Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed-in-part: delay of 1311 days condoned (I.A.No.1/2025 allowed), with a bar on interest for the delayed period if compensation is enhanced; the Reference Court's judgment and award (LAC.26/2006, 13.03.2006) and the Appellate Court's judgment and decree (LAC(A) No.374/2016, 20.09.2019) set aside; matter remitted to the Reference Court with directions to implead the beneficiary, hear the petitioner and respondents including the beneficiary, permit evidence and pass a fresh award in accordance with law; no opinion expressed on merits, all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1311 days in filing the miscellaneous second appeal ought to be condoned (application I.A.No.1/2025). +1 more

Court's answer

Delay of 1311 days in filing the appeal is condoned; I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

If the compensation is enhanced on remand, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 1311 days.

Key takeaways

The beneficiary in a land acquisition enhancement proceeding must be made a party, and the Reference Court should have brought this to the claimant's notice before adjudicating the case on merits.ratio¶44
Since the beneficiary was not a party at either stage, the impugned judgment and award (Reference Court) and the impugned judgment and decree (Appellate Court) are set aside.ratio¶46
The matter is remitted to the Reference Court with a direction to the appellant/petitioner to implead the beneficiary as a party to the proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition compensation enhancement - Miscellaneous Second Appeal under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act - 1311 days' delay in filing condoned (I.A.No.1/2025), conditioned on the appellant not being entitled to interest for that delayed period if compensation is ultimately enhanced - beneficiary of the acquisition was never impleaded before the Reference Court (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Holenarasipura, award in LAC.26/2006 dated 13.03.2006 partly allowing the S.18 reference) nor before the Appellate Court (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, judgment and decree in LAC(A) No.374/2016 dated 20.09.2019 dismissing the landloser's appeal) - Court holds that the beneficiary should be made a party and the Reference Court ought to have brought this to the claimant's notice before adjudication on merits - both sets of impugned decisions set aside and the matter remitted to the Reference Court with directions to implead the beneficiary, hear the parties, permit evidence and pass a fresh award in accordance with law - no opinion expressed on merits; all contentions kept open. Coram: Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. (oral judgment, single judge). Neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:6798.

NC: 2026:KHC:6798 MSA No. 124 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2025 (LA)

BETWEEN:

SMT GOWRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE PALLAKKIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A YALAGATAVALLI VILLAGE, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK. HASSAN DIST - 562157

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MANOJ KUMAR. J. Y, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-2, 1^ST FLOOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560 058

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560 058

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6798 MSA No. 124 of 2025

HC-KAR

DATED 20.09.2019 PASSED IN LAC(A) NO.374/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2006 PASSED IN LAC.26/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

There is delay of 1311 days in filing the appeal and I.A.No.1/2025 is filed to condone the delay.

Learned Government Advocate would oppose the application on the premise that sufficient cause is not shown to allow the application and to condone the delay of 1311 days.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate.

This miscellaneous second appeal arises from the judgment and decree in L.A.C.(Appeal).No.374/2016 dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan (for brevity, 'the Appellate Court'), wherein the award in L.A.C.No.26/2006 dated 13.03.2006 passed by the Civil Judge

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6798 MSA No. 124 of 2025

HC-KAR

(Senior Division), Holenarasipura (for brevity, 'the Reference Court') was under challenge by the landloser. It is noticed that there is delay of 1311 days in filing the appeal.

It is submitted that the appellant is the landloser

and he has not received adequate compensation consequent to the land acquisition and he did not have the financial resource to file appeal by paying the Court fee.

It is further submitted that the appellant is a rustic villager and is not familiar with the legal procedures.

Considering the fact that the case is about just compensation where the landlosers are alleging that adequate compensation is not paid and also considering the fact that the beneficiary has not been made a party to the proceedings, the Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration after making beneficiary as a party to the proceedings.

Under these circumstances, I.A.No.1/2025 is

allowed . Delay of 1311 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6798 MSA No. 124 of 2025

HC-KAR

However, it is made clear that in case the compensation is enhanced, the appellant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 1311 days.

It is noticed that before the Reference Court and before the Appellate Court, the beneficiary has not been made a party in a petition seeking enhancement of compensation.

The settled position of law is the beneficiary should be made a party. The Reference Court should have brought it to the notice of the claimant before adjudicating the case on merits.

Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment

and award and impugned judgment and decree are set aside.

The matter is remitted to the Reference Court with

a direction to the appellant/petitioner to implead beneficiary as a party to the proceedings.

The Reference Court shall hear the petitioner and the respondents including the beneficiary and permit them to lead evidence and thereafter, to pass award in accordance with law.

NC: 2026:KHC:6798 MSA No. 124 of 2025

5 -

HC-KAR

In case the compensation is enhanced, the

appellant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for 1311 days. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All the contentions are kept open.

The appeal is accordingly allowed-in-part .

SD/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13