Dismissed¶47

Sri R Murthi Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025WP/29655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Acquisition Act 1894; Section 18 limitation six months mandatory; Section 28-A re-determination of compensation; reference request time-barred 8.5 years after 2016 award; endorsement 05.12.2024 Annexure-E; Davangere-Birur Highway acquisition notification 08.06.2015; Survey No.1 Tholahunase Village Davanagere; compensation Rs.3,25,080; parity claim LAC.No.5/2017 enhancement 05.09.2024; no mandamus against statutory prohibition; Birwati v Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4069; Articles 226 and 227; WP No. 29655 of 2025; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; Karnataka High Court 11.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available under law, including re-determination under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, if still within limitation and in accordance with law. ¶47

Sri R Murthi Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E) issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's request for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 as time-barred should be quashed. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The petitioner's request for reference was made only in November, 2024, after lapse of more than 8½ years from the award passed in 2016, and is therefore barred by limitation.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The six-month requirement under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is mandatory and authorities cannot extend the limitation; there is no perversity or illegality in the endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E), which correctly records the petitioner's request as time barred and does not call for interference.

¶38

Key takeaways

No mandamus can be issued to compel a statutory authority to do an act prohibited by law, namely making a belated reference; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶39
Dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy available under law, including re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, if still within limitation; liberty is reserved to pursue such remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-RES), High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), decided 11.12.2025 — DISMISSED. Petitioner, whose land in Survey No.1, Tholahunase Village, Davanagere was acquired vide notification dated 08.06.2015 for the Davangere-Birur Highway (award 08.04.2016; amended award 18.04.2016; Rs.3,25,080/- paid), sought quashing of respondent No.2's endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E) rejecting his Section 18 reference request and a mandamus to consider his representation dated 19.11.2024, claiming parity with the enhancement in LAC.No.5/2017 (judgment dated 05.09.2024). Held: the reference request made in November 2024, over 8½ years after the 2016 award, is hopelessly barred; the six-month limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and cannot be extended; the endorsement suffers no perversity or illegality; no mandamus can compel a statutory authority to perform an act prohibited by law. Reliance placed on Birwati v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4069: liberty reserved to seek re-determination under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, if still within limitation.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 29655 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI R MURTHI NAIK S/O RAJANAIK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK., R/AT THOLAHUNASE GRAMA, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT- 577 002.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS, INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO KA. RA. HE. A.YO/YO/ A. GHA/ SA.AA/ BHU. SVA/ S.R.-01/2015-16 42-A (ROB-1)/P.R.-52/751 DATED 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/11/2024 AT ANNEXURE -D, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E) passed by respondent No.2 and also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-D).

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Survey No.1 measuring 22.55 Sq. mtrs., situated at Tholahunase Village, Davanagere Taluk and District, which was notified for acquisition on 08.06.2015 for the development of Davangere-Birur Highway road. An award was passed on 08.04.2016, followed by an amended award on 18.04.2016 and as per the endorsement, the petitioner

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

was paid Rs.3,25,080/-, which according to him does not reflect the correct market value and that the land located in the heart of Davangere City has much higher market value than what was assessed by the respondent-The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the SLAO'). It is stated that the same acquisition proceedings was initiated by one Sri.T.K.Lakshman Naik by challenging the award in LAC.No.5/2017, wherein the reference Court by its judgment dated 05.09.2024 enhanced the compensation. The petitioner relies on the said judgment to claim parity.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate and contrary to the actual market value. It is urged that other similarly placed landowners have received enhanced compensation through reference Court and thus, the refusal to refer his claim results in arbitrariness and discrimination.

¶29

It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') is a beneficial legislation and

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the authorities ought to have referred the matter instead of rejecting the representation.

¶34

Per contra , learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E) indicates that the application for reference was barred by limitation having been filed several years after the award of 2016. Under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, a reference can be sought within six(6) months from receiving notice of the award and the authorities therefore, are not empowered to make a reference after limitation has expired and the writ Court cannot compel a statutory authority to violate statutory timelines.

¶35

The award in the petitioner's case was passed in the year 2016. The petitioner's request for reference has been made only in November, 2024, after lapse of more than 8½ years. Under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the application for reference must be made within six(6) months from the date of receipt of the notice of the award or six(6) months

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

from the date of the award. This statutory requirement is mandatory and authorities cannot extend the limitation. No perversity or illegality is found in the endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E), which correctly records that the petitioner's request is time barred.

¶39

In view of the above reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as no mandamus can be issued to compel a statutory authority to do an act prohibited by law, namely making a belated reference. Even though the Section 18 of the Act, 1894 reference is barred, the petitioner still has an alternative remedy under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation. The Apex Court

¶40

in BIR WATI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

¶41

ANOTHER¹ has categorically held that even where an application under Section 18 is dismissed as time barred, the land loser would still be entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A subject to fulfillment of the statutory conditions. Liberty is therefore reserved to the petitioner to pursue such remedy if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶42

1 AIR 2017 SC 4069

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52434 WP No. 29655 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-E) does not call for interference as the petitioner's request for reference is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

¶49

iii) However, dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy available under law including the remedy under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, if the same is still within limitation and in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶52

PHM

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri R Murthi Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Murthi Naik v. the State of Karnataka

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

S Kumaresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Radha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Heerabai Vs the State of Karnataka

D. v. Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka