Nanjappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

Nanjappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed. Order dated 14.10.2025 passed in LAC No.55/1996 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan) set aside and LAC No.55/1996 restored to the file. Matter remitted to the Reference Court to proceed further on merits, taking the legal representatives as having been brought on record (as in MFA No.11095/2006), without probing that question/person further. Necessary amendment to be made in the LAC proceedings reflecting the names of the legal representatives of Nanjappa without requirement of any formal application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the application of the legal representatives of Nanjappa to come on record and in dismissing LAC No.55/1996 on the grounds that the application was made nearly 14 years belatedly and that the date of death of Nanjappa was doubtful.

Court's answer

It is not disputed that the original appellant Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011 and that it was upon his demise that his legal representatives were brought on record; the Reference Court's inference of doubt about the date of death was therefore unfounded.

Ratio / Principle

Once legal representatives are brought on record, the final order generally does not mention the date on which they were brought on record; hence the presumption of correctness of this Court's earlier order (in MFA No.11095/2006, bringing the legal representatives on record) could not have been doubted by the Reference Court without there being any dispute as to its authenticity.

Key takeaways

This Court found no justification in sustaining the order passed by the Reference Court, leading to the impugned order being set aside and LAC No.55/1996 being restored and remitted for fresh consideration on merits.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - Legal representatives brought on record - Presumption of correctness of appellate order. Deceased claimant Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011; his legal representatives had already been brought on record in MFA No.11095/2006, which the Co-ordinate Bench allowed by order dated 20.03.2025, setting aside the order in LAC No.55/1996 and remanding the matter. On remand, when the legal representatives applied to come on record before the Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan), the Reference Court rejected the application under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC - holding it belated by about 14 years and doubting the date of death of Nanjappa because the cause title of MFA No.11095/2006 read 'Nanjappa since dead by LRS' - and also dismissed the original petition. Held (M.G.S. Kamal, J., oral judgment): it is undisputed that Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011 and the legal representatives were brought on record upon his demise; final orders generally do not recite the date of bringing legal representatives on record; the presumption of correctness of the High Court's order could not have been doubted absent any dispute as to its authenticity; there was no justification to sustain the impugned order. Appeal allowed; order dated 14.10.2025 set aside; LAC No.55/1996 restored and remitted to proceed on merits with the legal representatives taken as on record without probing the question further; amendment of the LAC proceedings directed without any formal application. (MFA filed under S.54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.)

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9396 OF 2025 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

NANJAPPA

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

SRI. SHIVAPPA. N

1. S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

SRI. BASAVARAJU. B.N. S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

SRI. HARISH. B.N. S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALL ARE R/AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 128.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KUMAR J C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN - 573 201.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASSAN-573 201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN LAC NO.55/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE PETITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellants are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in LAC No.55/1996 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Hassan (for brevity 'Reference Court), by which while rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of the original appellant under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, the Reference Court has also rejected the original petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.11095/2006 submits that the said Miscellaneous First Appeal was filed by the original appellant Nanjappa being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2005 passed in the aforesaid LAC No.55/1996. That during the pendency of the said appeal, original appellant Nanjappa passed away. Consequently, his legal representatives were brought on record in the said MFA No.11095/2026. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.03.2025 allowed the said Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the order dated 24.12.2005

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

passed in LAC No.55/1996 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. That upon such remand the legal representatives of Nanjappa filed formal application to come on record. Misreading the facts and circumstances, the Reference Court passed the impugned order erroneously holding that such an application has been filed after lapse of 14 years and consequently dismissed the petition as well.

He further submits that the Reference Court has further erred in observing that the said MFA No.11095/2026 was filed by the legal representative of Nanjappa even while he was alive, as such it has entertained the doubt with regard to the very date of death of Nanjappa. He submitted that said reasoning of the order by the Reference Court is erroneous and unjustified. Hence, submits the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted as done earlier.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ authorities submit that the Reference Court has apparently read the cause title of the order in MFA No.11095/2026 where there is no date of death of Nanjappa is forthcoming.

NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

5 -

HC-KAR

Therefore, perhaps it was persuaded to pass the impugned order. However, she fairly submits an opportunity to be provided parties to lead evidence as directed earlier.

Submission is placed on record.

Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the order impugned

reads as under;

"9. It is the specific case of the applicants that, their father Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011 and they have also produced xerox copy of the death certificate and in the said death certificate the date of death of Nanjappa has been mentioned as 26.03.2011. However, on perusal of the records it is noticed that, the said LAC No.55/1996 was disposed of by this court on 24.12.2005. Really if at all if, the said Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011 he himself ought to have preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. However, on perusal of the records it is noticed that, the legal heirs of Nanjappa filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.11095/2006. On perusal of the Cause Title of the said case it is noticed that, the said case was registered as Nanjappa since dead by LRS. The said fact clearly goes to create doubt regarding the date of death of the said Nanjappa.

10. When the said Nanjappa said to be dead on 26.03.2011, then question of preferring the appeal by the legal heirs prior to death of Nanjappa would not arises at all, it creates a doubt regarding the date of death of the said Nanjappa and the legal heirs preferred the appeal by concealing the fact of alive of Nanjappa as on the date of preferring the appeal. Moreover, though the said Nanjappa died on 26.03.2011, but the present applicants have come up with these applications belatedly nearly after lapse of 14 years.

11. The learned counsel for the applicant during his course of arguments has submitted that, the present legal heirs already came on record in MFA No.11095/2006 itself and accordingly it is prayed to condone the delay in filing the present applications. However, as I already observed

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

above, prior to death of the said Nanjappa, the present applicants had preferred MFA No.11095/2006 which goes to show that they have suppressed the real facts and preferred a false appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and also misleaded the court. Though, the deceased claimant died on 26.03.2011, but prior to his death itself the legal heirs were already came on record and now nearly after lapse of 14 years they come up with these applications."

There is no dispute of the fact that original appellant Nanjappa passed away on 26.03.2011 and it is upon his demise the legal representatives have been brought on record. While originally said MFA No.11095/2006 was filed by Nanjappa himself once the legal representatives are brought on record, generally there won't be any mentioning of the date on which the said legal representatives are brought on record in the final order. The presumption of correctness of the order passed by this Court could not have been doubted by the Reference Court without there being any dispute with regard to authenticity of the same, this Court therefore finds no justification in sustaining the order passed by the Reference Court.

8. Accordingly, the following;

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed .

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:9768 MFA No. 9396 of 2025

HC-KAR

ii. Order dated 14.10.2025 passed in LAC No.55/1996 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Hassan is hereby set aside. LAC No.55/1996 is restored to the file.

iii. Matter is remitted to the Reference Court to proceed further on merits, taking the legal representatives having brought on record, without probing the said question/person further, inasmuch as they were already brought on record in MFA No.11095/2006.

iv. The necessary amendment be made in the LAC proceedings reflecting the name of the legal representatives of Nanjappa, without there being requirement of any formal application in that regard.

v. The order directed as above and order passed earlier shall be implemented by passing appropriate order in this regard on merits .

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

RU, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 14.10.2025 in LAC No.55/1996, by which the Reference Court, while rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of the original appellant under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, also rejected the original petition (dismissed the LAC petition).¶36
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Hassan (Reference Court) · 14.10.2025
Prior proceeding
MFA No.11095/2006 was filed by the original appellant Nanjappa, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2005 passed in LAC No.55/1996.¶37
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of MFA No.11095/2006, original appellant Nanjappa passed away (on 26.03.2011, as later recorded undisputed at paragraph 7 of the oral judgment) and his legal representatives were brought on record in that appeal.¶37
Prior proceeding
By order dated 20.03.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed MFA No.11095/2006, setting aside the order dated 24.12.2005 passed in LAC No.55/1996 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.¶37
Prior proceeding
Upon remand pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2025 in MFA No.11095/2006, the legal representatives of Nanjappa filed a formal application to come on record before the Reference Court.¶41
Prior proceeding
The Reference Court, misreading the facts and circumstances, erroneously held that the application had been filed after lapse of 14 years, and (per paragraphs 9-11 of the impugned order, reproduced at paragraphs 6 of the oral judgment) entertained doubt as to the date of death of Nanjappa because the cause title of MFA No.11095/2006 read 'Nanjappa since dead by LRS'.¶41
Prior proceeding
Along with rejecting the legal representatives' application, the Reference Court also rejected the original petition (LAC) itself.¶36
Prior proceeding
Ground for the Reference Court's doubt: the cause title of MFA No.11095/2006 showed the case registered as 'Nanjappa since dead by LRS', though Nanjappa was recorded as having died only on 26.03.2011.¶51