Smt. Heerabai Vs the State of Karnataka

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH 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.-20/772 DATED 12.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52848 WP No. 30270 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ANNEXURE-C AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.11.2024 AT ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 12.12.2024 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.2 and also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-B).

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Survey No.83/1A measuring 0-11.12 guntas 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 was paid `53,78,701/-, which according to her does not reflect the correct market value and that the land located in

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52848 WP No. 30270 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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 her claim results in arbitrariness and discrimination.

¶29

It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Act,

¶30

1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') is a beneficial legislation and the authorities ought to have referred the matter instead of rejecting the representation.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52848 WP No. 30270 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Per contra , learned AGA submits that the impugned endorsement dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-C) 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.

¶34

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 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

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52848 WP No. 30270 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

12.12.2024 (Annexure-C), which correctly records that the petitioner's request is time barred.

¶38

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

¶39

in BIR WATI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

¶40

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 28A 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.

¶41

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶42

1 AIR 2017 SC 4069

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52848 WP No. 30270 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) The impugned endorsement dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-C) does not call for interference as the petitioner's request for reference is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶50

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71.3

Smt. Heerabai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Heerabai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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 R Murthi Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

D. v. Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka