Venkatesh Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED IN LAC(A) NO.364/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2006 PASSED IN LAC.21/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN), HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

There is delay of 2,467 days in filing the appeal and

¶29

I.A.No.1/2026 is filed to condone the delay.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:19919 MSA No. 53 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the learned counsel for respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants could not file appeal in time since their lands were acquired and they were deprived of arranging the necessary Court fee. Further, due to old age and poor health condition they were unable to instruct their counsel. It is further submitted that in case the delay is not condoned, the right of appeal will be curtailed and they will have to be content with the meager compensation awarded by the Appellate Court as well as the Reference Court.

¶35

It is also submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered in terms of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Gowramma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another¹ and the Court has remanded the matter to implead the beneficiary.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the application on the premise that, delay is not satisfactorily

¶37

1 MSA.No.124/2025

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:19919 MSA No. 53 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

explained and sufficient reasons are not shown for condoning the delay.

¶42

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the

¶43

Bar and perused the records.

¶44

It is relevant to notice that beneficiary of the land acquisition proceedings was not made a party before the Reference Court. The acquisition is of the year 1984. The reference is filed in the year 2006.

¶45

Whether the reference is in time or not is one of the question that is required to be considered by hearing the beneficiary as well. That question was not decided after hearing the beneficiary. This being the position, the Court is of the view that, the delay has to be condoned and the matter has to be remitted back to the Reference Court.

¶46

For reasons stated above, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed . Delay of 2,467 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest on the market value or compensation in case it is enhanced by the Reference Court for the delayed period.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19919 MSA No. 53 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is noticed from the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court as well as the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the beneficiary was not made as a party to the proceedings. The compensation was determined without hearing the beneficiary and the beneficiary is now required to pay the compensation.

¶50

Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed in LAC.No.21/2006 dated 13.03.2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Holenarasipura as well as impugned judgment and award passed in LAC(Appeal) No.364/2016 dated 18.02.2017 by the Principal District Judge, Hassan are set aside .

¶51

The matter is remitted to the Reference Court to hear the case afresh and the Reference Court shall consider all questions including the question relating to the limitation insofar as the reference sought by the land loser.

¶52

The beneficiary shall be made as a party to the proceedings before the Reference Court and the Reference Court shall record fresh evidence and thereafter, pass appropriate orders.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:19919 MSA No. 53 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed

¶57

anything on the merits of the matter.

¶58

In case, the compensation is determined and market value is enhanced, the land loser/appellants are not entitled to the interest on the delayed period.

¶59