Smt Venkatalakshmamma v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18839 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE K.A. NARASIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A BODALINGANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JAHNAVI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER OFFICE AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY HASSAN BENGALURU NEW RAILWAY LINE TUMKUR-572101.

¶2EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY WEST CANTONMENT BENGALURU-560001.

¶3SRI K.N. BHASKAR S/O NARASIMHAIAH K.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A BORALINGANAPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130 (NOW AT NO.11, 4TH CROSS SIDDAPPA LAYOUT

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39866( WP(No.(18839(of(2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010367282021( ( ( KONANAKUNTE,CROSS, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560062., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,K.P.,YASHODHA,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI,G.S.,MANJUNATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3;, ,,,,,,V/O,DATED,13.07.2023,, ,,,,,,SRI,H.,SHANTHIBHUSHAN,,DSGI,FOR,R2), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE,THE,ORDER, OF,THE,TRIAL,COURT,DATED,11.08.2021,PASSED,ON,IA,FILED, BY,THE,R3,U/S,151,OF,CODE,OF,CIVIL,PROCEDURE,IN,LAC., NO.219/2011,VIDE,ANNEXURE-G,AND,CONSEQUENTLY,REJECT, THE,APPLICATION,FOR,IMPLEADING,AS,WELL,AS,DIRECTION, AND,ETC.,,, , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:((HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( , ORAL(ORDER( This, petition, is, filed, challenging, the, order, dated,

11.08.2021,passed,on,an,application,filed,by,respondent, No.3, in, LAC.No.219/2011, by, the, Senior, Civil, Judge, and, JMFC,,Kunigal,(for,short,'the,reference,Court')., ,

¶2Heard, Smt.Jahnavi, M.,, learned, counsel, appearing,for,Sri.Chandrakanth,R.,Goulay,,learned,counsel, for, the, petitioner,, Smt.K.P.Yashodha,, learned, AGA, for,

respondent No.1, Sri.H.Shanthibhushan, learned DSGI for respondent No.2, Sri.G.S.Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶3The petitioner in the present petition assails the order passed by the reference Court, wherein the reference Court had allowed the applications filed by respondent No.3 in LAC.No.219/2011, by permitting respondent No.3 to come on record and directing the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount already withdrawn by her. It is to be noticed that the petitioner – Smt.Venkatalakshmamma, had sought a reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') seeking for higher compensation on the ground that the award passed by respondent No.1, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The petitioner/claimant had examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. The respondents adduced oral

evidence as RW1. Upon consideration of the material on record, the reference Court re-determined the compensation amount at Rs.22,500/- per gunta with statutory benefits. It is further to be noticed that the parties to the said proceedings were the petitioner/claimant and the respondents were the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, Hassan-Bengaluru New Railway Line, Tumakuru and the Executive Engineer, South Western Railway, (West) Cantonment, Bengaluru, being the beneficiary of the acquisition.

¶4The reference Court allowed the reference vide judgment and award dated 31.03.2018, enhancing the compensation to Rs.22,500/- per gunta with the statutory benefits as per law. The records indicate that after award being drawn by the office, the claimant withdrew the compensation amount. More than one year thereafter, respondent No.3, claiming to be the son of late Sri.Narashimaiah K.P., filed an application under Order I

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking impleadment in LAC.No.219/2011, also filed an applications seeking a direction to the petitioner/ claimant to re-deposit the compensation amount of Rs.10,86,372/- withdrawn by her. The reference Court, under the impugned orders allowed the impleadment as well as directed the petitioner/claimant to re-deposit the compensation amount of Rs.10,86,372/-, which is assailed in this petition.

¶5At the outset, it is required to be noticed that once the reference petition is disposed of by the reference Court by enhancing the compensation, the said Court would become functus officio. Consequently, entertaining any application for impleadment and further directing the petitioner to re-deposit the compensation amount by accepting the contention of respondent No.3 is illegal, perverse and without any jurisdiction.

¶6The case of respondent No.3 is that he is the son of late Sri.Narashimaiah, born to the second wife and that late Sri.Narasimaya had executed a Will dated

31.01.2001. Be that as it may, the right to seek compensation and the correctness of the Will is required to be gone into by the appropriate forum. Until that is done, respondent No.3 has no right whatsoever to seek impleadment and further direction to re-deposit the compensation amount already withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶7It is further required to be noticed that the award that came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking higher compensation, which came to be allowed. After a period of one year from allowing the reference, the reference Court entertained the application filed by respondent No.3 for impleadment and further

directed the claimant to re-deposit the compensation amount without there being any adjudication, as to whether respondent No.3 has any right over the land. The reference Court, without considering the fact that once the reference petition is answered, the reference Court becomes functus officio, allowed the application, which is a perverse and without jurisdiction that calls for interference.

¶8The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the petitioner/claimant had played fraud and wrongfully received the compensation cannot be gone into after the closure of the reference proceedings, before the reference Court under Section 18(1) of the Act. It is open to respondent No.3 to work out his remedies in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 11.08.2021 passed on an application filed by the respondent No.3 in LAC.No.219/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30