KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, RANEBENNUR, PIN
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Judgment
1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100706/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. b. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure- No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:16/ G 2010/1027; bearing Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100224/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:245/ 2013/1023; b. c. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100227/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-G bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:32/ 2011/1029; b. c. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100229/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-G bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:9/ 2008/1029; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
5. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100230/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of impugned order dated certiorari, quashing - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
21.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:3+6/ 2008- 09/1037; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
6. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100245/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure- H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:267/2013/ 1024; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
7. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100292/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of impugned order dated certiorari, quashing 14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:51/2011-12/ 1032; - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR ii. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; iii. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
8. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100294/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 21.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:117/2012-13/ 1033; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
9. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100298/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:292/2013-14/ 1031; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
10. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100784/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure- H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/2010/ 1025; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
11. The Petitioner in W.P.No.100785/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure- H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:291/2013/ 1030; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
12. The Petitioner in W.P.No.103082/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the R1 SLAO vide Annexure- No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/ H 2010/1025; bearing b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
13. The Petitioners in W.P.No.103322/2023 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the awards passed by the R2 at Annexures A and B respectively. b. Pass such other orders, directions, writ etc., as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.
14. The Petitioner in W.P.No.103757/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated the R1 SLAO vide 21.07.2022, passed by bearing Annexure-H No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/ 2012-13/1034; - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
15. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105311/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated the R1 SLAO vide 21.07.2022, passed by Annexure-H bearing No.Tumayo/Bhuswa/28A:vahi:10/ 2012/1036; b. Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the R1 SLAO not to award interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. Pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity.
16. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105586/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Declaring impugned award dated 01.07.2022 and Revised award dated 01.07.2022 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-A and A1 are vitiated and non-est, also on account of having sought approval, subsequent to the passing of the same vide Annexure-M and M2. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR b. Quash the award dated 01.07.2022 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-A as arbitrary, illegal and having vitiated and rendered non-est and without application of mind. c. Quash the revised award dated 01.07.2022 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-A1 as arbitrary, illegal and having vitiated and rendered non-est and in violation of natural justice. d. Declaring that, proceedings LAC 28(A)/65/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide Annexure-G are not maintainable, viatiated and non-est on account of the invalidity of the application under Section 28-A made by the R1 vide Annexure-F. e. Quashing entire LAC 28(A)/65/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide Annexure-G, as illegal and arbitrary and ultra vires Section 28-A. proceedings f.Issue any appropriate order or directed as this Hon’ble deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.
17. The Petitioner in W.P.No.105586/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Declaring impugned award dated 01.07.2022 and Revised award dated 17.12.2022 passed by the R2 in No. Bhuswa:KR/28(AA)/viva- 50/2012-13 vide Annexure-A is vitiated and non- est. b. Quash the award dated 17.12.2022 passed by the R2 in No. Bhuswa:KR/28(AA)/viva-50/2012-13 vide Annexure-A as arbitrary, illegal and having vitiated and rendered non-est and without application of mind. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR c. Declaring that, proceedings LAC 28(A)/50/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide Annexure-G are not maintainable, viatiated and non-est on account of the invalidity of the application under Section 28-A made by the R1 vide Annexure-E. d. Quashing entire LAC 28(A)/50/2012-13 on the file of the R2 vide Annexure-G, as illegal and arbitrary and ultra vires Section 28-A. proceedings e. Issue any appropriate order or directed as this Hon’ble deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.
18. Essentially there are two sets of Petitioners in all the above matters, one is Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited [KNNL] and the other is Konkan Railways Corporation Limited [KRCL], who are aggrieved by the compensation awarded under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [‘LA Act’ for short].
19. Insofar as the facts in the petitions filed by KNNL are concerned, KNNL is stated to be the beneficiary of acquisition proceedings, the acquisition having been initiated for the Upper Tunga Project [UTP], the private Respondent in each of the proceedings had - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR filed an application under Section 28A of the LA Act for the purpose of redetermination of the award which was allowed by Respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer [SLAO] vide various orders. It is challenging the same, the Petitioners are before this Court.
20. The following statement would give the necessary details for consideration of the above matters: Sl. No. Case No. Date of S. 4(1) Date of S. 17(4) Name Of Land Loser Date Award Date of S. 28A Application Date Enhan t u/s 18
1. WP No. 100706/ 2023
21.11. 2002 Mattur Shekhappa Shivarudrappa
22.06. 2005
09.07. 2010
20.09.2010
2. WP No. 100224/ 2023
3. WP No. 100227/ 2023
4. WP No. 100229/ 2023
15.10. 2003
29.08. 2004
Sri. Patil Chandragouda
03.05. 2006
30.11. 2012
30.01.2013 Sri. Maalagi Basappatai Maragappa
27.08. 2007
01.04. 2011
30.06.2011
20.08. 2002 Sri. Patil Swaminath
02.01. 2006
01.08. 2008
30.10.2008
5. WP No. 100230/ 2023
20.08. 2002
16.03. 2006
01.08. 2008
25.10.2008 Date Passi Enha Awar d u/s 28A
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020 Date of filing of present Writ Petition
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023 - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
6. WP No. 100245/ 2023
11.02. 2005 Sri. Patil Rudragouda, Mallanagouda, Hanumanthap pagouda
03.12. 2008
31.01. 2013
05.03.2013
20.02 .2020
04.01.2023
7. WP No. 100292/ 2023
8. WP No. 100294/ 2023
9. WP No. 100298/ 2023
10. WP No. 100784/ 2023
11. WP No. 100785/ 2023
12. WP No. 103082/ 2023
13. WP No. 103322/ 2023
14. WP No. 103757/ 2023
15. WP No. 105311/ 2023
16. WP No. 105586/ 2023
31.07. 2002 Sri. Ninganagouda
04.02. 2004
06.12. 2010
10.01.2011
20.12. 2002 Sri. Sannathammal
20.04. 2004
18.04. 2012
28.06.2012
26.12. 2002 Sri. Hanamantappa
04.02. 2006
23.03. 2013
06.05.2013
21.11. 2002 Sri. Karebasappa
28.05. 2005
09.07. 2010
14.09.2010
26.12. 2002 Sri. Madivalara Tippeshappa
04.02. 2006
23.03. 2013
06.05.2013
20.11. 2003 Sri. Mattur Shivappa
28.05. 2005
09.07. 2010
04.10.2010
19.10. 1993 Sri. Deepa Dilip Nayak
31.07. 2008
05.11.2008
20.04. 2004
18.04. 2012
12.07.2012 Sri. xxx
20.04. 2004
18.04. 2012
12.07.2012 Sri. xxx
26.03. 1994
31.07. 2008
17.11.2008
20.12. 2002
20.12. 2002
08.07. 1991/ 30.03. 1994
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
01.07 .2022
20.02 .2020
20.02 .2020
17.12 .2022
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
04.01.2023
10.04.2023
10.04.2023
06.01.2023
10.04.2023 *5.09.2023
17. WP No. 105650/ 2023
01.08. 1991 Sri. xxx
11.01. 1996
31.07. 2008/ 05.12. 2009
17.11.2008
01.07 .2022 *11.09.2023 *Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 21.07.2025 - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
21. KNNL claims to be a wholly owned Government company having been registered on 09.12.1998 and responsible for planning, investigation, estimation, execution, operation and maintenance of all irrigation projects in its jurisdiction, authorised to sell water and recover revenues from individuals, groups of farmers, including in Command Area Development Authority [CADA], towns, Municipalities and industries and as such, it is claimed that KNNL comes within the definition of Section 3(1)(cc) of the LA Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 3(1) (cc) the expression corporation owned or controlled by the State means any body corporate established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, and includes a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, being a society established or administered by Government and a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State, being a co-operative society in which not less than fifty-one per centum of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments;
22. The State Government having propounded the Upper Tunga project, which envisages the construction of a dam across the Tunga River, 100 metres downstream of the existing Tunga Anicut near Gajanur in Shivamogga Taluk and construction of the Upper Tunga main canal for a length of 270 kilometres. Which includes the construction of a tunnel of 4 kilometres length along with a distributary network, so as to irrigate 80,494 hectares of agricultural in Shivamogga, Davangere and Haveri districts by utilising 12.24 TMC Ft. of water from river Tunga, initiated acquisition proceedings for acquiring large tracts of land in and around the villages of Shivamogga district.
23. Some of the lands around Mavinathopu Village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District, were also proposed - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR to be acquired by the issuance of a preliminary notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act read with Subsection (4) of Section 17 of the LA Act dated 20.11.2002, which was gazetted on
02.01.2003. A declaration under Subsection (1) of Section 6 was gazetted on 13.11.2003, an award dated 28.05.2005 was approved on 22.06.2004 under Section 11 of the LA Act at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre in respect of dry lands and Rs.52,500/- in respect of wetlands.
24. One of the landowners of the lands acquired under the very same notification, i.e., survey No. 75/2A and 75/2C, admeasuring 2 acres 12 guntas, sought for reference by filing an application under Section 18 of the LA Act for enhancement of compensation, which came to be registered as LAC No. 183/2007. The reference Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the private - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR Respondents, landowners, had filed an application before Respondent No.2, SLAO, under Section 28A of the LA Act on 14.09.2010 for the purpose of redetermination of the compensation amount on the basis of the Judgment in LAC No. 183/2007.
25. Respondent No. 1, by order dated 13.02.2020, after a gap of nearly 10 years, allowed the application filed by the private Respondent under Section 28A. Respondent No. 3 redetermined the compensation by applying the Judgment in LAC No. 183/2007 and directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% for the first year, and 15% per annum from 28.06.2005 till the date of the order.
26. KNNL challenged the award dated 22-02-2020 before this court by filing a writ petition in WP No. 103903/2021, when the writ petition came to be allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter came to be remanded to Respondent No.1 to adjudicate afresh after issuing a notice to the - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR beneficiary/KNNL since the beneficiary/KNNL was not a party to the reference. After the said remand, Respondent No.1, hearing beneficiary/KNNL, as well as other parties, passed the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, once again allowing the application of the claimants under Section 28A of the LA Act. It is challenging this order that the Petitioner/KNNL is before this court.
27. Sri. M.R.C. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/KNNL would submit that,
27.1. The first award was passed without making KNNL a party, despite the landowners knowing of the existence of KNNL and of KNNL implementing the project, as also of KNNL being the entity who would be making payment of the compensation monies. Thus, none of the important aspects could be placed before the SLAO when the first order was passed. Insofar as the second order was passed after being - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR remanded by this court, he submits that the material which had been placed by KNNL has not been consideration by Respondent No.1 SLAO. The contentions of the beneficiary have not been consideration, rendering the second order bad in law. The order passed by the SLAO is vitiated by delay and latches.
27.2. Though Respondent No.3 had filed an application on 28.06.2012, the order was passed by the SLAO on 13.02.2020 after an inordinate delay of 8 years. The delay being on the part of the SLAO, the beneficiary cannot be burdened with the responsibility and obligation of making payment of interest for the delayed period. The delay being on account of the claimant and or the SLAO, there being no particular delay on the part of KNNL, KNNL - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR cannot be made liable to make payment of the aforesaid interest.
27.3. By referring to Section 11A of the LA Act, he submits that there is a mandate for an award to be passed within a period of two years from the date of the final notification. Therefore, the mandate to pass an award under Section 28A would also be a period of two years by natural extension of the requirement of Section 11A, and it was therefore required for the SLAO to redetermine the compensation payable under Section 28A within the aforesaid outer limit of two years from the date of the application. The SLAO, having delayed the passing of an award under Section 28A, no claim can be made as regards interest against the beneficiary.
27.4. Alternatively, he submits that the SLAO was required to consider the application under Section 28A within a reasonable period of time, - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR if not within the aforesaid period of two years. He refers to Section 34 of the LA Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry
27.5. By placing reliance on the aforesaid Section 34 and a conjoint reading of Section 28A, he submits that the cause of action for filing an application under Section 28A enhancement of compensation in a similarly situated matter. Thus, Section 34 could not be made applicable from the date of taking possession. Thus, interest, if any, would be - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR liable to be paid only after the order is passed by a reference court in a proceeding for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act.
27.6. Thus, he submits that when compensation is redetermined under Section 28A, the award of interest from the date of taking physical possession arise. The redetermination of compensation taking place on the date on which the order under section 28A is passed, interest, if any, can only be calculated from the date of the order under Section 28A and not from the date on which the possession was taken.
27.7. Insofar as the original compensation concerned, the said compensation amount as determined by the SLAO, has already been deposited treasury of the State Government, thereafter, the compensation - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR amount has been accepted by Respondent No.3, the landowner. The landowner had not raised any dispute as regards the compensation awarded. It is only on account of a third party having filed a reference under Section 18 being allowed that the landowner has claimed an additional amount as compensation. This, he submits, would not entitle the said landowner to accrual of any interest until the award was passed by the SLAO under Section 28A.
27.8. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Babua Ram and others -v- State of U.P. and another1, more particularly para 39 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
39. The next question is whether the Collector/LAO on receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A compensation while the award and decree under Section 26 is pending consideration in the appeal in the High Court or appellate forum. If he does so, whether award under Section 28-A(2) is illegal? It is redetermine is bound 1(1995) 2 SCC 689 - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR settled law that the decree of the trial court gets merged in the decree of the appellate court which alone is executable. The finality of the determination of the compensation is attained with the decree of the appellate forum, be it the High Court or this Court. Take for instance that ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ are interested persons in the land notified under Section 4(1) and the compensation determined in the award under Section 11. ‘A’ received the compensation without protest. ‘B’ and ‘C’ received the compensation under Section 31 under protest and sought and secured reference under Section 18. The court enhanced the compensation from the Collector's award of Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000. ‘B’ did not file appeal under Section 54 while ‘C’ filed the appeal. The High Court, suppose, further enhances the compensation to Rs 25,000 or reduces the compensation to Rs 15,000 per acre. ‘A’ is a person aggrieved only to the extent of the excess amount awarded either by the award and decree of the court under Section 26 but he will not get the enhancement of further sum of Rs 5000 granted by the High Court in favour of ‘C’. The decree of the High Court is the executable decree made in favour of ‘C’. Unless redetermination is kept back till the appeal by the High Court is disposed of, incongruity would emerge. Suppose the State filed appeal in this Court under Article 136 against the High Court decree and this Court confirms the award of the Collector and sets aside the decree of civil court under Section 26 and of the High Court under Section 54. There is nothing left for redetermination. With a view to save ‘A’ or ‘B’ or the State from the consequences of such incongruous situations, the Collector/LAO should stay his hands in the matter of redetermination of compensation till the appeal is finally disposed of and he should redetermine the compensation only on the basis of the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum. Adoption of such course, would not merely avoid the chance element in the claimants - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR getting the amounts of redetermined compensation but also avoids needless burden on public exchequer. As soon as the award of the civil court is carried in appeal, it becomes obligatory for the Collector to keep the application/applications for redetermination of compensation filed within limitation pending, awaiting decision by the appellate forum and to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the final judgment and decree. Normally the LAO would file the appeal against the enhanced compensation in a decree of either the civil court or the High Court and will know their pendency. In the case of appeal filed by the interested persons, the latter should inform the Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise comes to know of it should keep the applications for redetermination, received under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A within limitation pending, awaiting the decision by the appellate court. Before proceeding with the determination, he should obtain an affidavit from the party making the application under Section 28-A that no appeal against the award made under Section 26 relied upon by him was filed or if had been filed was disposed of by the appellate court and to produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if already disposed of.
27.9. By relying on Babua Ram's case, he submits that when the SLAO is deciding an application under Section 28A, the earlier judgment would not be applied on its own, the same amount need not be given as compensation, where there are differences in nature, quality and - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR situation of the comparable land. There is an application of mind required to be made by the SLAO to assess these factors and thereafter pass an order under Section 28A.
27.10. His submission is that this aspect has not been taken note of and applied by the SLAO. The SLAO, without considering the objection raised by KNNL that the land, subject matter of Section 28A proceedings are not similarly placed lands, has negated the same without giving any reasons and applied the same order as passed in a reference under Section 18, merely because the land acquired was under the same preliminary notification.
27.11. He submits that even if the lands were acquired under the very same preliminary notification, the SLAO ought to have considered the differences in the nature, quality and situation of the land and ought to have come to a - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR conclusion that the said land is comparable to each other before applying the earlier award.
27.12. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Draupadi Devi and others -v- Union of India and others2, more particularly para 79 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
79. Although, in the written submissions filed before the High Court as well as in the appeal before this Court, submissions have been made with regard to the alternative relief, no arguments were addressed before us on this issue when the oral submissions were made by the counsel on both sides. Despite looking for it, we are unable to locate anything on record which expressly suggests that this claim had been expressly given up by the plaintiff during the trial. We are unable to find out the basis on which the Division Bench arrived at this conclusion. This fact, however, does not carry the case of the plaintiff any further. The burden of establishing that the plaintiff had sustained damages and the measure of damages was squarely on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has singularly failed to discharge this onus both by lack of pleadings and lack of evidence. In the circumstances, this alternative relief claimed by the plaintiff must fail.
27.13. Placing reliance on Draupadi Devi’s case, he submits that it is for the claimant to prove by leading evidence and producing supporting 22004 (11) SCC 425 - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR documents that the land of the claimant is similarly situated to the land as regards which the compensation has been enhanced.
27.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar -v- State of Uttar Pradesh and others3 more particularly para no. 28 thereof, which is reproduced for easy reference:
28. This Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1] has held that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. It has been held that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. We find that Respondent 9 has not only suppressed a material fact but has also tried to mislead the High Court. On this ground also, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
27.15. By referring to Ram Kumar's decision, he submits that if there is fraud which is played by any party and an undue advantage is taken in pursuance thereof, any decree or award 3(2022) SCC Online SC 1312 - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR obtained by fraud would have to be treated as a nullity and in this regard he submits that there is fraud played by the claimants in as much as they have fabricated the documents. The application under Section 28A was not filed on the date so indicated.
27.16. He submits that there is collusion between the claimants and the SLAO, which has resulted in the impugned order being passed. The SLAO has wantonly delayed the passing of the award to favour the claimant.
27.17. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Housing Board -v- SLAO and others4, more particularly para No. 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
23. We have considered the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the other High Courts and on an analysis of the aforesaid cases, in the light of the Supreme Court cases, we find that so far as the proviso under Section 28-A and Section 41998 SCC Online Guj 261 - 52 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR 12(2) of the Limitation Act are concerned, the same are para materia and what we find is that only that party which has been handicapped from filing the application/appeal, etc. within time on account of the period which is taken in obtaining the certified copy is entitled to the benefit of such time for the purpose of limitation. The party which has not spent such time can never be entitled to claim benefit under this provision and the party which had never applied for certified copy and which has not suffered any handicap on that account, cannot take the benefit of the disability of some other party is obtaining the certified copy. Even otherwise, it does not stand to the reason that a party which never applied for the certified copy should be given the benefit of the period taken in obtaining the certified copy by some other party. The argument raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were not parties to the Reference which had been decided by the court and therefore they did not come to know about the Award, is no answer to the question of limitation for two reasons, firstly, in the facts of this case, it is not found that they came to know about the passing of the Award after the expiry of the period of three months. On the contrary, their case is that they had approached the learned Advocate Mr. K.C. Desai for obtaining the certified copy within three months application itself is 25th July 1991, i.e. only 22 days after the date of the order passed in reference and therefore the ground with regard to the knowledge of the order of the reference is of no avail. Secondly, it has been found as a question of fact on the basis of the documents in the nature of contemporaneous evidence that none of the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 had in fact applied for obtaining the certified copy and as such it cannot be said that it is on account of the availablility of the certified copy at a later point the date of inasmuch as - 53 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR of time that they were prevented from filing the application under Section 28-A Within the period of three months for the Case their version that they had come to know about passing of the order in Reference on 25th July 1991 is believed, they could have preferred the application under Section 28-A even Without the copy of the order passed 5 in the Reference and they could have easily approached within the period of three months and they ought not to have Waited for the availability of the certified Copy because it is the case of the present Respondents themselves that it is not necessary to file the certified copy along with the application under Section 28-A in case the same is filed within the prescribed period of three months from the date of Order in Reference. The learned counsel for the Respondents Nos. 3 to 19 also submitted that the provisions contained in Section 28-A are in the nature of benevolent provisions for those who can not avail remedy of Reference under Section 18 and therefore in any case two views are possible and that view may be countenanced which is in their favour. We find that on a proper construction of the proviso to Section 28-A and in the light of various decisions, it cannot be said that this provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations. Only one conclusion is possible that only such party is entitled to the benefit of the period spent for obtaining the certified copy which had in fact applied for obtaining the certified copy. The benevolence as was intended by the Legislature was only limited to file extent that such party which fails' to avail the remedy of Reference under Section 18 may also approach the concerned Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A for the purpose of redetermination of the compensation on the lines on which it has been granted by the civil court under Section 18. That part of benevolence cannot be accepted for the purpose of therefore - 54 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR extending the scope of the benefit with regard to the period of limitation and it will be stretching the provisions too far to say that whether any party applies for obtaining certified copy or not, it should be entitled to get the benefit of the period spent for obtaining the certified copy by some other party. Lastly Mr. Amin has argued while citing (1979) 4 SCC 176 : AIR 1979, SC 1144, in the case of the The Madras Port Trust v. Hytnanshu International, that the Government should not take the plea of limitation. No doubt, in this judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that the plea of limitation based on Section 110 of the Madras Ports Trusts Act is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and that it is unfortunate that a Public Trust like the Port Trust should in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat the just claim of the citizen and further that it is high time that the Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical plea for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Here we find that in the case at hand, strictly speaking, the question involved is about the interpretation of statutory provision as to whether this provision entitles any party to take the benefit of the period spent in obtaining the certified copy and therefore the reasons as have been expressed by the Supreme Court, the responsibility of the State and public authorities may not be applied on the question of interpretation. Nonetheless the Supreme Court itself has said, in very same para-2 of this judgment that if the Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court. Mrs. Mehta appearing for the Gujarat Housing Board has argued with reference to proviso under Section 28-A with vehemence and has assailed the impugned order on this basis with support of more - 55 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR than one authorities and judicial pronouncements, and we find that plea is well founded on facts as well as law. We accordingly hold that the applications filed on behalf of the Respondents nos. 3 to 19 under Section 28-A could not and should not have been entertained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by giving the benefit of the period spent for obtaining the certified copy on the basis of the certified copy which had been annexed with the application under Section 28-A and in absence of entitlement for such benefit under proviso to Section 28-A, the is applications were on the face of it, time barred. The impugned order dated 31st May 1997 Land (Annexure-D) passed by Acquisition Officer, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. the Special
27.18. By relying on Gujarat Housing Board's case, he submits that it is only the time taken to obtain a certified copy which could be excluded while calculating the period of limitation under Subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Many of the claimants, not having filed any application for a certified copy but having relied on the certified copy availed of by one of the claimants, he submits that all the claimants - 56 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR would not be entitled to the benefit of extension of time, insofar as the time spent in obtaining copies is concerned.
27.19. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and others -v- Union of India and another5 , more particularly para no. 45 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
45. Award of interest under Section 34 is mandatory inasmuch the word used in the section is “shall”. The scheme of the Act and the express provisions thereof establish that the interest payable under Section 34 is statutory. The claim for interest under Section 28A of the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having been paid, the claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced compensation amount. The award of interest under Section 28A is discretionary power vested in the court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. The use of the word “may” in Section 28A does not confer any arbitrary discretion on the court to disallow interest for no valid or proper reasons. Normally, the court awards interest if it enhances the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, unless there are exceptional circumstances. 5(2015) 2 SCC 262 - 57 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
27.20. By relying on Kapil Mehra's case, he submits that under Section 34 of the LA Act, the awardal of interest is in terms of the first award. The claim made under Section 28A, being on account of compensation not being paid, there is a discretionary power vested in the court to award interest or not, since the word used is ‘may’ in Section 28A.
27.21. He relies upon the decision in Pappaya Sastry -v- Government of AP6 para nos. 22, 26 and 46 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order—by the first court or by the final court—has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 6(2007) 4 SCC 221 - 58 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. fraud and
46. Keeping in view totality of facts and attending circumstances including serious allegations of fraud said to have been committed by the landowners in collusion with officers of the Respondent Port Trust and the Government, report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), prima facie showing commission of initiation of criminal proceedings, etc. if the High Court was pleased to recall the earlier order by issuing directions to the authorities to pass an appropriate order afresh in accordance with law, it cannot be said that there is miscarriage of justice which calls for interference in exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court. We, therefore, hold that this is not a fit case which calls for our intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, decline to do so.
27.22. By relying on Pappaya Sastry's case, he submits that any judgment obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a - 59 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR nullity and is ‘non-est’ in the eyes of law and has to be treated as a nullity by every court, superior or inferior.
27.23. In this case, since the enhancement has been obtained by playing fraud, this Court ought to consider the said award passed under Section 28A to be a nullity. There is a deliberate deception on the part of the claimants in order to secure an unfair advantage. Having gained an advantage by way of such deception, the claimants cannot be permitted to continue to enjoy the said benefit. This court would therefore have to issue necessary directions to conduct an enquiry into the matter.
27.24. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar, etc. -v- State of Haryana and others7, more particularly para 7(2018) 13 SCC 96 - 60 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR nos. 11 and 18, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] , without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bona fide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding.
18. This Court has clearly laid down that such judgment/award cannot be received in evidence and considered without giving an opportunity of rebuttal - 61 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR to opposite parties by adducing evidence. At the stage of appeal if award/judgment has to be read in evidence, an application has to be filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to take additional evidence on record and if allowed, opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal has to be allowed.
27.25. By relying on Manoj Kumar's case, he submits earlier decision enhancing compensation cannot be adopted in its entirety without examining the basis for determining compensation. What is the distance between the properties, the size, the bona fide nature of transactions, and the evidence adduced in each of the cases? The reference court ought not to blindly follow the enhancement granted in the earlier matter. The previous award under Section 18 is only a piece of evidence which is required to be established in a manner known to the law. Hence, the award passed under section 28A is bad in law. - 62 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
27.26. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India -v- Pramod Gupta and others8, more particularly para nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
24. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor.
25. The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.
26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union of India was a party to the said awards would not by itself be a ground to invoke the principles of res judicata and/or estoppel. Despite such awards it may be open to the Union of India to question the entitlement of the Respondent claimants to the the statutory amount of compensation and/or limitations in respect thereof. It would also be open to it to raise other contentions relying on or on the basis 8(2005) 12 SCC 1 - 63 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR land, of other materials brought on record. It was also open to the appellant to contend that the lands under acquisition are not similar to the lands in respect whereof judgments have been delivered. The area of thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property although such judgments/awards, if duly brought on record, as stated hereinbefore, would be admissible in evidence. the nature
27. Even if the Union of India had not preferred any appeal against the said judgment and award, it would not be estopped and precluded from raising the said question in a different proceeding as in a given case it is permissible in law to do the same keeping in view the larger public interest.
27.27. By relying on Pramod Gupta's case, he submits that even if an award has been passed earlier in another matter where the Petitioner is a party, the same would not amount to res judicata and or estoppel. The Petitioner in this case is entitled to place all the relevant material for consideration to negate the compensation paid in the other matter by distinguishing the nature and or similarity of the property. Such - 64 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR material, having been placed on record, has not been considered by the SLAO.
27.28. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the case of Rangammal -v- Kuppuswami and another9, more particularly para no. 34 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
34. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co. [(2006) 12 SCC 198] wherein it was held that the onus is on the plaintiff to positively establish its case on the basis of the material available and it cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence to discharge the onus.
27.29. By relying on Rangammal's case, his submission is that the burden of proof was on the claimant to establish that the claimant was entitled to the same compensation as that awarded in another matter. This burden, not having been discharged, the question of the 9(2011) 12 SCC 220 - 65 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR SLAO applying the same compensation would not arise.
27.30. Insofar as fraud has been played, he refers to the original records which have been produced.
27.31. In WP 100224/2023, he submits that there is no inward seal as regards the application filed under Section 28A. In the register maintained by the SLAO, there is no entry for receiving the Section 28A application, allegedly
03.01.2013. The notarised copy which has been produced is much subsequent to the filing of the claim petition, and as such, the same could not have been looked into. Similar is the submission respect WP100245/2023, WP100785/2023, WP100298/2023.
27.32. Insofar as WP no. 100294/2023 is concerned, he submits that on the Section 28A application, the date of submission indicated as - 66 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
28.06.2012, whereas in the order passed by the SLAO, the application is stated to be filed on 12.07.2012. If it was filed on 12.07.2012, the application under Section 28A would have been barred by limitation and, therefore, could not have been considered. He therefore, submits that the above petitions are required to be allowed, and the order passed by the SLAO is required to be set aside.
28. KONKAN RAILWAY FACTS:
28.1. Insofar as the matters relating to Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. [for short: ‘KRCL’] are concerned, KRCL is stated to be a public sector undertaking on whose behalf lands were acquired for the formation of the Konkan Railway line between Roha in Maharashtra and Thokkur near Mangalore. KRCL was incorporated on 19.07.1990 and has built a 760 - 67 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR km railway line connecting Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka.
28.2. The lands for the Konkan Railway line were acquired at different points in time between 1991 and 1995 in various villages of the three districts of Uttara Kannada, Dakshina Kannada, and Udupi, and compensation was paid to the owners. Some of the owners, not being satisfied with the award passed under Section 11, had preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act. The reference court enhanced the compensation, and in pursuance thereof, the Respondents in WP No. 105586/2023 and WP No. 105650/2023 filed an application under Section 28A of the LA Act.
29. FACTS IN W.P. No.105586/2023:
29.1. Respondent No.1 being the owner of land in survey No. 218/5 in Shirwad village of Karwar - 68 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR taluk, the said land was acquired under a preliminary notification dated 08.07.1991, came to be gazetted on 01.08.1991, final notification issued on 14.07.1992 and gazetted on 06.08.1992, Respondent No.1 landowner was awarded compensation under Section 11 the SLAO as per the award dated
26.03.1994.
29.2. The Landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, which came to be numbered as LAC No. 162 of 1996, wherein the Reference Court
15.02.2008 enhanced compensation by Rs.11,500/- per gunta, which is based on the award in LAC No. 174 of 1996 preferred by one Shri. Ramdas.
29.3. The submission in this regard is that the land of Shri. Ramdas was acquired under notification dated 19.10.1993, with the final notification issued on 24.02.1995, much subsequent to the - 69 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR notification issued in respect of the land of the Petitioner and as such, the award passed in LAC No. 174 of 1996 could not be made applicable to land of Respondent No.1. The claimants in LAC No. 174 of 1996 had, in turn, relied on the award passed in LAC No. 24 of 1993 and LAC No. 53 of 1991.
29.4. Respondent No.1 had challenged the award dated 15.02.2008 in LAC No. 162 of 1996 by filing an appeal in MFA No. 4158 of 2008. The Petitioner had challenged the same in MFA No. 6916 of 2008. This court, finding that the evidence required to arrive at the market value lacking, set aside the award dated
15.02.2008 and remanded the matter. Upon such remand, the reference court enhanced the compensation payable to Rs.18,250/- per gunta and while doing so, has taken as comparison the land of the land loser in survey No. 218/2 - 70 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR to be the same as the land in survey no. 238 and 269/2 of Shirwad village, which is stated to be at different locations.
29.5. Again, an appeal having been filed in MFA No. 21545 of 2011, this court observed that the compensation awarded could not be considered bad in law and dismissed the appeal. The said award was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 10734 of 2012, which came to be dismissed on 06.07.2012.
29.6. That being as regards one other land acquired from Respondent No.1, the subject matter of the present petition is that subsequently, at the second instance by issuance of a notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act on 19.10.1993 gazetted on 16.12.1993, a further extent of land of the Respondent No.1 in survey No.218/5 of Shirwad village was proposed to be acquired. Compensation having - 71 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR been awarded was accepted by Respondent No.1 without filing a reference under Section
18. Though the Respondent No. 1 had filed a reference earlier in respect of the earlier acquisition.
29.7. It is Sri Ramdas who had filed a reference in LAC No. 174 of 1996 in regard to his land in survey No. 189/1, 189/2 and 189/3, the reference awarded compensation on 31.07.2008, announced the compensation to be at Rs.11,500/- per gunta. A challenge having been made, this court dismissed the appeal by enhancing compensation from Rs. 11,500/-to Rs. 18,500/- per gunta. A Special Leave Petition in SLP No.18119 of 2012, having been filed, came to be dismissed. It is at that stage Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 28A seeking redetermination of - 72 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR compensation on the basis of the reference court award dated 31.07.2008.
29.8. It is contended that though the Respondent No.1 claims that the application was filed on
17.11.2008, as per the extract of the register, maintained by Respondent No.2, the application is recorded to have been submitted on
19.01.2009. An application under Section 28A is required to be filed within 90 days from the date of the award by the court in a similar matter, the application filed by Respondent No.1 is beyond the period of 90 days and, therefore, ought to have been rejected by the SLAO. Notice came to be issued in the said proceedings only on 31.12.2012, thus it is contended that in an application stated to have been filed on 17.11.2008 or 19.01.2009, notice could not have been issued so belatedly on
31.12.2012 and it is only subsequently that the - 73 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR Petitioner came to know of the proceedings being conducted without being intimated about the same behind the back of the Petitioner and it is thereafter that the Petitioner appeared in those proceedings.
29.9. The proceedings have gone on from 19.01.2009 till the date of the impugned award dated
01.07.2022 for over a period of 13 years. There is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the SLAO, and there is collusion between the SLAO and the land loser. The SLAO, having accepted the belated application filed by the land loser, though filed belatedly, has delayed the matter in order to pass a favourable order in favour of Respondent No.1.
30. Facts in WP 105650/2023
30.1. The beneficiary/acquiring authority, KRCL, and the purpose of acquisition (Konkan Railway - 74 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR Line) in this petition are the same as in WP No. 105586/2024.
30.2. The facts in this matter are more or less similar to those mentioned in WP No. 105586/2024.
30.3. Respondent No.1 in this petition – Sri. Vithoba Shankar Phayde, as noted by Respondent No.2 vide order sheet dated 24.06.2022, is said to be dead, and the impugned award has been delivered without bringing on record the ‘Legal Representatives’ of Respondent No. 1.
30.4. Respondent No.1 being the owner of survey No. 218/1 in Shirwad village of Karwar taluk, the said land was acquired under a preliminary notification dated 08.07.1991, came to be gazetted on 01.08.1991, final notification issued on 14.07.1992 and gazetted on
06.08.1992, Respondent No.1 landowner was awarded compensation under Section 11 by the SLAO as per the award dated 26.03.1994. - 75 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
30.5. The landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, which came to be numbered as LAC No. 162 of 1996, wherein the Reference Court
15.02.2008 enhanced compensation by Rs.18,500/- per gunta, which is based on the award in LAC No. 174 of 1996 preferred by one Shri. Ramdas.
30.6. The submission in this regard is that the land of Shri. Ramdas was proposed to be acquired preliminary notification
19.10.1993, with the final notification issued on
24.02.1995, much subsequent notification issued in respect of the land of the Petitioner and as such, the award passed in LAC No. 174 of 1996 could not be made applicable to land of Respondent No.1. The claimants in LAC No. 174 of 1996 had, in turn, relied on the award passed in LAC No. 24 of 1993 and LAC No. 53 of 1991. - 76 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
30.7. Respondent No.1 had challenged the award dated 15.02.2008 in LAC No. 162 of 1996 by filing an appeal in MFA No. 4158 of 2008. The Petitioner had challenged the same in MFA No. 6916 of 2008. This court, finding that the evidence required to arrive at the market value lacking, set aside the award dated
15.02.2008 and remanded the matter. Upon such remand, the reference court enhanced the compensation payable to Rs.18,250/- per gunta and, while doing so, has taken as a comparison the land of the land loser in survey No. 218/2 to be the same as the land in survey no. 238 and 269/2 of Shirwad village, which are stated to be at different locations.
30.8. Again, an appeal having been filed in MFA No. 22574 of 2009 was decided, along with MFA No. 21545 of 2011, against the award in LAC 162/1. This observed - 77 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR compensation awarded could not be considered bad in law and dismissed the appeal. Further, this Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 11,500 to 18,500/- in MFA Crob No.802/2010. The judgment in MFA No. 22574 of 2011 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 18119 of 2012 by the Petitioner herein, which came to be dismissed on 06.07.2012.
30.9. That being as regards one other land acquired from Respondent No.1, subsequently, at the second instance by issuance of a notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act on 19.10.1993 gazetted on
16.12.1993, a further extent of land of the Respondent No.1 in survey No.218/1 of Shirwad village was proposed to be acquired. Compensation having been awarded was accepted by Respondent No.1 without filing a - 78 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR reference under Section 18. It is Sri. Ramdas, who had filed a reference in LAC No. 174 of 1996 in regard to his land in survey No. 189/1, 189/2 and 189/3, the reference court which had awarded compensation on 31.07.2008, announced compensation to be at Rs.11,500/- per gunta. A challenge having been made, this court dismissed the appeal by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,500/- to Rs.18,500/-per gunta. A Special Leave Petition in SLP No.18119 of 2012, having been filed, came to be dismissed. It is at that stage that Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 28A seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of the reference court award dated 31.07.2008.
30.10. It is contended that though the Respondent No.1 claims that the application was filed on
05.11.2008, as per the extract of the register - 79 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR maintained by Respondent No.2, the application is recorded to have been submitted on
19.01.2009. An application under Section 28A being required to be filed within 90 days from the date of the award by the court in a similar matter, the application filed by Respondent No.1 is beyond the period of 90 days and, therefore, ought to have been rejected by the SLAO. A notice was issued in the said proceedings only on 29.12.2012. Thus, it is contended that an application stated to have been filed on 19.01.2009, notice could not have been issued so belatedly on 29.12.2012. It is only subsequently that the Petitioner came to know of the proceedings being conducted without being informed about the same behind the back of the Petitioner. It is thereafter that the Petitioner appeared in those proceedings. - 80 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
30.11. The proceedings have gone on from 19.01.2009 till the date of the impugned award dated
17.12.2022 for over a period of 13 years. There is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the SLAO, and there is collusion between the SLAO and the land loser. The SLAO, having accepted the belated application filed by the land loser, has delayed the matter in order to pass a favourable order in favour of Respondent No.1.
31. Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, would submit that:
31.1. The applications filed by Deepa Dilip Nayak and Vithoba Shankar Phayde were on 17.11.2008 and 05.11.2008, respectively, in pursuance of the enhancement made under Section 18 vide order dated 31.07.2008 in LAC No.174 of 1996. - 81 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR
31.2. An application under Section 28-A is to be filed within a period of three months from the date of the award under Section 18 by the Reference Court in regard to similar lands involved. The award in LAC 174 of 1996 was passed on
31.07.2008, the applications under Section 28A filed on 17.11.2008 and 05.11.2008 are beyond the period of three months. Apart therefrom, he submits that the entry in the register of the SLAO indicates that the applications were received on 19.01.2009. It is not the date mentioned on the application but the date of receipt which is required to be considered. If the date of receipt on 19.01.2009 is considered, the applications are way beyond the period of three months prescribed under Section 28A. These applications were numbered in the year 2012, after four years. In the case of Deepa Nayak, as LAC No.28(A)65/2012-13 and in - 82 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR respect of Vitobha Shankar Phayde as LAC No.28(A)/50/2012-13.
31.3. The fact that they were numbered in the year 2012-13, he submits, would indicate that those applications had not been filed in time. The only aspect that could be taken into consideration for the calculation of the limitation period is the time spent on receipt of a certified copy from the date of filing of the application; the period of four years is way beyond the period of limitation prescribed. This aspect ought to have been taken into consideration by the SLAO, which has not been done.
31.4. Insofar as the copying application is concerned, he submits that the counsel for the claimant in LAC No. 174 of 1996 had made an application on 01.08.2008, which was ready on 30.08.2008 and delivered on 19.09.2008. The period from
30.08.2008 to 19.09.2008 cannot be reckoned - 83 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR because there was a delay on the part of the Counsel. The time which could be considered was only from 01.08.2008 to 30.08.2008, which is a period of 30 days. Even then, the application filed on 19.01.2009 is beyond the period of 3 months fixed as the limitation period.
31.5. The claimants have themselves not applied for any certified copy but have relied on a certified copy obtained by the counsel for the claimant in LAC No.174 of 1996. The present claimants not having applied for certified copies, the question of considering the time spent in filing the application and obtaining the certified copy being excluded, would also not arise.
31.6. He submits that there is no requirement for the production of a certified copy; a mere application could have been filed under Section 28A, and a certified copy made available later. - 84 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR It is in view of that fact that the period of three months fixed would have to be applied with full rigour. The claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of the provisio to Section 28A since they have not made an application for a certified copy.
31.7. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court case of Popat Bahiru Govardhane -v- Land Acquisition Officer10, more particularly para Nos. 13 and 14 thereof, which are reproduced here under for easy reference:
13. This Court in Union of India v. Mangatu Ram [(1997) 6 SCC 59 : AIR 1997 SC 2704] and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. [(1997) 6 SCC 280] dealt with the issue involved herein and held that as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a quasi-judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the 1963 Act would not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 28-A of the Act, has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. The said provisions redetermination is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court. The proviso further application require 10(2013) 10 SCC 765 - 85 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR provides that the period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award is made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award. the applicant
14. In State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah [(2003) 7 SCC 280 : AIR 2003 SC 2949] , this Court reconsidered the aforesaid judgments including the judgment in Harish Chandra Raj Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1500] and held that the statute provides limitation of 3 months from the date of award by the court excluding the time required for obtaining the copy from the date of award. It has no relevance so far as the date of acquisition of knowledge by concerned. In view of the express language of the statute, the question of knowledge did not arise and, therefore, the plea of the applicants that limitation of 3 months would begin from the date of knowledge, was clearly unsustainable and could not be accepted. The Court also rejected the contention of the applicants that a beneficial legislation should be given a liberal interpretation observing that whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within the time-limit prescribed under the statute. Such an applicant must at least be vigilant in making efforts to find out whether the other landowners have filed any reference application and if so, what is the result thereof. If that is not done then the law cannot help him. The ratio of the judgment in Harish Chandra Raj Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1500] was held to be non- applicable in case of Section 28-A of the Act. The Court observed : (Marri Venkaiah case [(2003) 7 SCC 280 : AIR 2003 SC 2949] , SCC pp. 284-85, paras 11- 12) “11. … In that case, the Court interpreted the proviso to Section 18 of the Act and held that clause (a) of the proviso was not applicable in the said case because the person making the application was not - 86 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR present or was not represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. The Court also held that notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) was also not issued, therefore, that part of clause (b) of the proviso would not be applicable. The Court, therefore, referred to the second part of the proviso which provides that such application can be made within six months from the date of the Collector's award. In the context of the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that the award by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer of market price by the State for purchase of the property. Hence, for the said offer, knowledge, actual or constructive, of the party affected by the award was an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. Therefore, the second part of the proviso must mean the date when either the award was communicated to the party or was known by him either actually or constructively.
12. The aforesaid reasoning would not be applicable for interpretation of Section 28-A because there is no question of issuing notice to such an applicant as he is not a party to the reference proceeding before the court. The award passed by the court cannot be termed as an offer for market price for purchase of the land. There is no duty cast upon the court to issue notice to the landowners who have not initiated proceedings for enhancement of compensation by filing reference applications; maybe, that their lands are acquired by a common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. As against this, under Section 18 it is the duty of the Collector to issue notice either under Section 12(2) of the Act at the time of passing of the award or in any case the date to be pronounced before passing of the award and if this is not done then the period prescribed for filing application under Section 18 is six months from the date of the Collector's award.” - 87 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR (emphasis added) ORDER i. No grounds being made out, the writ petitions filed by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited in WP Nos.100706, 100224, 100227, 100229, 100230, 100245, 100292, 100294, 100298, 100784, 100785, 103082 and 105311 of 2023 stands dismissed. ii. No grounds being made out, the writ petitions filed by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., in W.P. Nos.105586, 105650 of 2023 stands dismissed. iii. The writ petition filed by Deepa Dilip Nayak and Vithoba Shankar Phayde and others-petitioners in W.P.103322 of 2023, stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the execution court seeking for appropriate reliefs. - 273 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7586 WP No. 100706 of 2023 C/W WP No. 100224 of 2023 WP No. 100227 of 2023 AND 14 OTHERS HC-KAR iv. Though the above petitions are disposed relist on 31st July to file the Affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, accompanied by a Detailed Project Report in terms of the directions issued above. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE Ln/-