from the beginning who could

be said to be responsible for the delay, none of

them having taken any proactive steps.

40.40. Insofar as Konkan Railway matter is concerned,

Konkan Railway having always been a party

before the SLAO in the reference under Section

28A, no proactive steps have been taken either
- 241 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

by Konkan Railway or the land loser for

expeditious disposal. Neither of them had

approached this court under Article 227, which

is similar to that in the case of KNNL. In the

above background, when each and every party

is responsible for the delay and it cannot be

stated that only one party is responsible for the

delay, the question of the beneficiary claiming

that the beneficiary is not liable to make

payment of interest would not arise.

40.41. In that view of the matter, I answer point

No.4 by holding that the word

'compensation' which has been used in

Section 34 would include within its

purview 'enhanced compensation' and or

compensation awarded by whatever name

called requiring interest to be paid on such

amount.
- 242 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

40.42. The time spent/delay in proceedings

before the reference Court and/or the

SLAO, if any, cannot be excluded for the

purpose of calculation of interest on the

compensation or enhanced compensation.

40.43. I answer point No.5 by holding that

statutory period of two years which has

been fixed for passing an award under

Section 11 is a salutary rule. However, as

indicated supra, there is no such time

period fixed in respect of an award to be

passed on a reference application by the

reference court under Section 18 or

redetermination of compensation in

Section 28A. The acquisition proceedings

under the LA Act, 1894 in most cases

having been completed and there being

very few matters left for adjudication

under Section 18 or 28A, the LA Act, 1894
- 243 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

having been repealed, there will be no

purpose served now by amending LA Act

1894, which has stood repealed. It would

be required for the Chief Secretary,

Government of Karnataka and the

Principal Secretary of the Revenue

Department to issue necessary directions

to the concerned fixing timelines even for

proceedings under Section 18, as also

under Section 28A, so those matters could

be disposed of as expeditiously as

possible.

40.44. It would also be required to implement a

suitable monitoring system using the

necessary Information Technology tools to

monitor the matters pending under

Section 18 or 28 A.
- 244 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

41. Answer to point No.6: Whether in this particular
case, the delay caused by the SLAO of more
than a decade would require disciplinary
proceedings to be initiated against the SLAO?

41.1. In my answer to points Nos.4 and 5, I have

come to the conclusion that there has been a

delay by all the parties. The fact remains that it

is the SLAO who is in control of the proceedings

under Section 28A, and it was for the SLAO to

have passed necessary orders at the earliest by

putting on terms the parties concerned. The

proceedings insofar as KNNL under Section 28A

having been filed in the year 2012, a

redetermined award was passed in the year

2022, the proceedings insofar as Konkan

Railway was filed in the year 2008 and

redetermined award was passed in the year

2022, the matter being a simple one, where

there is already an award which has been

passed and only redetermination was required
- 245 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

to be made on the basis of such award, I do not

see why such a long period could have been

taken by the SLAO in passing such a

redetermined award.

41.2. Though of course, I have also come to a

conclusion that there is laxity on part of the

beneficiary as also the land loser, it would be

required for the Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka to initiate an inquiry into the matter

to ascertain the reasons for such delay and to

take action against the concerned on such a

report being received, if they were found to be

lacking. On the basis of such enquiry, the Chief

Secretary of the Government of Karnataka

could also frame standard operating procedure

and or guidelines for SLAOs to follow, as also

for monitoring the SLAO.

41.3. Hence, I answer point No. 6 by holding

that ex-facie it is the SLAO who is
- 246 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

responsible for the delay and hence, the

Chief Secretary of the Government of

Karnataka is directed to cause an enquiry

into the matter and submit a report within

a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

42. Answer to point No.7; Whether there is a
review made by the SLAO of the award as
contended by Konkan Railways?

42.1. Sri.Madhusudan R.Nayak, learned Senior

counsel appearing for Konkan Railways sought

to contend that an award having been given by

the SLAO in past and sent for approval to the

Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the

comments of the DSeputy Commissioner, the

amounts have been changed by ewoking them,

theeforre the award has been reviewed and

subsequently the SLAO has passed a fresh

award and towards this end the calculation

sheet of the award first proposed to be passed
- 247 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

and subsequently passed has been placed on

record.

42.2. Though it is contended by Sri.Madhusudan

R.Nayak, learned Senior counsel that the

change in the amount, amounts to a review of

the award, I am unable to agree with the same

inasmuch as what the SLAO has done is rework

the calculations on the basis of the extent of

land and the amounts which have been

determined. The same cannot amount to review

of the award but is only a correction of the

figures before the final award was passed.

42.3. What was sent tot eh Deputy Commissioner

was a draft award fo approval, such a draft

award cannot be said to be a finalised award.

The system of Checks and balances by way of

approval is to ensue the validity of the award

and remove any inconsistencies orr the like.
- 248 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

42.4. Hence I answer point no.7 by holding that the

calculation which was sent along with the draft

award is not a final award, the changes made

to the calculation before the publication of the

final award is not a revision or review of the

award.

43. Answer to Point No.8: Whether the award
passed insofar as Phayde's case is an award
which has been passed against a dead person?

43.1. Submission of Sri.Madhusudan R.Nayak,

learned Senior counsel is that Vithoba Shankar

Pyade had expired during the pendency of the

proceeding before the SLAO, which fact was

brought to the notice of the SLAO on

24.06.2022 and thereafter the matter was

adjourned. The award having been passed on

17.12.2022, award is passed in favour of a

dead person. There was no applicant contesting

the matter and as such, the SLAO could not

have passed such an award.
- 249 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

43.2. A perusal of the file indicates that the death of

Vithoba Shankar Phayde was reported on

24.06.2022 which was recorded and the matter

was adjourned to 22.07.202, 12.08.2022 and

23.09.2022. On 14.10.2022 his legal heirs were

brought on record and the award was passed

on 17.12.2022. There was no objection made

by Konkan Railway to this aspect at that point

of time. The legal heirs being the beneficiaries

of the application filed by Vithoba Shankar

Pyaade, the documents and details which have

been placed on record by Vithoba Shankar

Pyaade have been taken into consideration,

since the legal heirs did not lead any further

evidence, therefore, the question of Konkan

Railway leading any further evidence or being

aggrieved by them being brought on record

would not arise.
- 250 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

43.3. The award having been passed on 17.12.2022

is much after the legal heirs having been

brought on record, therefore, it cannot be said

that the award is passed against a dead person.

44. Answer to Point No.9: whether the writ petition
and WP No.103322 of 2023 by Deepa Dilip
Nayak and Vithoba Shankar Phayde seeking for
the releief of mandamus as sought for are
maintainable?

44.1. Submission of Sri.Murthy Dayanand Naik,

leanred Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions is that

the redetermined award having been passed by

the SLAO under Section 28A, the payments not

having been made the landlosers have been

forced to file the aforesaid petitions seeking for

a mandamus directing the concerned

authorities to release the compensation

amounts.

44.2. His submission is that the writ Petitions were

required to be filed on account of the non-
- 251 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

discharge of the statutory functions and

obligations of the concerned authorities and it is

in that background that this Court is required to

consider the matter equitably, allow the said

writ petitions by issuing a mandamus directing

Konkan Railway to make payment of the

amounts awarded.

44.3. Sri.Madhusudana R.Nayak, learned senior

counsel appearing for Konkan Railways would

however contend that there is a separate

proceedings and a remedy provided for

execution of an award passed under Section

28A and as such, a writ petition is not

maintainable and in that regard he has relied

upon Venkateswami Gowda's case, Sheetal

Jaidev Vade's case, Vamanrao Kulkarni's

case and Pandurang's case.

44.4. By relying on all of them, he has contended that

there being an alternative efficacious remedy
- 252 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

available in terms of an execution petition, a

writ petition for a mandamus is not maintained.

44.5. There cannot be any dispute as regards the

ratio laid down in Venkateswami Gowda's

case, Sheetal Jaidev Vade's case,

Vamanrao Kulkarni's case and

Pandurang's case. An award having been

passed either under Section 11, Section 18 or

Section 28A, unless under challenge, are

executable and the landloser would be entitled

to execute the same by instituting execution

proceedings and in such execution proceedings,

show cause notices being required to be issued,

if the payments are not made or no appearance

is made, the properties could be attached,

brought for sale and the amounts paid to the

landloser.

44.6. There being a detailed remedy following the

procedure available for the landloser and the
- 253 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

methodology of executing an award being

clearly and categorically specified, I am of the

considered opinion that the landloser cannot

short-circuit the process and file a writ petition

under Article 226 or 227 seeking for a

mandamus in the manner as sought to be done

in the present matter.

44.7. Hence, I answer point No.8 by holding that

the present writ petition No.103322/2023

filed by landlosers seeking for a

mandamus directing the beneficiary of the

acquisition to make payment of the

compensation awarded under Section 28A

is not maintainable. Such landloser has an

alternative remedy of execution

proceedings. Liberty to file the same is

reserved.

45. Answer to point No.10: Whether the award
passed by the SLAO under Section 28A in the
present matter requires any interference at the
hands of this Court?
- 254 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

45.1. Submission of Sri.M.R.C.Ravi, learend Senior

counsel is that the lands subject matter of the

Section 28A proceedings are not similarly

situated to that which were subject matter of

the reference proceeding under Section 18,

where an award has been passed by the

reference Court.

45.2. He submits that the SLAO was required to

consider the differences in nature, quality and

situation of land to ascertain if the same were

comparable to each other and thereafter apply

the award which has been passed and by the

reference court to an application for

redetermination award and a Section 28A. In

that regard he has relied on Draupadi Devi's

case, Lam Kumar's case, Kapil Mehra's

case, Papaya Shetty's case, Manoj Kumar's

case and Pramod Gupta's case and

Rangamal's case.
- 255 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

45.3. Sri.Madhusudan R.Naik also makes similar

submission and in that regard he submits that

the land of Deepa Nayak and Pyade are not

similarly situated as that of Sri.Ramdas. This

aspect, not being considered by the SLAO, the

SLAO has blindly awarded the compensation for

a land which is differently situated to that of the

land of Deepa Nayak and Pyade.

45.4. The submission of Sri.Murthy D.Nayak is that

there being small extents of land which are

acquired, they are all situated identically and as

such, the purpose of acquisition being for laying

of railway line.

45.5. Having heard all the counsels and having

perused the papers, exfacie the SLAO has not

considered the aspect of how the properties of

the respondents in the present matter are

similarly situated as regards which the award
- 256 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

under Section 18 was passed. There is an

appreciation of these factors which is lacking in

the award passed under Section 28A. This

court would also be unable to appreciate these

aspects since material on that is lacking.

However, this court would also have to take

into consideration the practicality of the matter.

In so far as KNNL is concerned, the preliminary

notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4

r/w Subsection (4) of Section 17 of the LA Act

was issued on 20.11.2002 and was gazetted on

2.01.2003 and the declaration under subsection

(1) of Section 6 and was gazetted on

13.11.2003. The enhancement by way of an

award under Section 18 was made on

9.07.2010. The award under Section 11 of the

LA Act is dated 28.05.2005, under Section 18 is

dated 9.07.2010 and award under Section 28A

for redetermination was made on 13.02.2020.
- 257 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

Insofar as Konkan railway is concerned,

preliminary notification was issued on

18.07.1991, final notification under subsection

(1) of Section 6 was issued on 14.07.1992,

gazetted on 6.08.1992, award under Section 11

was passed on 26.03.1994. Enhancement was

made under section 18 of the LA act on

31.07.2008 and the award under Section 28A

was passed on 1.07.2022. Both the above said

matters are now being considered by this court

in the year 2025.

45.6. The main contention of Sri.MRC Ravi, learned

Senior counsel for KNNL and Sri.M.R.Naik,

learned Senior counsel for Konkan Railways

is as regard the delay in passing of the award

which has resulted in interest being mulcted on

KNNL and Konkan Railway. The enhancement

which has been made is not much in as much

as in matters relating to KNNL, the initial award
- 258 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

under Section 11 was for a sum of Rs.35,000/-

per acre, which was enhanced to Rs.2,40,000

per acre in the award passed under Section 18

of the LA act, which is what has been made

applicable to the award under Section 28A.

45.7. Insofar as Konkan Railway is concerned, award

under Section 11 was for a sum of Rs.11,500/-

per gunta, which was enhanced to Rs.18,500/-

per gunta in the award passed under Section

18 of the LA act, which is what has been made

applicable to the award under Section 28A.

45.8. What is bothering KNNL and Konkan Railway is

the interest that is required to be paid on this

enhanced amount from the year 1990, from the

date of the preliminary notification which goes

back to more than 30 years. It is not as much

as the enhancement, but it is the interest which

is required to be paid which is causing a

financial drain to the beneficiary.
- 259 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

45.9. In so far as the delay in passing of the award

under Section 18 and that under Section 28A,

I have dealt with those aspects in answer to

earlier points and the direction has been issued

to the Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka to look into these issues. While doing

so, I have held that due to the delay which is

being caused in passing of the award under

Section 18 or under Section 28 A,

the beneficiary cannot claim that it is not liable

to make payment of interest. Thus, the

liability to make payment of interest being held

against the beneficiary, the beneficiary would

have to pay interest from the time of

preliminary notification.

45.10. In so far as the present point is concerned,

though as indicated there would be no
- 260 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

sufficient material to consider the equivalency

of the property of the respondents herein to

that of the property as regards which an award

has been passed under Section 18. The fact

remains that the properties have been acquired

under the very same notification. In so far as

KNNL is concerned, large extent of agricultural

land had been acquired for the purpose of

construction of a canal. Naturally all these

lands are situated abutting each other. In so far

as Konkan railway is concerned, again the

acquired land was for laying of a railway track

and as such, all the lands acquired are

abutting each other. What was required to be

considered is the specific location of the

property and the valuation of the property to

determine if the award under Section 18 could

be applicable to that of to the land of the

respondents and to what. The aspect of the
- 261 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

applicability of the award under Section 18 to

the land of the respondents cannot be disputed.

If looked at it from this perspective, at the

most if the respondents submission were to be

accepted, if the KNNL and Konkan railway

submissions are accepted, it could only result in

marginal reduction of the amounts awarded. As

indicated supra, if this aspect is considered

practically, even if there is a marginal

reduction, the time which would be spent on a

remand being made to the SLAO would incur

additional interest to be paid by KNNL and

Konkan railway. However, exfacie it appears to

me that this additional interest would far

outweigh or exceed any benefit in the marginal

reduction of the price, even if it were to be

secured (19:16) by KNNL and or Konkan

railway on a remand being made. More so, in

respect of KNNL, an earlier award having been
- 262 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

passed against the State, the KNNL filed writ

petitions on the ground that it was not made a

party and it is on that basis that the matter was

remanded to the SLAO for fresh consideration,

which again delayed the matter and for such

delay, KNNL is now required to make payment

of interest amount.

45.11. The State and its instrumentalities like KNNL

and Konkan railway are required to be model

litigants. They are required not to agitate

unnecessary matters, not to put the public

monies at further risk, not to involve in

litigation merely on the ground that there may

be some legal point in their favour. The State

and its instrumentalities are required to look

into the matter, especially in broader

perspective and avoid any litigation, if it can be

so avoided.
- 263 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

45.12. In view of all my observations, even if a

remand is made for the purposes of

ascertaining whether lands are similarly

situated, the distance between them, the crops

that are grown in the said lands and any other

such distribution factors, the same will only

delay the proceedings and the net benefit and

the benefit that KNNL or Konkan railway would

get would be marginal. Taking into account the

interest liability to be paid, there would not be

any benefit. It would probably result that KNNL

and Konkan railway being required to make

payment of additional interest, which interest

would also have to be paid from the funds of

the citizens, the same being public money.

45.13. Thus, in my consider opinion, looking at the

matter holistically and taking into consideration

the net effect of a remand, I am of the

considered opinion that there is no useful
- 264 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

purpose which would be solved by a remand

being made to the SLAO to consider the aspect

of whether the lands are similarly situated or

not, the same would only result in additional

litigation cost, additional interest as also delay

in the land loser receiving the just

compensation for which they have been

waiting for more than 3 decades.

45.14. In that view, I answer point number 10

by holding that there would be no useful

purpose served by interfering with the award

passed by the SLAO under section 28A in

matters both relating to KNNL and Konkan

railway and as such, I refrain from any such

interference.

45.15. Having heard all the counsels and having

perused the records, I find the award passed by

the SLAO to be thoroughly lacking, except for

stating that there is an award which had been
- 265 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

passed in a proceeding under Section 18 where

an award has been passed and subsequently

application under Section 28A has been filed.

The amount awarded in Section 18 proceeding

was awarded in a Section 28A proceeding.

There is no finding recorded by the SLAO as to

whether the lands are similarly situated, what is

the distance between them, what are the crops

which are grown in the said lands, are there

any distinguishing factors among these lands,

what are the similar factors between the lands,

etc. There is complete non-application of mind

on part of the SLAO while passing the

impugned redetermined award under section

28A, which is contrary to the dicta laid down in

the above decisions.

45.16. Having gone through the records, it is also not

possible for this Court to examine at this stage

as to whether these lands are similarly situated
- 266 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

or not since there is no evidence which is

available on record to indicate the same, and in

that background, I am of the opinion that the

award passed by the SLAO under Section 28A

in the present matter requires interference by

setting aside the same and matter being

remitted for fresh consideration. Taking into

account that on earlier occasion the SLAO has

taken an inordinately long period of time to

pass an award, I am of the opinion that a

suitable time limit would have to be fixed by

putting the parties on terms to assist the SLAO

in passing such a redetermined award under

Section 28A. Hence, the SLAO is directed to

record evidence, determine the commonalities

among the land, as also the distinguishing

factors of the land, and pass necessary award

in accordance with law within a period of six
- 267 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

46. General Directions:

46.1. The manner in which the aforesaid batch of

matters have come up before this court as

regards an acquisition initiated in the year

1991, wherein an award under Section 28A was

passed in the year 2022 indicates the

lackadaisical manner in which the authorities

have been functioning. It would be therefore

required for issuing certain general guidelines

which could be considered by the Chief

Secretary, Government of Karnataka, while

issuing detailed guidelines, and or standard

operating procedure [SOP]. While doing so, the

Chief Secretary could also take the assistance

of the Principal Secretary,

E-Governance Department, so as to harness

the available technology to bring about
- 268 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

transparency and efficiency in the system

relating to grant of compensation on account of

acquisition of land, and while doing so, protect

the interest of the landlosers who are rendered

voiceless in the proceeding.

46.2. To implement a suitable software to capture the

details of the acquisition notification, inquiry,

report of the SLAO, final notification, and or the

like i.e, all proceedings and documentation

from the time of issuance of a preliminary

notification till the final notification, including

notices, file notings, etc.

46.3. The proceedings between the final notification

to the passing of the award, the details of the

documents that have been considered by the

SLAO, any opinions obtained by the SLAO and

considered, the guideline value, etc., to be all

uploaded onto the said software.
- 269 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

46.4. If an application is filed under Section 18 for

reference, the procedure followed by the SLAO

in passing necessary orders on the said

reference, transfer of the case to the reference

court, integration of the proceedings of the

Reference Court with that of the SLAO so as to

provide an appropriate monitoring facility. The

day-to-day follow-up of the proceedings before

the reference court and day-to-day actions and

the responsibility of the each of the persons for

the proceeding before the Reference court.

46.5. Maintaining an electronic register in the

software as regards any applications filed under

Section 28A with date and time stamp, the

actions taken on the said application, notices to

be issued to the concerned department and or

the beneficiary electronically by way of the

email which is available on record, to consider

the matter as expeditiously as possible and
- 270 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

pass a redetermined award after taking into

consideration the commonality of the land the

distinguishing factors of the land, the date of

acquisition, etc.

46.6. The Chief Secretary of the Government of

Karnataka to consider the time limit that could

be fixed for the SLAO to consider an application

under Section 18 and/or 28A and to issue

necessary instruction to all the SLAOs in

relation thereto.

46.7. A detailed project report in regard to the above

to be formulated and placed before this court

within a period of six weeks of receipt of a copy

of this order.

47. Answer to point No.10: What order?

47.1. In view of the above and in view of the answers

to all the above, I pass the following;
- 271 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586
WP No. 100706 of 2023
C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023
WP No. 100227 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 14 OTHERS

ORDER

i. No grounds being made out, the writ petitions
filed by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited in WP
Nos.100706, 100224, 100227, 100229, 100230,
100245, 100292, 100294, 100298, 100784,
100785, 103082 and 105311 of 2023 stands
dismissed.

ii. No grounds being made out, the writ petitions
filed by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., in W.P.
Nos.105586, 105650 of 2023 stands dismissed.

iii. The writ petition filed by Deepa Dilip Nayak and
Vithoba Shankar Phayde and others-petitioners in
W.P.103322 of 2023, stands dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to approach the execution
court seeking for appropriate reliefs.

Sd/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

LN/-

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Source link

Welcome to Liberty Case

Welcome to Liberty Case

Welcome to Liberty Case

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Liberty Case

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Liberty Case

Become a member

Sumitra Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2026

Lalit Sharma S/O Sh. Govind Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:7716) on 18 February, 2026

Sarita vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2026

C482/2760/2019 on 26 February, 2026

Sumitra Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2026

Lalit Sharma S/O Sh. Govind Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:7716) on 18 February, 2026

Sarita vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2026

C482/2760/2019 on 26 February, 2026

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

M. P. Kumaraswamy, Former M.L.A vs H. R. Huvappa Gowda on 4 March, 2026

Smt Nagarathnamma N vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026

Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health … vs Sri Vallabha Uday Patel on 5 March, 2026

Subscribe for exclusive content

Welcome to Liberty Case

Welcome to Liberty Case

Welcome to Liberty Case

Subscribe to Liberty Case

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Liberty Case

Subscribe to Liberty Case

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Liberty Case

Become a member

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11 June, 2025

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

Subscribe for exclusive content