Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Sri. K. Venkataramanappa on 11 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB
M.F.A. No.4211/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
R
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4211/2020 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
NO.678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024.
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA, ADV.,)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI. K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O APPAIAH REDDY
R/AT. ATTIBELE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
1. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS
R/A OPP. JAIBHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562107.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB
M.F.A. No.4211/2020
2. SRI. K.V. SOMASHEKAR REDDY
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT. OPP. JAIBHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.
3. SRI. K.V. SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT. OPP. JAIBHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.
4. SRI. K.V. VISHWANATH REDDY
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT. OPP. JAIBHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.
5. SRI. K.V. MANJUNATH REDDY
S/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT. OPP. JAIBHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.
6. SMT. K.V. PRAMILA
D/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
W/O BHASKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT. NO.559, 12TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560076.
7. SMT. K.V. PADMA
D/O LATE K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB
M.F.A. No.4211/2020
W/O P. NARAYAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. NO.215, 3RD AVENUE TEACHERS COLONY
VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
8. SRI. K. VENKATA REDDY
@ CHIKKAPAPPANNA
S/O LATE APPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS
R/AT. KODIHALLI VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-562119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.R. LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY, ADV., FOR R2, R4 TO R7
SRI. T. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R3
SRI. B.S. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R8
R1 APPEAL STOOD ABATED V.C.O. DTD:05.06.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE
LAC NO.61/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, AND AFTER LOOKING
INTO THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18.09.2019 IN LAC NO.61/2006, PASED BY THE
COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB
M.F.A. No.4211/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India challenging the judgment and award dated 18.09.2019 passed in LAC No.61/2006 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filling of this appeal are that the claimant's land measuring 30,492 sq. ft. in Sy.No.363/1 of Attibele Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk was acquired for widening of National Highway No.7.
The SLAO determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8/- per sq. ft. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Reference Court -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 re-determined the market value at Rs.80/- per sq. ft. with interest and statutory benefits. The competent authority of National Highway Authority of India is in appeal.
4. Sri.Padmanabha Holla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the reference beyond the time period prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that the Reference Court has placed reliance on the decision of K.LAKSHMINARAYANA SASTRY Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHIKKABALLAPUR1 and held that the reference is within 3 years and 90 days from the date of application which is factually incorrect and the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court.
5. Per contra, Sri.G.R.Lakshmipathy Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 7 and 1 AIR 1995 KAR 217 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 Sri.T.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 support the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court has assigned detailed reasons and come to the conclusion that the reference in within the period of limitation. The said finding of the Reference Court is based on the decision of this Court in the case of K.LAKSHMINARAYANA SASTRY, referred supra. It is submitted that the Reference Court, taking note of the judgment of this Court re-determined the compensation at Rs.80/- per sq. ft.
which does not call for any modification. They seek to dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the material available on record.
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is -7- NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?"
7. To consider the issue involved in the present appeal with regard to entertaining the reference petition under Section 18 of the Act by the Reference Court, we need to take note of certain dates. Admittedly, the SLAO passed the award on 22.03.1994 and notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant on 15.10.1994. The claimant sought the reference vide application dated 02.01.1995 and the reference was made by the Authority to the Reference Court as per letter dated 14.06.1999.
8. Section 18 of the Act as Karnataka State Amendment reads as under:
"18. Reference to court.--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award or amendment thereof may, by written application to the Deputy Commissioner, require that the matter be referred by the Deputy Commissioner for the determination of the court, whether his objection -8- NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of service of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner under sub- section (2) of Section 12.
(3)(a) The Deputy Commissioner shall, within ninety days from the date of receipt of an application under sub-section (1), make a reference to the court.
(b) If the Deputy Commissioner does not make a reference to the court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference, and the court may direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within such time as the Court may fix."
9. The State Legislature by an amendment brought to Section 18 of the Central Act substituted proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act replacing the period of 6 weeks by the period of 90 days and making the starting -9- NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 point as the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Sub-section (3) provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall within 90 days from the date of receipt of an application under sub-Section (1), make a reference to the Court. Section 18(3)(b) of the Act provides an opportunity to the applicant to apply to the Court and seek a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference if the Deputy Commissioner does not make reference to the Court within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. The issue with regard to limitation to seek reference has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LAXUMAN2. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
"9. As can be seen, no time for applying to the court in terms of sub-section (3) is fixed by the statute. But since the application is to the court, though under a special enactment, Article 137, the residuary article of the Limitation Act, 1963, would be attracted and the application has to be made within three years of the application for making a reference or the expiry of 90 days after the application. xxxx 2 (2005) 8 SCC 709
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020
18. The majority, in our view, was not justified in mixing up the position obtaining under Section 18 of the Central Act and the position obtaining under Section 18 of the Act as amended in Karnataka. The Court had to consider the scheme of Section 18 as obtaining in Karnataka, the scope of the relevant provisions and the consequences arising from it, unaffected by what might be the position under Section 18 of the Central Act. Section 18 of the Act as in Karnataka, in fact, confers additional rights on a claimant by providing an extended time for making a claim for reference, possibly considering the situation available in the State and a further right on the claimant to approach the Land Acquisition Court for directing a reference to it, based on the application already made by him before the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court, in our view, erred in proceeding on an enquiry as to whether the obligation under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act on the Deputy Commissioner was mandatory or directory. In fact, if one were to go by the use of the expression "shall", and the introduction of Section 18(3)(b) and the right conferred thereunder, there is no difficulty even in taking the view that it is mandatory for the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within 90 days of receipt of the application for reference. When he fails to perform the mandate
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 of the statute, the provision gives the claimant a right to approach the court which could compel the reference to be made by the Deputy Commissioner who had failed to perform his duty under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act and, in that process, even award costs of the proceedings against the Deputy Commissioner and, in appropriate cases, to be recovered from him personally. But what is relevant is not the question whether the duty cast on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act as in Karnataka is mandatory or it is directory. On its scheme, the Deputy Commissioner is expected to make the reference within 90 days of the receipt of the application. On his failure to do so, the claimant has to approach the Land Acquisition Court for getting the matter referred.
19. Extinguishment of a right can be expressly provided for or it can arise by implication from the statute. Section 18 of the Act as in Karnataka sets out a scheme. Having made an application for reference within time before the Deputy Commissioner, the claimant may lose his right by not enforcing the right available to him within the time prescribed by law. Section 18(3)(a) and Section 18(3)(b) read in harmony, cast an obligation on the claimant to enforce his claim within the period available for it. The scheme brings about a repose. It
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 is based on a public policy that a right should not be allowed to remain a right indefinitely to be used against another at the will and pleasure of the holder of the right by approaching the court whenever he chooses to do so. When the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference on the application of the claimant under Section 18(1) of the Act stands extinguished on the expiry of 3 years and 90 days from the date of application for reference, and the right of the claimant to move the court for compelling a reference also stands extinguished, the right itself loses its enforceability and thus comes to an end as a result. This is the scheme of Section 18 of the Act as adopted in the State of Karnataka. The High Court is, therefore, not correct in searching for a specific provision bringing about an extinguishment of the right to have a reference and, on not finding it, postulating that the right would survive forever.
20. Under the scheme of Section 18 of the Act as in Karnataka, thus the claimant loses his right to move the court for reference on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of his making an application to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 18(1) of the Act, within the period fixed by Section 18(2) of the Act. This position is now settled by the decision of this Court in Addl. Spl. Land
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 Acquisition Officer v. Thakoredas [(1997) 11 SCC 412 : AIR 1994 SC 2227] . This loss of right to move the court precludes him from seeking a remedy from the court in terms of Section 18 of the Act. This loss of right in the claimant puts an end to the right of the claimant to seek an enhancement of compensation. To say that the Deputy Commissioner can make a reference even after the right in that behalf is lost to the claimant, would be incongruous. Once the right of the claimant to enforce his claim itself is lost on the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, there is no question of the Deputy Commissioner who had violated the mandate of sub-section (3)(a) of Section 18 of the Act, reviving the right of the claimant by making a reference at his sweet will and pleasure, whatever be the inducement or occasion for doing so. On a harmonious understanding of the scheme of the Act in the light of the general principle that even though a right may not be extinguished, the remedy may become barred, it would be appropriate to hold that on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of an application for reference made within time under Section 18(1) of the Act, the remedy of the claimant to have a reference gets extinguished and the right to have an enhancement becomes unenforceable. The Deputy Commissioner would not be entitled to revive a claim
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 which has thus become unenforceable due to lapse of time or non-diligence on the part of the claimant.
21. The object of bringing in Section 18 in the amended form in Karnataka has been highlighted in the decisions of that Court. The object was to ensure that underhand deals did not take place in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and to prevent belated applications and predated applications being received by his office and references made, years after the acquisition is completed. The object was also to ensure that all matters in connection with an acquisition were completed within a reasonable time and claims for enhancement did not hang like Damocles' sword over the Government or over a company for the benefit of which the acquisition is undertaken. Therefore, any interpretation based on which the Deputy Commissioner is given the power to revive a claim which has become unenforceable, would defeat the very purpose for which Section 18 in the form in which it is, was enacted in the State of Karnataka. The majority in the Full Bench was, therefore, in error in thinking that the Deputy Commissioner could make a reference at any time at his sweet will and pleasure, notwithstanding the fact that the right to move the court in that behalf has been lost to the claimant himself.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020
22. The majority, in our view, has not properly appreciated the position highlighted in the decision of that Court in Asstt. Commr. v. Laxmi Bai [ILR 1987 Kant 2132] that the power to make a reference under Section 18(3) subsists till the right of the party to make an application before the court seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference exists and that the cessation of the right of the party to apply to the court for seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference, is also the point at which the power of the Deputy Commissioner to refer ceases. We think that this position logically emerges from the scheme of Section 18 of the Act as adopted in Karnataka.
23. The language of Section 18 is plain as indicated by the High Court. But the question is what is the scheme that has been formulated by Section 18 of the Act vis-à-vis a claim for enhancement. The scheme under Section 18 in Karnataka is a departure from the Central Act and the scheme in Karnataka has to be understood, based on the provisions in Section 18 as in Karnataka and the consequences emerging from it. The question whether the time fixed under Section 18(3)(a) is mandatory or directory and whether time fixed for performance of a duty is generally considered directory or mandatory are all questions that may not have much relevance
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 in the context of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act. Whether mandatory or directory, on the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within 90 days from the date of an application under Section 18(1) of the Act, the claimant is given the right to approach the Land Acquisition Court seeking the compelling of a reference by the Deputy Commissioner. Once the right to move for a compelled reference is lost to the claimant, on the scheme of Section 18, the very right to have a claim for enhancement would come to an end in view of the fact that the remedy in that behalf becomes barred. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner cannot revive that right to a reference.
xxxx
27. An application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act is to compel a reference by the Deputy Commissioner. We have held that on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference seeking enhancement the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference comes to an end. In that context, and in the context of the fact that the claimant himself loses his right to move the court for compelling a reference, it is not possible to hold that by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Land Acquisition Court the claimant can get over the bar
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 to the remedy created by Section 18 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application while approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and if the application is not within the time as indicated above, the same has only to be dismissed as was done in Thakoredas case [(1997) 11 SCC 412 : AIR 1994 SC 2227] .
28. In the light of our discussion as above, we hold that the High Court was in error in holding that the Deputy Commissioner could make a reference even after the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference made by the claimant within the time prescribed by Section 18(2) of the Act. We uphold the view of the High Court in Paramraj case [ILR (1991) 2 Kant 1109] that the remedy having become barred the right could not thereafter be enforced. In that context, we hold that the claimant while approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act would not be entitled to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the light of these, we allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court. We dismiss the applications for reference made by the claimants. We also uphold the view of the Land Acquisition Court that a reference made beyond the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of application for
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 reference by the Deputy Commissioner is incompetent. We hold that the respondents are not entitled to claim any enhancement by recourse to Section 18 of the Act. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.
10. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision clearly indicates that the right expressly provided under the statute stands extinguished on the expiry of 3 years and 90 days from the date of application for reference. In the instant case, the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant on 15.10.1994 and the claimant filed the reference application before the Authority on 02.01.1995. The filing of the application is within the period of 90 days as provided under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. Admittedly, the Authority makes the reference on 14.06.1999 which is beyond 3 years and 90 days. The Authority has no power to make reference beyond the period of 3 years and 90 days as well as the claimant loses his right to seek reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020
11. In our view, the Reference Court has committed a grave error in placing reliance on the decision of K.LAKSHMINARAYANA SASTRY, referred supra. In the said case, admittedly, no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant. Hence, the Court held that from the date of knowledge, the limitation provided under Section 18 of the Act starts. In the instant case, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is served. Though the reference is sought within 90 days from the date of service of notice, the actual reference by the Authority to the Civil Court is beyond 3 years and 90 days. In our considered view, the Deputy Commissioner / Authority under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act is empowered to make a reference within 90 days from the date of receipt of an application under sub-Section (1) to the Reference Court and the Reference Court can seek reference for the Deputy Commissioner, and the same also cannot be beyond period of 3 years and 90 days. In the instant case, the reference forwarded by the Authority is beyond 3 years and 90 days.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LAXUMAN, referred supra, clearly held that no time is fixed by the statute to make an application before the Reference Court under Section 18(3)(b). However, since the said application is made through a special enactment, the limitation of 3 years under Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable. Hence, the application for reference has to be made within 3 years of the application for making a reference or the expiry of 90 days after the application.
13. After a plain reading of Section 18 of the Act as amended by the Karnataka State Legislature and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LAXUMAN, referred supra, this Court finds the following :
(a) On issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act to the claimant, the claimant has the right under Section 18(2) of the Act to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 90 days for a reference to the Court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020
(b) On receipt of such an application, in accordance with Section 18(3)(a) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall make such a reference within a period of 90 days.
(c) If, the Deputy commissioner fails to make such a reference within a period of 90 days, the claimant has the right under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act to approach a Civil Court (the Reference Court), seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner for a reference.
(d) The claimant shall seek reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act within a period of 3 years and 90 days.
Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner cannot make reference beyond the period of 3 years and 90 days.
In the instant case, the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner is admittedly beyond 3 years and 90 days. Hence, the reference petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has committed a grave error in understating the provision of limitation
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6059-DB M.F.A. No.4211/2020 provided under Section 18 of the Act and made a reference holding that the reference is within the period of 3 years and 90 days. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2019 passed in LAC No.61/2006 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal is set aside.
15. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1