Karnataka High Court

Sri. S Balaji vs The Land Acquistion Officer And on 16 June, 2025

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                       PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

    THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.633 OF 2019
                    (LAC)
BETWEEN:

1. SRI. S. BALAJI
   S/O. LATE BYRAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
   R/AT SRIRANGANATHA NILAYA
   7TH CROSS,
   SREE CHANNABASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
   UPPARAHALLI
   TUMAKURU

2. SRI. VEERABHADHRAIAH
   S/O. LATE NANJAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
   R/AT SOGENAHALLI VILLAGE
   KASABA HOBLI
   MADHUGIRI TALUK
   TUMAKURU DISTRICT

3. SRI. S.N. BYRAPPA
   S/O. LATE NANJAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
   R/AT SOGENAHALLI VILLAGE
   KASABA HOBLI
   MADHUGIRI TALUK
   TUMAKURU DISTRICT                        ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
 -

                               2




AND:

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION
MADHUGIRI - 572 132
TUMAKURU DISTRICT                          ... RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI. G.S. ARUN, AGA)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND    JMFC,    MADHUGIRI     IN    L.A.C.NO.1/2014  AND
CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER TO TRIAL COURT FOR
FRESH ADJUDICATION.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT     ON   05.06.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
            and
            HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This MFA is filed by the petitioners/appellants under

Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for

short) aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2018 passed in

LAC No.1/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Madhugiri ('Reference Court' for short).

2. We have heard Shri. G.S. Venkat Subbarao,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri.

G.S.Arun, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondent.

3. Appellants No.1, 2 and 3 are the absolute owners

of property bearing Sy.No.11/1 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas

situated at Pujarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Madhugiri

Taluk. The said land was acquired by respondent by

awarding a compensation of Rs.1,71,743/-.

4. The appellants, not being aware of the legal

remedies available to them to seek enhancement of

compensation did not obtain any legal assistance nor did

they approach any authorities for seeking enhancement.

However, the award amount was received on 03.07.2013,

after which they approached the competent Court by filing

an application under Section 18 of the LA Act and also filed

an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,

1963 ('Limitation Act' for short) for condoning the delay of

107 days in filing the above application.

5. The Reference Court dismissed the application

holding that the petitioner had failed to make an application

within 90 days from the date of service of notice of Award

and no reasons were made out in the interim application to

prove that the delay caused was unintentional. It was held

that before receiving the amount on 03.07.2013, the

petitioners were duly served with three notices, which were

also acknowledged by them.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellants that the Reference Court has allowed the

respondent to cross-examine the witness, PW.1 even when

the respondent has not filed any objections to the

application filed, seeking condonation of delay. It is further

contended that since there was no objection raised nor any

material produced to show that the notices under Section 12

of the LA Act had been served on the appellants/petitioners,

the Reference Court erred in rejecting the application. It is

contended that the appellants are illiterate land losers and

that the order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to

be remanded to the Reference Court to consider whether the

notices under Section 12 of the LA Act had actually been

served on the appellants and whether the application is

actually belated.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends

that the language of Section 18(2) of the LA Act is perfectly

clear. The Reference Court could not have entertained an

application which was filed beyond 90 days from the date of

the award or the date on which the land loser was informed

about the passing of the award, whichever is later. It is

submitted that in the instant case, the land losers admitted

case was that the award amount was received on

03.07.2013 and that the application under Section 18 of the

LA Act was preferred belatedly after 107 days from the

expiry of the period of 90 days. It is submitted that an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act per se was

not maintainable in the light of the provisions of Section

18(2) of the LA Act. After admitting that the application was

belated, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the

respondent had not raised the question of limitation.

8. We have considered the contentions advanced.

Section 18 of the LA Act as amended and applicable in

Karnataka specifically provides as follows:

"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 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 [or the amendment] 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. It is therefore clear that an application under

Section 18 of the LA Act for a reference has to be made

within a period of 90 days from the date of the award or

from the date of receipt of notice of the award. In the

instant case, it appears that the petitioners themselves had

pleaded that three notices had been issued to them. It was

also the specific pleading in the petition filed under Section 5

of the Limitation Act preferred before the Reference Court

that the award amount was paid on 03.07.2013 and that the

application under Section 18 of the LA Act is being filed

belatedly.

10. The Apex Court has clearly held that the time

limit provided under Section 18(2) of the LA Act is

mandatory in nature and no application can be preferred

beyond the period as provided in the Statute.

(i) In the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land

Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal

and others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 414, the Apex Court

has clearly held that, if the application for reference is not

made within time, the Collector will not have the power to

make the reference. Further, if the reference is wrongly

made by the Collector, the Court will have to determine the

validity of the reference.

(ii) In the case of Bhagwan Das and others v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 3

SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that in paragraph No.31,

which reads as follows:-

"31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchanama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so."

(iii) In the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal and

others v. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acqusition

Officer and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC

1707, the Apex Court has held that in paragraph No.17,

which reads as follows:-

"17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal (supra) and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitation for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning the delay in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ Petition No.1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In the aforesaid two decisions before this Court, there were no such facts. Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand."

11. It is also clear from a plain reading of the

provision that what is intended is that the application must

be filed within 90 days from when the land loser is made

aware of the fact of the award. In the instant case,

admittedly, the award amount has been disbursed on

03.07.2013. In the affidavit filed in support of the

application to condone the delay in preferring LAC

No.1/2014, the claimants state that they have received the

compensation under protest and are not satisfied with the

compensation awarded. They state that they had requested

the Land Acquisition Officer to send the records for higher

compensation to the Civil Court but have not received any