[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Lokare Venkoba Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026

                                                      -1-
                                                                   NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896
                                                                WP No. 108589 of 2017
                                                            C/W WP No. 110071 of 2019

                        HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
                                 DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                    BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 108589 OF 2017 (LA-RES)
                                                      C/W
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 110071 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

                       IN WP No. 108589/2017:
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   LOKARE VENKOBA RAO
                            S/O. LATE NAGENDRA RAO,
                            AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

                       2.   RAGHUNATH RAO
                            S/O. LATE NAGENDRA RAO,
                            AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

                       3.   RATAN RAO
                            S/O. LATE NAGENDRA RAO,
                            AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

                       4.   BABU @ SATYANARAYAN
                            S/O. PRABHAKAR
                            AGED: ABOUT 35 YEARS,
MANJANNA
E
                            ALL ARE R/O: SANKALAPUR VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
                            TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
                                                                         ...PETITIONERS
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.28       (BY SMT. VIDYAVATHI M.KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
10:26:13 +0530


                       AND:

                       1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY ITS SECRETARY,
                            HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
                            M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

                       2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                            D.C. COMPOUND, BALLARI.
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896
                                         WP No. 108589 of 2017
                                     C/W WP No. 110071 of 2019

 HC-KAR



3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
     LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     HOSPET SUB-DIVISION, DIST: BALLARI.

4.   THE COMMISSIONER,
     HOSPET URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     I.S.R. ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. B.SHARANABASAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY THE COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW
ACT 2013 AND TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.08.2016 AND 14.07.2017 IN PASSING THE AWARD UNDER THE
NEW ACT AND PAYING THE PETITIONERS THE SAID COMPENSATION
AS PER ANNEXURE-"H" & "H1"; AND ETC.


IN WP NO. 110071/2019:
BETWEEN:

     L. PAMPAPATHI RAO
     S/O. LATE MUNI RAO,
     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

1.   SMT. SHOBHA V. TELKAR
     W/O. VENKATESH TELKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SINECURE.

2.   SMT. JAYA W/O. RAVI R. TAPSE
     AGED 52 YEARS, SINECURE.

3.   SMT. VIJAYA W/O. VIJAYKUMAR PISR
     AGE: 52 YEARS, SINECURE,

     ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF
     LATE L. PAMPAPATHI RAO
     R/O: DOOR NO.11/101, SUDHA COMPLEX,
     BESIDES JAYARAM HOSPITAL,
     COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAPETE POST AND TALUK,
     BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
                                -3-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896
                                         WP No. 108589 of 2017
                                     C/W WP No. 110071 of 2019

 HC-KAR



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN
     CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD,
     HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT.
     (NOW CALLED AS HOSAPETE URBAN
     DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY).

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     HOSAPETE.

4.   THE COMMISSIONER
     HOSAPETE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
     HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT.

5.   THE TAHASILDAR
     TALUK OFFICE, HOSAPETE.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5;
SRI. B.SHARANABASAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT OF ANY OTHER NATURE
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED
NIL. SEPTEMBER 1989 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA OFFICIAL
GAZETTE DATED 22.03.1990 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED FINAL DECLARATION
DATED 05.01.1993 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AND
PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED
05.01.1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FOR SCHEDULE PROPERTY
IS CONCERNED; AND ETC.

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                                 -4-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896
                                          WP No. 108589 of 2017
                                      C/W WP No. 110071 of 2019

HC-KAR



                       ORAL ORDER

These writ petitions are filed challenging the

acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of land bearing

Sy.Nos.108/3C and 108/3A situated at Sankalapura

Village, Hospet Taluk. The petitioners seek declaration that

the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the

preliminary notification issued in the year 1989 and

culminating in the award dated 10.03.1992 have lapsed

under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short).

Brief facts in WP 108589 of 2017:

2. Sy.No.108/3C originally belonged to late

Nagendra Rao, who died on 09.09.1975. The petitioners

claim to be his legal heirs. A preliminary notification was

issued in September 1989 for formation of residential

layout. Award was passed on 10.03.1994. The petitioners

state that no lawful tender of compensation was made.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

Deposit allegedly made in 1994 was not in compliance with

Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act'

for short). No reference under Section 30 was made

though dispute is assumed in the award. Physical

possession was never taken and by way of amendment,

the petitioners sought declaration of lapse under Section

24(2) of the 2013, Act on the ground that the

compensation was not lawfully paid and possession was

not taken.

Brief facts in WP No. 110071/2019:

3. Petitioners claim interest in the land acquired

under the same notification (September-1989) and award

(10.03.1994). It is stated that the civil suit inter se private

parties was disposed of on 19.08.1993. The deposit of

compensation was allegedly made on 27.09.1994 and no

subsisting dispute existed warranting deposit under

Section 31 (2). It is stated that the petitioners' survey

number is not reflected in the alleged possession

proceedings and the subsequent letter dated 12.10.1998

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

being a letter from the beneficiary calling upon the

Assistant Commissioner to take possession is relied upon

to show that possession had not been taken earlier. It is

stated that both the conditions under Section 24 (2) stand

satisfied and the acquisition has lapsed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

W.P.No.108589/2017 submits that L. Nagendra Rao died

on 09.09.1975. Therefore, any reference in the Award

Sl.No.2 (Suggestive Civil Dispute) is only assumed and not

based on an actual subsisting dispute. It is contended that

the award amount was allegedly deposited in the year

1994. However, no reference under Section 30 of the LA

Act, was made. There was no actual adjudication of title

dispute ever pending. Hence, the deposit was not made in

terms of Section 31 (2). Reliance is placed under Section

77 of the 2013 Act to contend that the deposit must be in

the manner known to law and in the absence of a valid

tender or lawful deposit, the compensation cannot be

deemed to have been paid. By way of amendment, the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

petitioners seek declaration of lapse under Section 24 (2)

of the 2013 Act, contending that both limbs are satisfied,

namely, lawful possession was not taken and no lawful

payment was made.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

W.P.No.110071/2019 places reliance on the Indore

Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and Others1

(Indore Development Authority) and submits that both the

conditions must coexist for lapse and in the present case,

no lawful possession and no lawful deposit. He relies upon

Annexure-R7 which is produced along with the statement

of objection to contend that the survey number pertaining

to the petitioners is not included in Annexure-R7 and that

the beneficiary addressed a letter dated 12.10.1998

(Annexure-R10) to the Assistant Commissioner, calling

upon him to take possession of the petitioners' land and

that this indicates possession has not been taken earlier.

It is contended that the civil dispute inter se between

(2020) 8 SCC 129

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

private parties was disposed in the year 1993 and the

deposit having been made on 27.09.1994, there was no

subsisting dispute or impediment warranting such deposit

in the year 1994. It is submitted that if deposit existed,

the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) ought to have

referred the matter to Civil Dispute under Section 30 and

failure to do so renders deposit invalid.

6. Per contra, Sri Sharanabasava, learned counsel

for respondent No.4 submits that the acquisition

commenced in the year 1989 and award was passed on

10.03.1994, possession was taken and mahazar was

drawn. Notice was issued under Section 12 (2) of the LA

Act, since multiple claimants existed and entitlement was

disputed, the compensation was deposited before the

SLAO. It is contended that the beneficiary deposited

amount before the SLAO (Annexure-R5) and notices were

issued to the concerned claimants. It is contended that the

subject land was reserved for civic amenities and hence,

the same was not developed. Other acquired lands have

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

been fully developed and sites have been formed and

allotted. It is contended that the deposit of compensation

in Court amounts to valid compliance with the statutory

requirement relating to payment of compensation.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions and perused the material on record. The point

that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification in the year 1989 and culminating in award dated 10.03.1994 have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013, Act for want of lawful payment of compensation and lawful taking of possession?"

8. Section 31 (1) of the LA Act mandates the

Collector shall tender of compensation. Section 31 (2)

permits the Collector to deposit the compensation only

upon refusal or existence of a dispute regarding

entitlement or apportionment. The said provision reads as

under:

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

"31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court-. (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.

(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted:

Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:

Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18:

Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto."

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

9. In the present case, no material is produced

evidencing actual tender of compensation to petitioners.

No order of reference under Section 30 is placed. A mere

recital in the award regarding a dispute cannot substitute

statutory compliance. The deposit, therefore, appears to

have been made mechanically, without any demonstrable

recording of reasons in conformity with the statutory

consistency. The payment of compensation amounts to

payment, only if it is in accordance with Section 31 (2).

10. The respondents have failed to establish lawful

payment. The petitioners contend that they continue to

remain in physical possession and the possession has not

been taken. Annexure-R7 does not include the petitioner's

land, i.e., in W.P. No.110071/2019. Added with that is the

Annexure-R10 dated 12.10.1998 showing beneficiary

calling upon the authority to take possession indicates that

the possession has not been taken earlier.

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

11. Though the respondents contend that the

possession was taken, mahazar was drawn, land was

reserved for civic amenities and therefore, not developed

and other lands have been developed, the legal position

remains that once possession is taken under Section 16 of

the LA Act, results in vesting. However, the burden lies on

the authority to establish lawful possession.

12. As stated supra, there is no contemporaneous

taking of possession, no mahazar demonstrating actual

taking over of possession has been placed before this

Court. If possession had already been taken in 1994, a

communication at Annexure-R10 dated 12.10.1998 would

be unnecessary. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act arises

when compensation has not been paid and physical

possession has not been taken.

13. In the present case, compensation paid or

deposited cannot be treated as lawfully paid. Lawful

possession is not established. Consequently, the

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2896

HC-KAR

acquisition proceedings stand lapsed under Section 24 (2)

of the 2013 Act and accordingly, the point framed for

consideration is answered and this Court pass the

following:

ORDER

i. W.P. No.108589/2017 and W.P.No.110071/2019

are hereby allowed.

ii. It is declared that the acquisition proceedings

initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification in

September 1989 in respect of the land, Survey

No.108/3C, situated at Sankalapura Village,

Hospete Taluk measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas

have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013.