[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dhanalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29527 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O R. PRAKASH REDDY,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
NO.24, 209, 4TH MAIN,
6A CROSS, PANDURANGA NAGAR,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560076.
2. SMT. KOMALA
W/O SATHISH REDDY P.S.R.
AGE: 62 YEARS,
NO.385 & 386, 18TH E MAIN ROAD
BLOCK, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560095.
MANJANNA 3. SMT. BHARATHI
E W/O GANESH REDDY,
Digitally signed by
AGE: 58 YEARS,
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT 291, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.16 15:36:05
JIGINI HOBLI, HULIMANGALA,
+0530
BANGALORE-560105.
4. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O LOKESH REDDY,
D/O ROJAMMA
AGE: 56 YEARS,
NO.11, 3RD CROSS,
VINAYAKA GREEN LAYOUT,
KANNUR, BANGALORE-562149.
5. SMT. KOKILA
W/O NAGESH REDDY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
D/O ROJAMMA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
NO.03, NEAR ANJENAYA TEMPLE,
SUBRAMANI LAYOUT,
HULIMANGALA, JIGINI,
BANGALORE-560105.
6. SMT. K. HEMA
W/O. K. SADASHIVA REDDY,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
NO.59-60, AIKYA RESIDENCY,
10TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
HULIMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560056
NO.644, K.R. GARDEN ,
8TH BLOCK, 11TH CROSS ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.
7. SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.3, MSR MEADOWS,
K. NO.5/6, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560076
8. SRI R. MANJUNATHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O RAMA REDDY,
R/AT 267, 7TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUBBAREDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE-1
METRO RAILWAY PROJECT,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
(METRO RAIL WAY PROJECT)
1ST FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
B.M.T.C. COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
5. SRI ATUL KUMAR
S/O K.N. BAGARA,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.26/3, SRINIVASA NIVASA,
2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
K.V. LAYOUT, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560011.
6. SRI B. PRASANNAIAH
S/O BRAHMASURAIAH,
NO.07, 1ST MAIN,
KAS OFFICER COLONY,
J.P. NAGAR, 4TH STAGE,
BENGALURU-560078.
7. SRI K.V. SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O VENKATAPPA,
NO.398, 1ST FLOOR,
6TH BLOCK, 18TH MAIN,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560095.
8. SRI H.S. SURESH
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH,
NO.25, 1ST MAIN,
RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR,
DOLLURU COLONY,
BENGALURU-560096.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI SHARAN P. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6;
NOTICES TO R-7 & R-8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED
12.09.2025 BEARING NO.KIADB/METRO-ACQ/115/2025-26 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO 3 NOT TO DISBURSE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE- A AND TO REFER THE MATTER BEFORE THE REFERENCE
COURT FOR DETERMINATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court calling in
question the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), KIADB, under
Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short) in respect of
land bearing Survey No.18/12, Roopena Agrahara Village,
Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 241.73
square meters.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late
Nanjappa Reddy, who was the owner and cultivator of
several properties, including Survey Nos.18/6, 18/7, 18/8,
18/9 and 18/12 in Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. These lands were originally
notified for acquisition by the BDA for formation of a
layout between Hosur road and Sarjapur road under
preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 and final
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
notification dated 28.11.1986. The State Government
withdrew the acquisition and de-notified Survey Nos.18/8
and 18/12 vide notification dated 26.11.2002. After the
death of Nanjappa Reddy in 1988, dispute arose inter se
among his legal heirs regarding division of his properties,
leading to several litigations in O.S No.1800/1982, O.S.
No.136/2000, O.S. No.2825/2003, O.S. No.263/2003 and
RFA No.1975/2013.
3. In 2019, the KIADB again initiated acquisition of
Survey Nos.18/12 and 18/8 for the Metro Rail project. One
of the legal heirs submitted representations to the SLAO
explaining the title dispute. Since the SLAO failed to act on
the representations, W.P. No.5358/2019 was filed and this
Court directed the SLAO to consider the representations
and hear all the concerned parties. The petitioners filed
objection asserting that Survey Nos.18/8 and 18/12
belonged to late Nanjappa Reddy. Despite this, the SLAO
passed an award on 26.11.2019 directing release of
compensation to certain respondents.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. The petitioners challenged that award in W.P.
No.954/2021. Later, the SLAO issued another notice dated
07.08.2025, stating that the petitioners must produce title
documents in compliance with the order passed in W.P.
No.24731/2024, where this Court had set aside the
general award and directed passing of a consent award
subject to verification of title and restoration of general
award, if rival claims exist. The petitioners appeared,
produced documents and sought reference of the matter
to a Civil Court due to the title dispute. The SLAO passed
the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 under Section 29
(2) of the KIAD Act, adjudicating title and directing
disbursement of compensation instead of referring the
dispute to the jurisdiction of the civil Court.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners
contends that, Survey No.18/12 originally belonged to late
Nanjappa Reddy and has been the subject of a long-
standing dispute inter se among the parties. The SLAO,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
despite being presented with rival claims, ought to have
referred the matter under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act, 1894' for short). It is
submitted that the SLAO had no jurisdiction to decide title,
especially when complex issues of inheritance and
computing claims are pending adjudication before the Civil
Courts including RFA No.1975/2013. It is further
contended that only 23 guntas were de-notified in 2002
and petitioners' rights survive in remaining extent.
Therefore, SLAO's conclusion that the petitioners had no
subsisting right is erroneous. It is contended that the very
premise on which the SLAO has proceeded is
fundamentally flawed. It is contended that 'there is no
concept of consent award' under the KIAD Act, and the
expression used in W.P. No.24731/2024 cannot be
construed to confer on the SLAO any jurisdiction to decide
questions of title. The core submission is that the SLAO
had no authority under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act to
adjudicate upon rival and complex claims of ownership and
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
that the impugned order amounts to the SLAO acting as a
Civil Court in determining questions of title - an exercise
strictly reserved for the Land Acquisition Court under
Section 30 of the LA Act, 1894. It is further contended that
the SLAO has passed the impugned order contrary to the
existence of rival claims, despite the express direction in
W.P. No.24731/2024 that if rival claims emerge, the
general award must be restored. It is a specific case of the
petitioners that the extent of 241.73 square meters
acquired for the Metro Rail project is part of 23 guntas
that were de-notified under the notification dated
26.11.2002. The petitioners assert that this de-notified
portion is the very area that continues to remain in the
name of original ancestor and therefore, forms part of
their undivided family property.
6. Learned senior counsel stresses that a careful
reading of the objections filed by the petitioners clearly
reveals the contention that the land now being awarded to
respondent Nos.5 and 6 forms part of the de-notified 23
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
guntas and that the SLAO had failed to record any finding
on this pivotal aspect. The question therefore is whether
the extent withdrawn from the acquisition is the same land
now acquired by the KIADB and whether such land would
ever have been treated as property belonging to
respondent No.5. It is argued that the SLAO has
completely overlooked this aspect thereby vitiating the
award.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-
KIADB submits that a conjoint reading of Sections 28 (2),
29 and 30 of the KIAD Act, together with Section 11 of the
LA Act, 1894 which corresponds to Section 23 of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 ('Act, 2013' for short), makes it
evident that the SLAO is empowered to determine prima
facie entitlement and decide whether a genuine rival
claims exist. It is argued that not every objections or
competing assertions must automatically be referred to
the Civil Court under Section 30 of the LA Act, 1894, the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
statutory scheme contemplates that only such disputes
which involve complicated questions of title warrant
interference. Learned counsel submits that the material on
record demonstrates that the de-notified portion pertains
to the land purchased by the petitioners, and not the land
acquired by the KIADB for Metro Rail project. The land
acquired by the KIADB had already been subjected to
objections long back and those objections were
considered, adjudicated and now cannot be reopened or
erased merely because of an inter-family dispute. Drawing
the attention specifically to paragraph No.27 of the
objection learned counsel asserts that the SLAO has
correctly recorded that the acquired portion of 241.73
square meters lies within the BDA-acquired and BDA-
allotted area, and bears no correlation with the 23 guntas
that were withdrawn under Annexure - R3.
8. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5
and 6 submits that the dispute raised by the petitioners is
purely an inter se family dispute among the heirs of late
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
Nanjappa Reddy, and respondents Nos.5 and 6 are
strangers to those disputes. They stress that all the
petitioners' suits as well as RFA pertain to different extents
of Survey No.18/12 and do not disturb the BDA allotment
or KIADB acquisition. Learned senior counsel places
reliance on Annexure - R3, which clearly shows that out of
Survey No.18/12, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas, only 23
guntas were de-notified, and remaining 1 acre 11 guntas
continued with the BDA. It is submitted that BDA
thereafter allotted 2.398 guntas (corresponding to 241.73
square meters) to Karnataka Income Tax Departmental
House Building Cooperative Society from whom
respondent Nos.5 and 6 derived their title through
registered transactions. Reference is made to serial
number 7 and 8 of the synopsis, which show that
allotment to the society and subsequent sale in favour of
respondent Nos.5 and 6. Learned senior counsel asserts
that at no point, did the petitioners file any objections to
the acquisition or allotment in favour of respondent Nos.5
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
and 6, nor did they challenge the final notification of BDA's
title. Hence, the petitioners cannot now contest the
allotment or compensation.
9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3
places reliance on the following judgments:
i. Mujahid B. Makki and others Vs. The State
of Karnataka and others1 (Mujahid B. Makki)
ii. S. Venkatashamappa Vs. State of
Karnataka and others2 (S.
Venkatashamappa)
iii. Afzal Bee Vs. The Special Deputy Collector
and others3 (Afzal Bee)
iv. N. Somashekar and others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others4 (N. Somashekar)
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and
others Vs. Kashi Prasad Dwivedi and
others5 (Kashi Prasad)
1
W.P. No.15300/2020 D.D. 12.12.2023
2
ILR 2003 KAR 4496
3
AIR 1978 AP 463
4
(1997) 7 Kant LJ 410
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides,
the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
ground to interfere with the impugned order dated
12.09.2025 passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 29(2) of the
KIAD Act, and whether the SLAO was required to
mandatorily refer the rival claims to the
jurisdictional Civil Court under Section 30 of the
LA Act?"
11. The SLAO by the impugned order held that the
petitioners have not challenged the acquisition notification.
Even if they succeed in the partition suit, they would be
entitled only to the BDA compensation already deposited
not to the compensation payable under the KIAD Act.
Further, it held that the documents submitted by the
claimants establish purchase of 2.398 guntas, including
chain of title from BDA allotment to Karnataka Income Tax
Departmental House Building Co-Operative Society and
the sale deed in favour of claimant Nos.1 and 2. The SLAO
5
(2007) 15 SCC 205
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
has concluded that the title stands established in favour of
claimant No.2 and that the objectors' claim arising out of
the partition and declaration suit does not affect the
acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the SLAO has
ordered that the compensation under Section 28(2) of the
KIAD Act in respect of Survey No.18/12, measuring
241.73 square meters, be paid in favour of claimant No.2,
Sri Atul Kumar.
12. The material on record demonstrates that the
land bearing Survey No.18/12 Roopena Agrahara Village,
measuring 1 acre 34 guntas were notified for acquisition
under the final notification dated 29.11.1986. Possession
was taken on 23.04.1988. A general award was passed
and compensation was deposited before the Civil Court.
The petitioners have never challenged these proceedings.
The petitioners contend that the extent of 241.73 square
meters now acquired by the KIADB constitute a portion of
23 guntas that was de-notified by the State Government in
2002 and therefore, continues to remain part of the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
ancestral estate of late Nanjappa Reddy. It is urged that, if
the de-notified portion vested back in the family, the SLAO
could not have treated that the said extent belongs to
respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioners submit that the
SLAO failed to appreciate this aspect and mechanically
proceeded to accept the title of respondent Nos.5 and 6
without correlating the acquired portion to the de-notified
land or conducting an independent verification of the
properties.
13. On careful consideration of the rival
submissions, this contention cannot be accepted, as the
petitioners have failed to produce any material showing
that extent of 241.73 square meters is included within the
boundaries of de-notified 23 guntas.
14. Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act obligates the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider objections
raised by the persons interested in the land. Section 29
empowers the SLAO to determine the amount of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
compensation and the person to whom such compensation
is payable, while Section 30 contemplates a reference to a
Civil Court only when the SLAO finds himself unable to
decide the dispute regarding apportionment of
entitlement.
15. Sections 11 (1) and 11 (3) of the LA Act, 1894
is akin to Section 23 of the Act, 2013, which envisages an
administrative determination of compensation and
entitlement at the first instance.
16. A conjoint reading of these provisions makes it
clear that the statutory scheme does not mandate an
automatic reference to the Civil Court upon every
objections or rival claim. The duty cast upon the SLAO is
to first examine whether the claim raised is genuine,
substantial and supported by material or whether it is
merely an assertion arising of collateral or inter se
disputes. Only when the question of entitlement involves
complicated or intractable issues of title, incapable of
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
prima facie determination on record, thus Section 30 gets
attracted.
17. In the present case, the objections raised by
the petitioners are founded primarily on intra family
disputes among the legal heirs of late Nanjappa Reddy.
The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition
notification, the vesting of land or the BDA's allotment
proceedings. The record unmistakably shows that only 23
guntas in Survey No.18/12 stood de-notified, while
remaining extent continued to vest with the BDA from
which 2.398 guntas (241.73 square meters) was
subsequently allotted and conveyed through registered
documents. The petitioners have failed to place any cogent
material demonstrating that the acquired extent of 241.73
square meters forms part of the de-notified land. Their
assertion remains unsupported by boundary descriptions,
survey sketch, or revenue records. In contrast, the SLAO
has relied upon the acquisition records. The surveyor's
report, BDA's allotment, documents and registered
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
conveyances, which collectively establish a clear prima
facie chain of title in favour of respondents Nos.5 and 6.
18. In Afzal Bee's case, at paragraph No.6, it is
held as under:
"6. If Sections 11, 29, 30 and 18 are read
together, it becomes obvious that the Land
Acquisition Officer has the jurisdiction to apportion
the compensation among the persons interested
while making an award. That necessarily means
that he has the jurisdiction to decide questions of
title if such questions are raised before him. But
instead of deciding the question of title himself, he
has the option to refer such questions to the Court
under Section 30 of the Act. Naturally, where
complicated questions of title arise, the Land
Acquisition Officer will be expected to refer the
questions for the decision of the Court under
Section 30. But where the questions raised are
simple, the Land Acquisition Officer may himself
deal with them and incorporate his decision in the
award. If he does so and if a party is aggrieved by
the apportionment of compensation, such party
may seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer on
the basis of the revenue records came to the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to
any share in certain survey Nos. He issued notice
but the petitioner did not choose to adduce any
evidence in support of her claim in regard to her
share in those survey numbers. The entire amount
of compensation in regard to those survey numbers
was awarded to respondents 2, 3 and 4. It does not
appear that the Land Acquisition Officer has
exceeded his jurisdiction in making such award."
19. The said decision was placed reliance by this
Court in S. Venkatashamappa's case, wherein at
paragraph No.9, it is held as under:
"9. Thus, by a conjoined reading of Section
29 of the Development Act and Section 11 of the
Act, the Deputy Commissioner has to hold an
enquiry regarding the entitlement of a person to
claim and receive compensation. In the process of
conducting an enquiry regarding the entitlement as
held by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court by Justice Chinnappa Reddy, as he then was,
cited by the learned Counsel for the contesting
respondent in Afzal Bee vs. Spl. Deputy Collector
and others (supra), the Land Acquisition Officer has
jurisdiction to decide even the question of title if it
is raised before him. But, if he feels that the
'question of title' is a complicated one, he may refer
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
the matter to a Civil Court. The process of deciding
the claim of the claimant necessarily carries with if
the obligation of applying his mind to the material
produced or available on record in a fair manner,
fairness means that if the land Acquisition Officer
wants to use any adverse material or document
adverse to the interest of claimant, it can only be
done after drawing the attention of the claimant to
the adverse material and soliciting his comments or
objections, etc. By not doing so, he would be
violating the elementary principles of natural
justice. Similarly, while conducting the enquiry as
stated above, the Land Acquisition Officer will be
performing statutory functions and therefore, has to
independently take a decision on the basis of
records available before him and cannot act on the
dictates of any authority however superior he may
be."
20. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
while dealing with a similar issue in the case of Mujahaid
B. Makki stated supra, and taking into consideration the
referred judgments, has held at paragraph No.29 as
under:
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
"29. As the Apex Court has settled the legal
proposition that the land acquisition officer has
jurisdiction to look into the issues pertaining to title
barring complicated issues of title, perusal of the
impugned award reveal that the respondent No.6-
SLAO apart from taking note of orders, judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.5220/1992, RFA
No.670/2005, W.P.Nos.7797- 98/2019 and also
taking note of the deeds of sale, revenue records
furnished by private respondents has come to the
conclusion that the private respondents had
established their right over the properties
purchased by them. The narration of facts and
reasons assigned by the respondent 6-SLAO in the
impugned awards cannot be said to be the one
without application of mind. There is indeed
reference to the details of the objections raised by
the petitioners and determination of the same."
21. From the referred judgments above, the law
laid down is that the statutory scheme under the LA Act,
1894 and the KIAD Act contemplates that the SLAO is the
primary authority to consider objections, assess
compensation and determine prima facie entitlement to
compensation. The SLAO does not act as a mere
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
forwarding authority but is required to apply its mind to
the material on record and arrive at a reasoned
conclusion.
22. The Courts have consistently held that every
rival claim or objection does not mandatorily require a
reference to the Civil Court under Section 30. A reference
is warranted only when dispute involves complicated or
intricate questions of title which cannot be resolved on
basis of the documents available before the SLAO. Where
the questions of entitlement is simple, based on registered
documents, revenue records, acquisition records or
allotment proceedings, the SLAO himself decide the issue
and incorporates such findings in the award. Only where a
title dispute is complex requiring detailed evidence and
adjudication, thus the duty to refer arise.
23. The law requires that the objection raised under
Section 28 (2) must be substantive, specific and supported
by cogent material. Mere assertion, vague claims or
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
disputes arising out of collateral or intra family litigation
without linkage to the acquired land, do not compel a
reference. Failure to do with insubstantial objections does
not vitiate the award.
24. Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894 and Section 23
of Act 2013 recognize that the award is, at the first
instance, an administrative determination. An aggrieved
party is not left remediless while dissatisfied with
apportionment of entitlement such party may seek a
reference under Section 18 or Section 30, as the case may
be. The SLAO does not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court merely by determining entitlement under Section
29. Such determination is incidental and statutory in
nature and cannot be equated with final adjudication of
title inter se parties.
25. The law being well settled that the Land
Acquisition Officer is competent to decide prima facie
entitlement under Section 29 of the KIAD Act and a
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
reference under Section 30 is warranted only where
dispute involves complicated questions of title. Mere rival
assertion of pending civil disputes do not make a
reference.
26. In such circumstances and from the facts
narrated above and the petitioners having failed to
produce any cogent material demonstrating that the
acquired extent 241.73 square meters forms part of the
de-notified land, their assertion remains unsupported. The
SLAO has relied upon the acquisition records in the
surveyor's report, BDA allotment documents and
registered conveyance, which collectively establish a prima
facie chain of title in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6.
The SLAO, cannot be said to usurped the jurisdiction of a
Civil Court. The exercise undertaken by the SLAO is
squarely within the corners of Section 29, namely to
assess objections, scrutinize competing claims and decide
entitlement, where the dispute is not complex.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
27. The petitioners' contention that rival claim must
necessarily be referred to under Section 30, if accepted
would render Section 29 otiose, and defeat the legislative
intent of administrative scrutiny at the stage of
acquisition. Accordingly, this Court finds that the SLAO has
acted within the authority conferred under Sections 28 (2),
29 and 30 of the KIAD Act, read with Section 11 of the LA
Act, 1894 and equivalent to under Section 23 of the Act,
2013. The objection raised by the petitioners does not
disclose a genuine rival claim warranting reference to the
Civil Court and accordingly, the point framed for
consideration is answered and finding of entitlement
recorded in the impugned order is based on material
evidence and does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8592
WP No. 29527 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
CT-RM
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2
