Smt Thayamma @ Honnamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Thayamma @ Honnamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can issue directing the acquisition authorities to consider the petitioner's representations, permit deposit of the excess compensation paid for Sy.No.50/3, and re-disburse it among all joint owners, after compensation has already been disbursed and accepted. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's present request, to deposit the excess amount and to seek re-disbursement to other joint owners, amounts to reopening the concluded process of compensation.

Ratio / Principle

Once the compensation has been accepted by one of the joint owners, the statutory authority becomes functus officio in that regard; any subsequent dispute as to the share of distribution of compensation among the co-owners must be resolved before the Civil Court having jurisdiction, under the principles embodied in Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Key takeaways

After the lawful disposal of compensation, no enforceable legal right remains with the respondents, so the relief sought by way of mandamus cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶42
The appropriate remedy for the petitioner, if she seeks reapportionment or refund of compensation, lies before the Civil Court and not by way of representation to the acquisition authority.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus – Land acquisition compensation – Excess compensation – Re-distribution among joint owners. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (SLA Officer/Competent Authority NHAI, Regional Officer NHAI and Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) to consider her representations dated 25.10.2021 and 26.04.2022, permit her to deposit the excess compensation paid for acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.50/3 for widening NH-48 (Nelamangala–Hassan), and re-disburse it among all joint owners per possession/revenue records. HELD: Compensation of Rs.2,66,697/- was disbursed in 2008 (on 26.11.2008) to the petitioner's husband, one of the co-owners; the request to deposit the excess and seek re-disbursement amounts to reopening a concluded process. Once compensation has been accepted by one joint owner, the statutory authority becomes functus officio; any dispute as to distribution of compensation among co-owners must be resolved before the Civil Court having jurisdiction under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After lawful disposal of compensation no enforceable legal right subsists against the respondents, so mandamus under Article 226 cannot be entertained; the appropriate remedy for reapportionment or refund is the Civil Court, not a representation to the acquisition authority. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:43355 WP No. 2665 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.2665 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. THAYAMMA @ HONNAMMA W/O GAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT SURAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHARANADEEP, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-48, NELAMANGALA TO HASSAN SECTION KUNIGAL-572 130.

REGIONAL OFFICER/DIRECTOR FOR PLAN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SY NO.13, 14^TH KM, NEAR DEEPAK BUS STOP, NAGASANDRA, M.S. RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, BENGALURU-TUMKUR ROAD, NH-4 BENGALURU-560073.

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, REP. BY CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI JAGANNATH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43355 WP No. 2665 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS/NOTICE DATED 25.10.2021 AND 26.04.2022 GIVEN/ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE EXCESS AMOUNT TOWARDS THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.50/3 MEASURING 8 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SURAPANHALII VILLAGE KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THE SAME MAY BE DISBURSED TO ALL THE LEGAL JOINT OWNERS OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND AS PER THEIR POSSESSION AND REVENUE RECORDS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is seeking the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation/notice dated 25.10.2021 and 26.04.2022 at Annexures-A and B and to permit the petitioner to deposit the excess amount towards the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.50/3 measuring 31 guntas out of 3 acres 27 guntas situated at Surapanhalli Village, Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramnagar District (‘petition land’ for short) and to disburse the same among all the joint owners of the said land as per their possession and revenue records.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43355 WP No. 2665 of 2025

HC-KAR

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

The petitioner claims that land in Sy.No.50/3 totally measuring 3 acres 27 guntas originally belonged to one Kempanarasaiah. Upon partition among his sons, each son got 36.12 guntas. The respondent-National Highways Authority of India, acquired 31 guntas from the said survey number for widening of NH-48 Nelamangala to Hassan road.

It is not in dispute that in the year 2008, respondent-authority disbursed the compensation amount of `2,66,697/- which was received by the petitioner’s husband, late Gaviyappa one of the co-owner. Subsequently, the petitioner addressed representation to the respondents expressing willingness to refund or deposit the excess compensation amount asserting that it was received by her husband due to ignorance and illiterate, and sought directions that amount be re-distributed among all joint owners in accordance with their respective share. Since no action was

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43355 WP No. 2665 of 2025

HC-KAR

taken on her representation, she has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is misconceived, as the respondent-authority has discharged its statutory obligation by disbursing the compensation and no further direction can be sought after long lapse of time. The respondents further contend that any dispute regarding apportionment of compensation among co-owners can only be resolved before the competent Civil Court and not through a representation to the acquisition authority.

This Court has carefully considered the rival

contentions and examined the material on record.

It is admitted that the acquisition proceedings relating to Sy.No.50/3 were completed long back and that the compensation was disbursed on 26.11.2008 to the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's present request, to deposit the excess amount and to seek re-disbursement to other joint owners, amounts to reopening the concluded process of compensation. Once the compensation has been accepted by one of the joint owners, the statutory authority becomes

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43355 WP No. 2665 of 2025

HC-KAR

functus officio in that regard. Any subsequent dispute as to the share of distribution of compensation among the co-owners must necessarily be resolved before the Civil Court having jurisdiction, under the principles embodied in Section 30 and Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the relief sought by way of mandamus cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking no enforceable legal right remains with the respondents after the lawful disposal of compensation.

For the foregoing reason , this Court finds that the petitioner has made out no ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy to the petitioner if she seeks reapportionment or refund of compensation lies before the Civil Court and not by way of representation to the acquisition authority. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits .

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

AT / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3