Disposed

Sri a M Mayanna v. Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/33046/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Reference Court order enhancing land acquisition compensation on grounds of fraud and suppression. The court held the remedy was an appeal under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, disposed of the petition keeping contentions open, and restrained the Executing Court from releasing compensation for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty to file appeal under Section 74 with limitation consideration; four-week restraint on Executing Court releasing compensation.

Sri a M Mayanna Vs Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 33046 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI A M MAYANNA

¶11

S/O M MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALSO R/AT APL STORES, KEMPEGOWDA SCHOOL ROAD, GANGANNA BADAANE, SANNAKI BAYALU, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA WARD, BANGALORE - 560 079

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI A M KUMARA S/O M MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶14

SRI A M RAVI S/O M MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ A S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI MAYIGA @ KUNTEGOWDA R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428 (THIS PERSON IS THE GRAND FATHER OF PETITIONER HE DIED WAY BACK TO 1946, BUT REVENUE RECORDS STANDS IN HIS NAME, AWARD WAS PASSED IN HIS NAME EVEN THOUGH HE DEAD)

¶22

A M MAYANNA

¶23

S/O LATE A M MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶24

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., V.C. NALA DIVISION, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶25

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶26

THE PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R3 TO R5)

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN LAC NO. 38/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA AND A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA IN LAC.NO.38/2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent nos.3 to 5.

¶36

The present petition has been filed calling in question the correctness of the order passed in LAC 38/2018 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent no.1 who was the claimant in the reference proceedings in LAC 38/2018 has suppressed the facts and obtained an order.

¶38

In LAC 38/2018, the trial court has allowed the reference petition under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has enhanced the market value.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The petitioner would submit that the claimant has misrepresented before the Reference Court and has not brought to the notice of the Reference Court the proceedings in O.S.No.3/2013 which is still pending between the petitioners and respondent no.2.

¶43

It is further submitted that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed seeking to amend the prayer in the suit. It is submitted that the order passed is on misrepresentation and amounts to fraudulent order obtained by the private respondents by misrepresenting the facts and on the basis of suppression of material facts.

¶44

Learned AGA would submit that the question of fraud is a mixed question of fact and law and that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 74 of the New Act.

¶45

There is a distinction between maintainability and entertainability. No doubt, the writ petition is maintainable before this court, however taking note of dense factual matrix and allegation of fraud, the appropriate remedy would be to

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

remit the petitioner to challenge orders passed under

¶49

Section 64 by way of appeal under Section 74 of the Act.

¶50

No doubt, the petitioners submit that they were not parties in the reference proceedings, however Section 74 provides for any person aggrieved by the award could file an appeal.

¶51

Taking note that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings, it would be appropriate that the aspect of limitation be taken note of appropriately in the event appeal is filed.

¶52

All contentions of the petitioners regarding fraud and criminal acts stated to have been committed by the private respondents are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate authorities. The contention of absence of knowledge of the petitioners of the proceedings in the Reference Court may be taken note of appropriately considering that petitioners were not parties in the proceedings in the Reference Court.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:1677 WP No. 33046 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. All

¶57

contentions are kept open. Petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings as is permissible in law for redressal of their grievance.

¶58

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that private respondents have filed Execution proceedings in Ex.No.52/2021 and there is an apprehension that in such proceedings the private respondents may withdraw the compensation amount.

¶59

It is made clear that the Executing Court is restrained from passing any orders so as to release the amount in terms of the order in LAC 38/2018 for a period of four weeks from today.

¶60

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶61

Sri a M Mayanna v. Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a M Mayanna v. Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Shree Mallikarjuna Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

G. T. Babu Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

SV3 Global Ventures Lp Vs Mr. Rakesh Vij

Sri. S. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer