[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Narayanamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
WP No. 9195 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 9195 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O. MUNIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT. NELAVAGILUR VILLAGE,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHINMAY G KURANDWAD.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001
2. SRI. BYRAPPA,
S/O. CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR,
R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUK TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT
3. DHODDACHOUDAPPA,
S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED MAJOR, R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
WP No. 9195 of 2026
HC-KAR
KOLAR DISTRICT
4. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. MUNEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR,
R/AT. MAALASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
5. SHIKKOLAMMA,
W/O. LATE DHODDAMUNI SONNAPPA,
AGED MAJOR, R/AT. KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
6. SRI. ADHYAPPA,
S/O. LATE BHAYAMMA, AGED MAJOR
7. SRI. SAMPANGAPPA,
S/O. LATE EERAMMA, AGED MAJOR
8. SRI. BYRAPPA,
S/O, LATE CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR
9. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHI,
S/O. LATE CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR
10. SMT. SUNANDA
W/O. MUNIRAJAPPA, AGED MAJOR
11. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
W/O.NARASIMHAPPA, AGED MAJOR
12. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O. AMBERLIYORA RAMANNA,
AGED MAJOR
13. SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
W/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR
14. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O. K. GOVINDAPPA, AGED MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
WP No. 9195 of 2026
HC-KAR
15. SRI. MARKONDAPPA,
S/O. SONNAPPA, AGED MAJOR
16. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR
17. SMT. BHAYYAMMA,
W/O. MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED MAJOR
ALL THE RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 17 ARE
R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL B.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LOK
ADALATH IN LAC NO. 17/2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR FOR ADJUDICATION
ON MERITS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question
the legality and correctness of the settlement dated
14.03.2026 recorded by the Lok Adalat in
LAC No.17/2022. The records disclose that while recording
the said settlement, the Lok Adalat has taken note of the
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
HC-KAR
order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18846/2022,
wherein the general award came to be quashed.
Consequent thereto, the Lok Adalat has ordered closure of
the proceedings in LAC No.17/2022 and has further
directed that the amount deposited by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer be reimbursed to the acquiring
Authority. The said order is assailed by the petitioners on
the ground that their claim for partition and separate
possession in O.S.No.104/2012 is still sub judice and
therefore, closure of the LAC proceedings without securing
their consent suffers from serious legal infirmities and is
liable to be interfered with.
2. At the outset, this Court was inclined to accept
the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. However, on a deeper scrutiny of the
pleadings and the material placed on record, this Court
finds that the suit in O.S.No.104/2012, wherein the
petitioners had sought partition of their share, has already
been dismissed by judgment and decree dated
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
HC-KAR
10.12.2025. Though it is contended that the said
judgment and decree is under challenge in a Regular
Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in R.A.No.7/2026 and the same is
pending consideration, this Court is of the considered view
that any right or entitlement now claimed by the
petitioners must necessarily be agitated and worked out in
the said pending appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that as on the date when the
Lok Adalat recorded the impugned settlement, the
partition suit stood dismissed. In that view of the matter,
the petitioners, as on the said date, did not possess an
enforceable subsisting right so as to insist upon
participation or consent in the LAC proceedings.
Consequently, the contention that the settlement is
vitiated for want of their consent cannot be accepted.
4. However, it is equally true that the petitioners'
right, if any, to claim a share in the compensation arising
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
HC-KAR
out of the acquisition proceedings is intrinsically connected
with and dependent upon the adjudication of their rights in
the partition suit. Since an appeal under Section 96 of
CPC., is in the nature of a continuation of the original
proceedings, it is open for the petitioners to work out their
remedies by seeking appropriate reliefs before the
Appellate Court in the pending R.A. No.7/2026.
5. Insofar as the present writ petition is concerned,
this Court finds that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is
also a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court and
therefore, all issues pertaining to entitlement,
apportionment and disbursement of compensation can
effectively be adjudicated by the Appellate Court. Without
availing such efficacious remedy and without pursuing
appropriate applications in the pending appeal, the
petitioners have chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of
this Court to assail the order of the Lok Adalat, which, in
the considered opinion of this Court, is not maintainable,
particularly in view of the pendency of R.A. No.7/2026.
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
HC-KAR
6. If the petitioners file an application seeking
appropriate interim orders in the pending appeal, the
Appellate Court shall consider the same keeping in view
the necessity of preserving the subject matter of the
appeal. While doing so, the Appellate Court shall advert to
the material and documents placed on record by the
petitioners, afford an opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties, and thereafter pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.
Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioners to
pursue and seek appropriate reliefs, including
consideration of any application already filed, before the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/2026, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
