SRI. GOKULDAS v. THE SPECIAL LAND AC

(BY SRI. MANOJ KUMAR. J.Y., ADVOCATE) AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER H.R.P-2, 1ST FLOOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560058

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING HASSAN-560058 (BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) …RESPONDENTS MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4841 MSA No. 126 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

20.09.2019 PASSED IN LAC (APPEAL) NO.423/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2006 PASSED IN LAC.2/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN), HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER 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 Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents on the application (I.A.No.1/2025) condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the matter.

This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and award dated 13.03.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Holenarasipura (for short 'reference Court') in L.A.C.No.02/2006 as well as the judgment and decree dated - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4841 MSA No. 126 of 2025 HC-KAR

20.09.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan (for short 'First Appellate Court') in L.A.C. (Appeal) No.423/2016.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are the landlosers and their appeal before the First Appellate Court was dismissed confirming the award passed by the reference Court. It is submitted that the appellants honestly believed that they may not succeed in the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is further submitted that they didn't have the financial capacity to pay the Court fee and file an appeal against the said award and the decree. It is further submitted that in respect of some other matters covered by the same land acquisition notification, the compensation is awarded at Rs.30,000/- per gunta by the reference Court, whereas, for the appellants' land, the compensation awarded is Rs.30,460/- per acre by the reference Court. It is also submitted that the award in favour of appellants is defective in the sense the beneficiary was not made as a party.

Learned Additional Government Advocate would oppose the application for condonation of delay on the premise - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4841 MSA No. 126 of 2025 HC-KAR that sufficient cause is not shown for condoning the delay of 1312 days in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that the appeal is defective and the proceeding initiated without impleading the beneficiary as a party is not maintainable.

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

The following points arise for consideration:- (a) Whether the appellants have made out a case for condonation of delay of 1312 days in filing the appeal? (b) Whether the appellants have made out a case to remand the matter on the premise that the beneficiary was not made as a party to the proceeding?

It is noticed that the appellants' land was acquired in the year 1984 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,800/- per acre. Thereafter, the reference is sought and the reference Court awarded a compensation of Rs.30,460 per acre. Against the award passed by the reference Court, an appeal is filed - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4841 MSA No. 126 of 2025 HC-KAR before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed confirming the award passed by the reference Court.

It is stated that sufficient time had passed since the date of acquisition till the date of the order passed by the First Appellate Court and the appellants did not have the zeal to pursue the matter considering the long drawn battle and meager compensation awarded. It is noticed that original land owner died and the appeal was prosecuted by aged widow and her daughter. It appears that they did not have the sufficient financial resources to file an appeal by paying the Court fee and to pursue the appeal. It is also noticed that in respect of the lands acquired under same notification, higher compensation is awarded by the reference Court.

Considering all these factors, this Court is of the view that the application for condonation of delay of 1312 days in filing the appeal is to be allowed on a condition that in case the appellants succeed in claiming a higher compensation, for the said 1312 days, they will not be entitled to interest. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 1312 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, in case the appellants - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4841 MSA No. 126 of 2025 HC-KAR succeed in claiming a higher compensation, they shall not be entitled to interest for 1312 days.

It is also noticed that the proceedings was initiated against the Government and not against the beneficiary. It is settled position of law that in such proceedings, the beneficiary is also a necessary party to the proceedings. The reference Court in fact ought to have directed the appellants to implead the beneficiary as a party. Such a recourse is not done. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that impugned judgments and awards passed by the reference Court and the First Appellate Court respectively have to be set aside.