Allowed¶54

Sri Channabasavaiah Alias Channabasappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/16292/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court 2025; land acquisition compensation enhancement reference; Section 64 / Section 64(2)(b) RFCTLARR Act 2013; SLAO endorsement rejecting reference; 45-day delay and condonation proviso; Hemavathi Canal Zone / Hemavathi Project; Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru; Ingalada Kaval village; Sy. No.12/1, 0-12 guntas; writ of certiorari and mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; coordinate bench W.P.No.6330 of 2025 (12.03.2025); Smt. Lingamma W.P.No.25237/2024 (21.10.2024); eight-week compliance direction; M. Nagaprasanna, J.; WP No. 16292 of 2025 (LA-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:19771.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case strictly in consonance with the coordinate bench holding in W.P.No.6330 of 2025 within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶54

Sri Channabasavaiah Alias Channabasappa Vs the Deputy… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 12-11-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent SLAO rejecting reference to the District Court for enhancement of compensation for Sy. No.12/1 (0-12 guntas), Ingalada Kaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, should be quashed. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement, having been issued prior to the coordinate bench order in W.P.No.6330 of 2025 (which carried general directions), necessarily stands obliterated.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The respondents shall consider the petitioner's case strictly in consonance with what is held by the coordinate bench, within an outer limit of eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-RES) No. 16292 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), decided 10-06-2025: The petitioner, an 80-year-old landowner, sought quashing of the endorsement dated 12-11-2024 (No.SLAO/SR(G-Bikkegudda) No.02/14/2020-21/235) issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Project, rejecting his request for reference to the District Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for enhancement of compensation for Sy. No.12/1 measuring 0-12 guntas at Ingalada Kaval village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru, and sought mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter considering his petition dated 19-09-2024. Counsel showed the issue was identical to the coordinate bench decision in W.P.No.6330 of 2025 (disposed 12.03.2025), which in turn rested on Smt. Lingamma v. Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.25237/2024, dated 21.10.2024) concerning the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 64 permitting entertainment of delayed applications; the Government Pleader did not dispute that position. Holding that the impugned endorsement, issued prior to the coordinate bench order containing general directions, was necessarily obliterated, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case strictly in consonance with the coordinate bench holding within eight weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19771 WP No. 16292 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16292 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI CHANNABASAVAIAH ALIAS CHANNABASAPPA S/O LATE HUCHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT MADENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE BEHIND CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI TUMAKURU - 572 104.

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:19771 WP No. 16292 of 2025

…RESPONDENTS

HC-KAR

TUMAKURU - 572 104.

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12-11-2024 BEARING NO.SLAO/SR(GBIKKEGUDDA) NO.02/14/2020-21/235, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI PROJECT, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU-572104, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH RESPECT TO REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION OF SY. NO.12/1, MEASURING 00.12 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT INGALADAKAVAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK AND TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

“a. Issue of Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the endorsement dated: 12-11-2024, bearing No.SLAO/SR(G-Bikkegudda) No.02/14/2020-21/235, issued by the 2nd respondent, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Project, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru, vide Annexure-C, with respect to rejecting the request of the petitioner for reference to the District court for enhancement of compensation of Sy. No.12/1 measuring 0-12 guntas, situated at

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19771 WP No. 16292 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Ingalada Kaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk & Tumakuru District.

¶34

b. Issue of Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Road, Tumakuru, to refer cases under section 64(2)(b) of right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement act 2013, to the authority, by considering the petition dated: 19-09-2024, filed by the Petitioner, vide Annexure-A, with respect to Sy. No.12/1 measuring 0-12 guntas, situated at Ingalada Kaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk & Tumakuru District, within stipulated period.

¶35

c. Issue any other Writ or Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court be deems fit it necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in

¶38

the lis is identical to what the coordinate bench has held in W.P.No.6330 of 2025, disposed on 12.03.2025.

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law as is considered by the coordinate bench in the afore-quoted writ petition.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:19771 WP No. 16292 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The coordinate bench in W.P.No.6330 of 2025,

¶44

disposed on 12.03.2025, has held as follows:

¶45

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA & ANR. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS., in W.P.No.25237/2024, dated 21.10.2024, which was also followed subsequently in many other cases. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 - Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO' for brevity) has issued the impugned endorsement declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), on the ground that the application is filed after a delay of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice at the hands of the SLAO.

¶46

In the said decision in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA (SUPRA), this Court has noticed that the proviso to Clause 'b' of Sub-section 2 of Section 64 clearly provides that the Collector/SLAO may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there are sufficient cause for not filing the application within the period specified in the first proviso.

¶47

That being the case, when admittedly the delay is only 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the notice at the hands of the SLAO, the SLAO could not have declined to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act.

¶48

This Court has noticed that despite such directions being issued by this Court and the fact that there is an express provision as noticed herein above, vesting the power with the Collector/SLAO to consider the application for reference by condoning the delay, the concerned SLAOs. are not exercising their discretion. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the State Government, through all the respective Departments which are empowered to acquire lands, may issue a

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19771 WP No. 16292 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

circular to all the concerned SLAOs. / Deputy Commissioners and issue directions to all such authorities to exercise their discretion in terms of the provisions of the Act rather than issuing such endorsement and declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act.”

¶52

In the light of the order passed by the coordinate bench, where general directions were also issued and the impugned endorsement, which is issued prior to the order passed by the coordinate bench, would necessarily be obliterated. Therefore, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶55

b. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with what is held by the coordinate bench as quoted supra, within an outer limit of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶57

NVJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS

Sri Channabasavaiah Alias Channabasappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Channabasavaiah Alias Channabasappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Putta Narasaiah Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar, City Civil Court

Sri. R. K. Madhvesh Vs Sri. T. R. Devaraj, Since Deceased by Lrs, Smt Padmaja

Sri Sadashivaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka