Sri Kempaiah v. The Special Land Acquistion Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2025 (LA) BETWEEN:

1. SRI KEMPAIAH S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

2. SRI. JAVARAIAH S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶3SRI. LATE ERAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3(A) M.K PARVATHAMMA W/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT YALAGATHAVALLI VILLAGE, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK. HASSAN DIST-573102 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANOJ KUMAR. J. Y., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER H.R.P-2, 1ST FLOOR by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:19923 MSA(No.(295(of(2025 DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,BUILDING,, HASSAN-,560058,

2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,BUILDING,, HASSAN-,560058,

3., KAVERI,NEERAVARI,NIGAMA,, K.R.S,ROAD,,GOKULAM,, TH4 ,STAGE,,MYSORE,, HASSAN-,570020, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,RANSA,VASANTHI,,HCGP,FOR,R1,AND,R2;, ,,,,,,SRI.,B.R.PRASHANTH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3), , THIS, MSA, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 54(2), OF, LAND, ACQUISITION, ACT,, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 20.09.2019, PASSED, IN, LAC(A), No.367/2016, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, HASSAN,, DISMISSING, THE, APPEAL, AND, CONFIRMING, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 13.03.2006, PASSED, IN, LAC, NO.29/2006, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, CIVIL, JUDGE, (SR.DN), HOLENARASIPURA., PARTLY, ALLOWING, THE, PETITION, FILED, UNDER,SECTION,18,OF,LAND,ACQUISITION,ACT.,, , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,ANANT,RAMANATH,HEGDE ORAL(JUDGMENT There, is, delay, of, 1,477, days, in, filing, the, appeal, and, I.A.No.1/2025,is,filed,to,condone,the,delay.,,

¶2Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the learned counsel for respondents.

¶3Learned counsel for appellants submits that, the appellants could not file appeal in time as appellants are agriculturists and are having no proper education and legal knowledge. They are facing severe financial hardship and they have been unable to arrange the requisite Court fee within the time. It is further submitted that in case the delay is not condoned, the right of appeal will be curtailed and they will have to be content with the meager compensation awarded by the Appellate Court as well as the Reference Court.

¶4It is also submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered in terms of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Gowramma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another1 and the Court has remanded the matter to implead the beneficiary.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the application on the premise that, delay is not satisfactorily 1 MSA.No.124/2025

explained and sufficient reasons are not shown for condoning the delay.

¶6The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶7It is relevant to notice that beneficiary of the land acquisition proceedings was not made a party before the Reference Court. The acquisition is of the year 1984. The reference is filed in the year 2006.

¶8Whether the reference is in time or not is one of the question that is required to be considered by hearing the beneficiary as well. That question is not decided after hearing the beneficiary. This being the position, the Court is of the view that, the delay has to be condoned and the matter has to be remitted back to the Reference Court.

¶9For reasons stated above, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 1,477 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest on the market value or compensation in case it is enhanced by the Reference Court for the delayed period.

¶10It is noticed from the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court as well as the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the beneficiary was not made as a party to the proceedings. The compensation was determined without hearing the beneficiary and the beneficiary is now required to pay the compensation.

¶11Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed in LAC.No.29/2006 dated 13.03.2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Holenarasipura as well as impugned judgment and award passed in LAC(Appeal) No.367/2016 dated

20.09.2019 by the Principal District Judge, Hassan are set aside.

¶12The matter is remitted to the Reference Court to hear the case afresh and the Reference Court shall consider all questions including the question relating to the limitation insofar as the reference sought by the land loser.

¶13The beneficiary shall be made as a party to the proceedings before the Reference Court and the Reference Court shall record fresh evidence and thereafter, pass appropriate orders.

¶14It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter.

¶15In case, the compensation is determined and market value is enhanced, the land loser/appellants are not entitled to the interest on the delayed period.

¶16The appellants are also entitled to refund of the court fee.

¶17The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 11.06.2026 with any further notice.

The appeal is accordingly allowed-in-part. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10