Sidarai S/O Lagamappa Suldhal Vs the Principal Secretary

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 111491 OF 2017 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102434 OF 2018 (LA-RES)

¶7

IN WP NO. 111491 OF 2017:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SIDARAI S/O. LAGAMAPPA SULDAL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIDDANAHALLI, POST: TUMMARAGUDDI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 016.

¶10

SMT. KALAVATI W/O. SIDARAI SULDAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SIDDANAHALLI, POST: TUMMARAGUDDI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 016.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally
signed byMANJANNA E
Location:
HIGH COURT
MANJANNAE OFKARNATAKADHARWADBENCH
Date:2026.02.13
12:02:04
+0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, DEPARTMENT OF MAJOR IRRIGATION, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT, MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS, CLUB ROAD, BENGALURU-590 001.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT LAND ACQUITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA LTD., GRBCC DIVISION NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶23

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA LTD., CBC-2, SUB DIVISION, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. RAMESH N. MISALE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN SY. NO.153/1; AND ETC.

¶27

IN WP NO. 102434 OF 2018:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SIDARAI S/O. LAGAMAPPA SULDHAL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIDDANAHALLI, POST: TUMMARAGUDDI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 016.

¶30

MALLIKARJUN S/O. SIDARAI SULDHAL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIDDANAHALLI, POST: TUMMARAGUDDI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 016.

¶31

... PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND ACQUISITION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, DEPARTMENT OF MAJOR IRRIGATION, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶39

THE COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103.

¶40

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590 001.

¶41

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001.

¶42

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶43

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GRBCC NO.2, HIDKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶44

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA LTD., GRBCC DIVISION NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA LTD., CBC-2, SUB DIVISION, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 107.

¶48

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION (NORTH), KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001.

¶49

... RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R9 AND R10; SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE COMPENSATION TO THE HOUSES BEARING VPC NOS.26, 41-B, 41-C, 41-D, 50, 50/1, 50/2 SITUATED IN SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE AS PER THE AMENDED LAND ACQUISITION ACT 2013 BY CONSIDERING THE SUIT PROPERTIES AS OWN PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶52

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶53

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

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ORAL ORDER

¶58

Since both the writ petitions arise out of the

¶59

interconnected acquisition proceedings, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶60

In W.P.No.111491/2017, the petitioners have

¶61

challenged the award dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure-H), insofar as it is stated by the respondent as a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short), without compliance with Rule 10-B of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’ for short).

¶62

In W.P.No.102434/2018, the petitioners have

¶63

called in question the action of the respondent-authorities in denying compensation for houses, trees, malkees and other structures, by treating the petitioners as unauthorized encroachers on the forest land and by passing proceedings resulting in non-grant/zero grant of compensation, notwithstanding the order of the Deputy

¶64

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Commissioner dated 31.10.2015, which had recognized

¶67

the claim of the petitioners.

¶68

The petitioners also challenged the

¶69

consequential proceedings reflected in Annexure-L,

¶70

whereby the benefit flowing from the said order of Deputy Commissioner has been refused.

¶71

Brief facts :

¶72

The lands in question were acquired for the Ballari Nala Dam Project. An award came to be passed on 27.04.2007 (Annexure-H). The State contends that the award is a consent award and that the compensation has attained finality. Subsequently, dispute arose regarding compensation for trees, and structures. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 31.10.2015, recognized the petitioners’ entitlement and directed consideration of their claim. The said order was followed by further proceedings Annexure-L and was not challenged by the State.

¶73

7 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

¶77

that;

¶78

i. No valid consent award could have been passed in the absence of a written agreement in Form-D as mandated under Rule 10-B of the Rules.

¶79

ii. Annexure-H does not disclose the execution of an indemnity bond or a consent agreement. Nor does it record the petitioners as consenting parties.

¶80

iii. Mere issuance of notice and fixation of compensation does not amount to consent.

¶81

iv. Reliance is placed on Special Land Acquisition Officer (KIADB), Mysore and Another Vs. Anasuya Bai (Dead) by Legal

¶82

Representatives and Others¹ (Anasuya) , particularly paragraph No.25 to contend that

¶83

1 (2017) 3 SCC 313

¶84

8 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

a consent must be clear, voluntary and

¶88

demonstrable.

¶89

v. Receipt of compensation alone does not establish consent.

¶90

vi. That large extent of land involving several landowners were acquired and the proceedings only indicate general fixation of compensation per acre without individual consent of the petitioners.

¶91

vii. That the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2015 recognizing their entitlement has attained finality and cannot be ignored by acquiring authority.

¶92

Per contra , learned AAG Sri Keshav Reddy,

¶93

submits that;

¶94

i. The petitioners withdrew the amount in February-2008.

¶95

9 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

ii. Annexure-H indicates that an indemnity bond

¶99

was executed, though the document is not traceable in the file.

¶100

iii. The lands are forest lands and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for compensation for structures and plantations.

¶101

iv. The proceedings initiated pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner's order cannot override acquisition and payment.

¶102

Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

¶103

the points that arise for consideration are:

¶104

“i. Whether Annexure-H can be treated as a valid consent award in the absence of compliance with Rule 10-B of the Rules?

¶105

ii. Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.10.2015, having attained finality, was the authority justified in denying compensation?”

¶106

Rule 10-B of the Rules mandates execution of a

¶107

written agreement in Form-D for a valid consent award.

¶108

10 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

Except a vague reference in Annexure-H and subsequent withdrawal entries, no consent agreement or indemnity bond is placed on record. As held by the Apex Court in Anasuya’s case stated supra , receipt of compensation by itself is not a conclusive proof of consent and paragraph No.25 clearly states as under:

¶111

“25. From the issuance of notice alone to the respondents under Section 29 of the KIAD Act, it cannot be said that the respondents had agreed to the compensation. It may be noted that large chunk of land was acquired and there were other landowners as well, despite the respondents. No doubt, proceedings dated 9-9-2005 indicate that consent agreement is arrived at fixing the compensation at Rs 6,50,000 per acre. However, the moot question is as to whether the respondents are also consenting parties. The learned Single Judge of the High Court returned a categorical finding that the respondents never gave any such consent. For this purpose, reference was made to Rule 10(b) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 which states the format in which the said mutual agreement is to be arrived at i.e. Form D. Rule 10(b) states the form of agreement to be executed under sub-section (2) of Section 11 shall

¶112

11 -

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

be in Form D. No such document is produced by the appellants. Moreover, the appellants also could not show that the notice dated 23-8-2005 was, in fact, served on the respondents. Therefore, the respondents had not consented to the amount of compensation that was determined in the minutes dated 9-9-2005. This finding is upheld by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment as well. There is no reason to disagree with this finding.”

¶116

It is categorically held that the consent must be explicit and demonstrable. In the present case, when a large acquisition involving multiple landowners were undertaken, individual consent of the petitioners is not established. Therefore, Annexure-H cannot be treated as a binding consent award insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶117

The principal grievance in W.P.No.111491/2017 is the ground that the respondents have treated Annexure-H as a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act, though the mandatory procedure has not been followed. Rule 10-B of the Rules, as stated supra,

¶118

12 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

mandates that the agreement contemplated under Section 11(2) of the Act shall be in the prescribed Form-D. In the case on hand, beyond a general assertion that an indemnity/consent bond was executed, no such agreement in the manner known to law is produced. The award/record is placed before this Court. It does not demonstrate compliance of Rule 10-B so as to bind the petitioners as consent award. Therefore, the award cannot be upheld as a binding consent award against the petitioners.

¶122

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have withdrawn certain amounts of compensation. However, a mere receipt or withdrawal of compensation amount by itself is not a conclusive proof of consent nor does it stop the petitioners from questioning

¶123

the legality of the proceedings, particularly when the statutory requirement under Rule 10-B of Rules, has not been complied with. In the absence of such compliance,

¶124

13 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

the withdrawal of compensation cannot be construed as an

¶127

unequivocal and informed consent of the award.

¶128

As held by the Apex Court in Anasuya’s case, acceptance of compensation does not ipso facto amount to consent unless the same is proceeded by a valid agreement in the manner prescribed by law.

¶129

In W.P.No.102434/2018, the principal grievance is that the petitioners’ claim for compensation has been denied by treating them as unauthorized encroachers on forest land and passing proceedings resulting in nongrant/zero grant compensation. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 31.10.2015, had adjudicated the claim and directed consideration grant of the benefit in accordance with law. Significantly, the said order has not been questioned by the respondents before any forum and therefore has attained finality.

¶130

In that view of the matter, the subsequent proceedings denying compensation by branding the

¶131

14 -

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

petitioners as unauthorized occupants and ensuring a zero compensation, “determination” in the teeth of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2015 cannot be sustained. Once the competent authority has passed an order recognizing the claim and the same as at its finality, it is impermissible for the acquiring body/subordinate authorities to defeat the binding effect of such order by taking contrary stand in collateral proceedings.

¶135

The impugned proceedings therefore suffer from illegality, arbitrariness, and non-application of mind and want of interference. Accordingly, it deserves to be allowed and the matter requires consideration by the competent authority strictly in view of the order dated 31.10.2015 after affording due opportunity to all concerned.

¶136

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶137

15 -

¶138

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

ORDER

¶141

i. W.P.No.111491/2017 is allowed .

¶142

ii. The respondent shall treat Annexure-H award dated 27.04.2007 as not a binding consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the petitioners in the absence of demonstrated compliance with Rule 10-B of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965.

¶143

iii. The matter is remitted to the competent authority- Special Land Acquisition Officer, to reconsider the petitioners’ claim by verifying the records, complying with the statutory requirements, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶144

iv. WP.No.102434/2018 is allowed .

¶145

v. The impugned proceedings resulting in nongrant/zero grant compensation by treating the petitioner as unauthorized encroachers on forest land are hereby quashed, being contrary to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.10.2015, which has attained finality.

¶146

16 -

¶147

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1117 WP No. 111491 of 2017 C/W WP No. 102434 of 2018

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

vi. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority-Special Land Acquisition Officer, to reconsider the petitioner's claim in view of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 31.10.2015, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all concerned, and pass the speaking order in accordance with law.

¶150

vii. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶151

viii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the quantum of compensation and all contentions and merits are kept open.

¶152

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶153

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30

¶154

AT CT:VH

Sidarai S/O Lagamappa Suldhal v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidarai S/O Lagamappa Suldhal v. the Principal Secretary

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

Renavva W/O Lakshman Madar Vs Kadampur Gram Panchayat

Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kasturewwa W/O. Shivaputrappa Kavali Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sidarai S/O Lagamappa Suldal, Vs the State of Karnataka

Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha Vs the Union of India