Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Antony Pauly Mukkannikkal on 31 October, 2025
-1-
WA No. 596 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPT. BY THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
Digitally KUDREMUKH WILDLIFE DIVISION
signed by KARKALA TALUK OFFICE JUNCTION
AMBIKA H B KUKKUNDOOR POST
Location: UDUPI - 574 104
High Court
of Karnataka
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT FIELD ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101
5. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT FIELD ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101
-2-
WA No. 596 of 2025
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
REVENUE SUB DIVISION
DISTRICT FIELD ROAD
VIJAYA NAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101
7. THE TAHSILDAR
BHARATHI STREET
SRINGERI - 577 139
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI ANTONY PAULY MUKKANNIKKAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O PAULY ANTONY
R/O NO.18C, LINK HERITAGE
KACHERIPADI, ERNAKULAM
KERALA - 682 018
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAVEEN R. NATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ATUL M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION No.2812/2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION No.
4639/2023 (GM-FOR) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
WA No. 596 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A.No.1/2025, the
same is allowed and the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
Introduction
2. The appellants (State of Karnataka) have filed the present
appeal impugning an order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ
Petition No.2812/2024 connected with Writ Petition No.4639/2023
(GM-FOR).
3. The respondent had filed the Writ Petition No.4639/2023
impugning the proceedings of District Level Committee held on
21.07.2022 insofar as it related to agenda No.4 in respect of the
writ petitioner.
4. The said meeting of the District Level Committee, which was
attended by 14 officials under the Chairmanship of the Deputy
Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District, Chikkamagalur was
convened, inter alia, to re-examine the question of compensation to
be paid to the respondent in respect of twenty Acres of land held by
the respondent in Muduba Village, Sringeri Taluk [the subject
land]. The value of the subject land including standing trees, was
assessed at Rs.3,65,76,173/-. It was noted that five acres of the
subject land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes (for
establishing a tourism centre) in the year 1993-94 in terms of the
land conversion order dated 28.02.1994 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Chikkamagalur. The Tahsildar, Sringeri was
instructed to provide information as to whether the respondent had
used the portion of the subject land measuring 5 (five) Acres for the
said purpose. It was further decided that if the land was used for
the purpose for which it was converted, the value of the said land
could be fixed on that basis.
5. The respondent challenged the said decision on the ground
that the State Government had already sanctioned
Rs.3,65,76,173/- taking into account that five acres of the land had
been converted for non-agricultural use; therefore, the District
Collector, being an authority subordinate to the State Government,
could not deny the compensation as fixed by examining whether
the five acres of land was used for non-agricultural purpose.
6. Subsequently, a meeting of the District Committee was held
on 03.12.2022 and the report of the Tahsildar, Sringeri to the effect
that the converted land (land measuring 5 Acres) had not been
developed was considered. On the basis of the said report, the
Committee decided that the amount of compensation in respect of
five acres of the subject land would be determined in the light of
available guidelines. However, the value of the remaining fifteen
acres of the subject land along with ex gratia, solatium and interest,
was determined at Rs.1,00,23,999/-. The writ petitioner
(respondent herein) being aggrieved by the decision to re-evaluate
the compensation of the subject land by the concerned Committee,
had filed the second writ petition, being Writ Petition No.2812/2024.
7. It is the writ petitioner's case that the appellants were
required to value the subject land by evaluating its potential -
including the possibility of developing the land - and not on the
basis whether the land was, in fact, used for the particular purpose.
The petitioner contended that the land was converted for non-
agricultural purposes and, therefore, the subject land's value is
required to be determined on the said basis. It is also contended
on behalf of the writ petitioner that the compensation is to be
determined on the basis of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement
Act, 2013 ['the 2013 Act'] and not on the basis of the value as
determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['the 1894 Act']
as the writ petitioner had decided to surrender the land after the
2013 Act came into force.
8. The appellant had framed a scheme for the Resettlement
and Rehabilitation package [the Resettlement Scheme] for project
displaced families of the Kudremukh National Park by a
Government Order dated 18.04.2005. The Kudremukh National
Park consisted of 90 hamlets belonging to 40 revenue villages,
which had about 1300 families, which were living in the outer
boundaries of the Kudremukh National Park. The Resettlement
Scheme was for the benefit of the said persons. In terms of the
said package, the evacuees would be eligible for compensation
fixed as per the "Land Acquisition Act for their own land, structure
and malki existing on their land". Notwithstanding that the package
was framed on 18.04.2005 - which is prior to the enactment of the
2013 Act - the writ petitioner contends that he would be entitled for
compensation under the 2013 Act, which had since come into
force. According to the writ petitioner, the date on which he agreed
to surrender its lands would be relevant for computing the
compensation and determinative of whether the compensation was
to be computed on the basis of the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act.
Impugned order
9. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. The
learned Single Judge held that the entire twenty acres of land fell
within the Kudremukh Forest area necessitating compulsory
surrender of the subject land to the Forest Department for the
Kudremukh National Park. Since the subject land was surrendered
in the year 2016, the compensation for the entire extent of the
subject land (20 Acres of land) was required to be determined
under the 2013 Act. The Court found that the compensation as
determined by the competent authority appeared to be arbitrary
and discriminatory and, accordingly, held that the writ petitioner's
request for reassessment of compensation is required to be
granted. The proceedings of the Committee, which were impugned
by the writ petitioner in the writ petitions (confined to the extent that
it related to the writ petitioner) were quashed and the Deputy
Commissioner (appellant No.4) was directed to re-determine the
compensation payable to the writ petitioner under the 2013 Act
taking into account that five acres of the land had been converted
for non-agricultural purpose.
Prefatory facts
10. One Mr. M.A. Antony had purchased 73 Acres of land in
Survey No.10/6 of Muduba Village on 09.08.1991. On 04.11.1997,
one Mr. Pauly Antony purchased twenty acres of land in Survey
No.10/6 [the subject land], which also included five acres of land
that was converted for non-agricultural use. Survey No.10/6 was
renumbered as Survey No.10/8, which comprised of five acres of
land converted for non-agricultural use; Survey No.10/9 which
comprised of land measuring 4.01 Acres; and Survey No.10/10
which comprised of land measuring 10.39 Acres. On 29.06.2016,
Mr.Pauly Antony gifted the properties in Survey Nos.10/8, 10/9 and
10/10 of Muduba Village to his son, the writ petitioner.
11. On 22.11.2016, the writ petitioner opted to surrender the
subject land to the Forest Department, to relocate to another place
and requested the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Karkala to pay
appropriate compensation for the subject land.
12. On 04.01.2019, a joint team of the officials of the Forest
Department inspected the subject land and assessed the value of
the property at Rs.3,65,76,173/-. The writ petitioner states that on
09.02.2022, the Government of Karnataka sanctioned the amount
of compensation of Rs.3,65,76,173/-. Thereafter, on 17.02.2022,
the Chief Conservator of Forests directed the Deputy Conservator
of Forests to sanction the amount of Rs.3,65,76,173/-.
13. On 02.05.2022, the Deputy Conservator of Forests
requested the Chief Conservator of Forest to release the
compensation package of Rs.10 crores in a single installment. It is
contended that the said amount included the compensation of
Rs.3,65,76,173/-assessed in respect of the subject land.
14. On 15.06.2022, the Chief Conservator of Forests requested
the Government of Karnataka to release the compensation to the
land losers under the Kudremukh Resettlement Scheme.
15. On 21.07.2022, the District Level Committee of which the
Deputy Commissioner is the President, discussed the issue of
compensation payable to the land losers under the settlement
scheme and decided that the amount would be released to the writ
petitioner only if the converted land (5 Acres of the land) had been
used for the purpose for which it was converted. As noted above,
the said decision was impugned by the writ petitioner in Writ
Petition No.4639/2023.
16. Thereafter, on 10.08.2022, the Tahsildar, Sringeri inspected
the subject property. He noted that there were certain ruins and
- 10 -
remains but reported that the five acres of the converted land was
not used for the purpose for which it was converted. On
03.12.2022, the District Level Committee resolved to sanction an
amount of Rs.1,00,23,999/- for a portion of the subject land
measuring fifteen acres and decided to determine the consideration
for the balance land on the basis of various circulars and guidelines
considering that the said land had not been used for non-
agricultural purpose.
Submissions
17. It is the appellants' case that the compensation under the
Resettlement Scheme is to be determined in terms of the said
scheme. Since the scheme refers to the Land Acquisition Act, the
same would be the 1894 Act, which was in force at the material
time. He submitted that the writ petitioner cannot claim higher
compensation for the reasons that he had elected to surrender his
land after the 2013 Act had come into force. It is also the
appellants' case that it cannot be compelled to acquire land and
pay compensation for the same.
18. Mr. Nath, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the writ
petitioner countered the aforesaid case. He referred to the
provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 ["the WLP Act"]
- 11 -
and submitted that in terms of Section 35 of the WLP Act, the State
Government is empowered to declare any area as a National Park.
He submitted that in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 35, the
provisions of Sections 19 to 26A of the WLP Act would apply for
investigation and determination of claims and extinguishment of
rights in relation to any lands in such area as they apply to the said
matters in relation to any land in a sanctuary. He submitted that in
terms of the said provisions, the compensation for surrender of
rights is required to be determined as provided under the 2013 Act.
19. Next, he submitted that Resettlement Scheme is a perpetual
scheme and it was open for the land owners to claim benefits of
that scheme at any point of time. He contended that the
compensation as payable would necessarily have to be determined
under the relevant statute for acquisition of lands. Since in the
present case, the writ petitioner had elected to surrender the land
after the 2013 Act came into force, the compensation is required to
be determined accordingly.
Reasons and Conclusions
20. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the proposal for
transfer of the land emanated from a letter dated 22.11.2016 sent
by the petitioner reads as under:
- 12 -
"To
Deputy Conservator Of Forests
Kudremukh Wildlife Division
Karkala Udupi Dist.
Subject: Voluntary rehabilitation from Kudremukh
National Park
Respected sir,
I am having a land parcel of 20 acres bearing
survey number 10/9, 10/10, 10/8 at Muduba village
inside the Kudremukh National Park. I wish to relocate
out side the national park as I am unable to conduct any
plantation and business activity on my land due to
intervention of wild animals and forest act. I request
You to consider appropriate compensation and
communicate to me accordingly.
Thanking You
Date: 22.11.2016 Yours Faithfully
Place: KARKALA Sd/-"
21. It is evident from the aforesaid letter that it was the writ
petitioner's request to take over the land and to consider payment
of apposite compensation and there was no proceedings for
compulsory acquisition of the subject land.
22. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that
the subject land falls within the Kudremukh National Park, which
necessitated the writ petitioner to compulsorily surrender the land
to the Forest Department for the Kudremukh National Park. It is
also apparent that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the
- 13 -
assumption that the subject land was required to be acquired by
the forest officials; therefore, the compensation is required to be
determined in terms of 2013 Act. Mr. Nath, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner had also advanced contentions on
the aforesaid basis. As noted hereinbefore, he had referred to
Section 35 of the WLP Act and contended that the subject land was
acquired under Sections 19 to 26-A of the WLP Act, which
necessarily entails that compensation be determined and paid
under the 2013 Act.
23. It is thus relevant to refer to relevant provisions of the WLP
Act. In terms of Section 19 of the WLP Act, when a notification is
issued by the State Government declaring its intention to constitute
an area as a sanctuary, the Collector is required to inquire and
determine as to the existence, nature and extent of the rights of
any person in and over the land comprised within the limits of the
sanctuary. Within a period of sixty days of the notification being
issued under Section 18 of the WLP Act, the Collector is required
to issue a proclamation, inter alia, requiring any person, claiming
any right mentioned in Section 19 of the WLP Act to prefer a written
claim in the prescribed form, specifying the nature and extent of
such right with necessary details and the amount and particulars of
- 14 -
the compensation, if any, claimed in respect of such rights. In
terms of Section 24 of the WLP Act, the Collector is required to
pass an order admitting or rejecting any claim to a right in or over
any land referred to in Section 19 of the WLP Act. Sub-section (2)
of Section of 24 of the WLP Act prescribes for the steps to be taken
if any claim is admitted. The Collector may either exclude the land
from the limits of the proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire
such land. Section 25 of the WLP Act contains provisions for
acquiring the land or rights in respect of the land.
24. It is relevant to set out Section 25 of the WLP Act, which
reads as under:
"25. Acquisition proceedings.--(1) For the purpose
of acquiring such land, or rights in or over such land,--
(a) the Collector shall be deemed to be a Collector,
proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
(b) the claimant shall be deemed to be a person
interested and appearing before him in pursuance of a
notice given under section 9 of that Act;
(c) the provisions of the sections, preceding Section 9
of that Act, shall be deemed to have been complied
with;
(d) where the claimant does not accept the award
made in his favour in the matter of compensation, he
shall be deemed, within the meaning of Section 18 of
the Act, to be a person interested who has not
accepted the award, and shall be entitled to proceed to
claim relief against the award under the provisions of
Part III of that Act;
- 15 -
(e) the Collector, with the consent of the claimant, or
the Court, with the consent of both the parties, may
award compensation in land or money or partly in land
and partly in money; and
(f) in the case of the stoppage of a public way or a
common pasture, the Collector may, with the previous
sanction of the State Government, provide for an
alternative public way or common pasture, as far as
may be practicable or convenient.
(2) The acquisition under this Act of any land or
interest therein shall be deemed to be acquisition for a
public purpose."
25. It is important to note that under Section 24(2) of the WLP
Act, the Collector can either exclude the land from the limits of the
proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire the said lands or rights.
26. Section 35 of the WLP Act contains provisions for
constituting National Parks. Section 35 of the WLP Act is
reproduced below:
35. Declaration of National Parks.--(1) Whenever it
appears to the State Government that an area, whether
within a sanctuary or not, is, by reason of its ecological,
faunal, floral, geomorphological or zoological
association or importance, needed to be constituted as
a National Park for the purpose of protecting,
propagating or developing wild life therein or its
environment, it may, by notification, declare its intention
to constitute such area as a National Park.
Provided that where any part of the territorial
waters is proposed to be included in such National
Park, the provisions of section 26-A shall, as far as
may be, apply in relation to the declaration of a
- 16 -
National Park as they apply in relation to the
declaration of a sanctuary.
(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1)
shall define the limits of the area which is intended to
be declared as a National Park.
(3) Where any area is intended to be declared as a
National Park, the provisions of Sections 19 to 26-A
(both inclusive except cause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 24) shall, as far as may be, apply to the
investigation and determination of claims, and
extinguishment of rights, in relation to any land in such
area as they apply to the said matters in relation to any
land in a sanctuary.
(4) When the following events have occurred,
namely,--
(a) the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and all
claims, if any, made in relation to any land in an area
intended to be declared as a National Park, have been
disposed of by the State Government, and
(b) all rights in respect of lands proposed to be included
in the National Park have become vested in the State
Government, the State Government shall publish a
notification specifying the limits of the area which shall
be comprised within the National Park and declare that
the said area shall be a National Park on and from
such date as may be specified in the notification.
(5) No alteration of the boundaries of a National
Park by the State Government shall be made except on
a recommendation of the National Board.
(6) No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any
wild life including forest produce from a National Park
or destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild
animal by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or
enhance the flow of water into or outside the National
Park, except under and in accordance with a permit
granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden, and no such
permit shall be granted unless the State Government
being satisfied in consultation with the National Board
that such removal of wild life from the National Park or
- 17 -
the change in the flow of water into or outside the
National Park is necessary for the improvement and
better management of wild life therein, authorises the
issue of such permit:
Provided that where the forest produce is removed
from a National Park, the same may be used for
meeting the personal bona fide needs of the people
living in and around the National Park and shall not be
used for any commercial purpose.
(7) No grazing of any live-stock shall be permitted
in a National Park and no live-stock shall be allowed to
enter therein except where such live-stock is used as a
vehicle by a person authorised to enter such National
Park.
(8) The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Sections
30 to 32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
Section 33, Section 33-A and Section 34 shall, as far
as may apply in relation to a National Park as they
apply in relation to a sanctuary.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, in
case of an area, whether within a sanctuary or not,
where the rights have been extinguished and the land
has become vested in the State Government under any
Act or otherwise, such area may be notified by it, by a
notification, as a National Park and the proceedings
under Sections 19 to 26 (both inclusive) and the
provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section
shall not apply."
27. It is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (4) of
Section 35 of the WLP Act that the State Government is required to
publish a notification specifying the limits of the area which, shall
be comprised in a National Park after the period for preferring
claims has elapsed and all claims made in relation to land in an
area intended to be declared as a National Park stand disposed of.
- 18 -
28. In terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 35, the provisions of
Sections 19 to 26-A of the WLP Act are applicable for investigation
and determination of claims, and extinguishment of rights, in
relation to any land in such area as it may apply to a sanctuary.
Thus, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the WLP Act, the
Collector may either exclude the lands from the limits of proposed
sanctuary or proceed to acquire the same. The said provisions are
equally applicable to the limits of the area comprised in a National
Park.
29. The Government of Karnataka had issued a notification
under Section 35(1) of the WLP Act declaring its intention to
constitute the area described in the schedule to the notification
dated 02.09.1987 as the Kudremukh National Park. The said
notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 24.09.1987.
The State Government had, thereafter, issued a notification dated
16.06.2001 under Sub-section (4) of Section 35 of the WLP Act
declaring that the areas as mentioned in the schedule, set out in
the said notification, shall be comprised within the National Park
called the Kudremukh National Park, with effect from the date of
publication. The notification expressly excluded certain areas set
out in a tabular statement set out in the said notification. In terms
- 19 -
of the said notification, the revenue villages, patta lands, revenue
lands, gomal lands and such other areas that did not form State
Forests and Reserve Forests were excluded from the areas
constituting the Kudremukh National Park. The last paragraph of
the said notification dated 16.06.2001 is relevant and is set out
below:
"The National Park shall not include any of the
Revenue villages, patta lands, revenue lands, gomal
lands and such other areas which do not form any part
of the above mentioned State Forests and Reserve
Forests. The encroached area ordered for
regularization under Government Order No.FEE 5
FGL 90 dated 05.05.1997 falling under Kudremukh
National Park is also excluded from the National Park.
The various rights of way and rights of water as
notified in C statements of the respective Reserve
Forests shall continue."
30. In view of the above, the assumption of the learned Single
Judge that the lands owned by the writ petitioner were required to
be compulsorily acquired, is erroneous. There is no material to
establish that the Government of Karnataka was required to
acquire the subject lands either under the 1894 Act or 2013 Act.
The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this ground
alone. The contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner to
the aforesaid effect are also erroneous for the aforesaid reasons.
- 20 -
31. The petitioner's challenge to the impugned proceedings of
the District Level Committee is required to be construed bearing in
mind that the subject lands were never acquired nor were required
to be acquired by the State Government. The question of
compensation payable to the writ petitioner is required to be
determined on the basis of the Resettlement Scheme, if the same
is found applicable.
32. It would be relevant to note that under the Resettlement
Scheme - as set out in the Government Order dated 18.04.2005 -
there was no compulsion on the part of the writ petitioner to
surrender the land. However, the writ petitioner could avail the
benefit of the Resettlement Scheme if the same is applicable. We
consider it apposite to set out the following relevant extract of the
Resettlement Scheme (Government Order No.RD 26 REH 2003,
Bangalore dated 18.04.2005):
"As per the reports of the Deputy
Commissioners and Deputy conservator of Forest to
The Government, for the rehabilitation & resettlement
of project Displaced Families (PDF) of Kudremukh
National Park, Which consists of 90 Hamlets belonging
to 40 revenue villages and about 1300 families living
within the outer boundaries of Kudremukh National
park, for whom it is proposed to give the following
Rehabilitation & Resettlement package.
I. The Resettlement & Rehabilitation package is worked
out as under :-
- 21 -
a. The evacuees will be eligible for
compensation fixed as per Land Acquisition Act for
their own land, structure, and malki existing on their
land.
b. Those who have encroached Revenue land
and who are eligible to be regularized as per the
existing rules will be eligible for compensation for the
those land.
c. The encroaches of Minor Forest and State
Forest will be eligible for compensation for the area
encroached prior to 1980 and are eligible to be
regularized.
II) House Plot: Every Family so displaced fro
Kundremukh National Park will be eligible for free
house plot as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
II) Each PDF from National Park including major (2)
sons and unmarried daughters above 35 year age are
eligible for a house construction grant of Rs 30,000. if
the number of members of the family are more than 5
and less anf Rs 40,000 if the number of members of
the family more than 5.
III) PDFs allowed to carry salvage materials free of cost
IV) Transporation-
Each PDFs is eligible for Rs 5,000 if the number
of members of the family is 5 and less and Rs 8000.00
if the number of members of the family is more than 5
as a lump sum grant,
V) Full Royalty on stones and sand used by each PDF
waived
VI)PDF will be eligible for subsistence grant of Rs 2800
per month for 6 months,
VII) They will also be eligible to land purchase
grant as follows:
xxx xxx xxx"
- 22 -
33. It is apparent from the plain language of the Resettlement
Scheme that the same is for the benefit of the evacuees, for the
purpose of rehabilitating them. It is in this context that the State
Government had provided for the compensation to be paid to the
evacuees under the Land Acquisition Act. It is apparent that the
compensation to be determined is not for any compulsory
acquisition but, it is part of the rehabilitation scheme framed at the
material time.
34. Thus, the compensation as entailed in the Resettlement
Scheme is required to be quantified on the basis as offered by the
State Government. The reference to the 1894 Act is only for the
purpose of determining the quantum of compensation as offered at
the material time. Since at the material time, the 1894 Act was in
force and the 2013 Act had not been enacted, the compensation
payable is necessarily to be construed as an amount determined
under the 1894 Act. The contention that since the writ petitioner
had decided to surrender the land in the year 2016, the
compensation is required to be determined under the 2013 Act, is
unsustainable. The 2013 Act is inapplicable as there are no
proceedings either under the erstwhile 1894 Act or under the 2013
Act, to acquire the subject land. The petitioner's claim for
- 23 -
compensation arises from the benefit available under the
Resettlement Scheme which was framed in 2005 to accord benefit
to certain evacuees. The quantum of compensation is required to
be pegged to the date when the offer was made. The contention
that the Resettlement Scheme is an open ended scheme and the
value of compensation would increase over a period of time,
misconstrues not only the language of the Resettlement Scheme
but also disregards the nature of the scheme. It overlooks purpose
and object of the scheme, which was to rehabilitate the project
displaced families (PDF).
35. We also find merit in the appellant's contention that the
process for surrender of the land and transfer of the same has not
been completed. Therefore, no direction for release of the
compensation could be issued prior to the process being
completed.
36. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
had also drawn attention of this Court to the letter sent by the
Deputy Conservator of Forests to the petitioner's advocate in
response to his letter dated 04.11.2024, which indicates that the
State had called upon the petitioner to register 15 Acres of land in
favour of the Karnataka Forest Department for release of the
- 24 -
amount of Rs.1,00,23,999/- but, no steps have been taken in that
regard. It is also communicated that if the necessary steps are not
taken, the budgets available may lapse.
37. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the internal
communication dated 07.03.2025 sent by the Additional Chief
Secretary to the Government, Wildlife and Environment
Department to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
highlighting that it is not necessary for taking possession of the
subject land and further, the acquisition is not compulsory and the
respondent's land has not been acquired as yet.
38. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is
unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside.
39. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
AHB
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
