THE DIRECTOR vs SMT PUTTAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2026 (LA)
BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR
CENTRAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,
MANANDAVADI ROAD,
SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU-570008.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.27,
SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE,
MANANDAVADI ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570008.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU-570001.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. ANJALI CATHERINE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R2;)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Chandrachud.A., counsel for the appellant;
Smt.Anjali Catherine., counsel on behalf of Sri.Karthik
Shekar., for respondent No.1 and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik.,
Additional Government Advocate or respondent No.2
appeared in person.
Counsel for respondent No.1 seeks time.
The Court is not inclined to grant any further time. A
perusal of the daily order sheet reveals that the petition
was listed on 03.09.2026, 23.09.2026, and 30.09.2026,
and on none of these dates was there any representation
on behalf of respondent No.1. As noted above, counsel for
respondent No. 1 is seeking further time even today. In
view of the repeated absence of representation on behalf
of respondent No. 1 on the earlier dates, this Court is not
inclined to grant any further adjournment. Accordingly, the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
Court proceeds to consider the matter on its merits and
pass appropriate orders.
2. The second respondent was notified the lands
for the appellant for the establishment of a Training and
Research Institute at Mysuru. During this process, the land
of the first respondent was also acquired. The second
respondent having published the notification, completed
the process of acquisition by passing an award and
handing over the acquired portion to the beneficiary, the
appellant.
3. It is noted that first respondent received the
compensation amount and filed a reference application
before the second respondent, which was forwarded to the
jurisdictional Civil Court and is currently being processed
in LAC No.23/2018. The Reference Court allowed the
reference by passing an award on 01.08.2022, increasing
the compensation payable to the first respondent with
statutory benefits and interest. Based on the award, the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
first respondent filed execution petition in No.408/2022. It
is observed that the appellant deposited an amount of
Rs.73,13,044/- as per the award dated 01.08.2022, along
with the interest and statutory benefits before the
Executing Court. After the deposit of the amount, the first
respondent filed a memo stating that the entire amount is
deposited and he may be permitted to withdraw the same.
The proceedings of the Executing Court on the memo were
referred to Lok Adalat, and the Adalat recording the memo
filed by the first respondent about the complete
satisfaction of the award, accepted the memo and closed
the execution proceedings as satisfied on 11.02.2023.
4. As things stood thus, the first respondent filed
an appeal before the Appellate Court in LAC (Appeal)
No.268/2024. Along with the appeal, an application for
condonation of delay was filed (IA No.1) and the appellant
opposed the application by filing a detailed statement of
objections. However, the Court allowed the application.
The Court, after condoning the delay, proceeded to
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
conduct the proceedings and the appeal was allowed and
the award dated 01.08.2022 was modified. The first
respondent filed an Execution Petition in No.141/2026 and
the Court issued warrant of attachment of the amount of
the appellant department. Under these circumstances, the
present appeal is filed on several grounds as set out in the
memorandum of appeal and also framed substantial
question of law.
5. Counsel appearing for the respective parties
presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and
perused the papers with care.
6. This Court vide order dated 14.10.2026 framed
the following substantial question of law:
(i) Whether the respondent No.1 could file LAC
(APPEAL) No.268/2024 even after filing a
memo in the execution proceedings Ex.
petition No.408/2022, which was recorded
before the Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
closing the execution proceedings as
satisfied?
7. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not
require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the first
respondent accepted the compensation amount; however,
she suppressed this fact and filed an appeal seeking
enhancement after a lapse of two and a half years. I may
venture to say that the concealing of the collection of an
accepted settlement to seek further compensation two
years later is a blatant abuse of process. The first
respondent's decision to file an appeal for enhanced
compensation after two years constitutes an abuse of
process, particularly, since she accepted the initial
compensation and failed to disclose this material fact.
The Appellate Court committed an error in
entertaining and allowing the appeal, particularly because
the first respondent had previously accepted the
compensation amount by submitting a memo and
subsequently concluded the execution proceedings.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57967
MSA No. 131 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010306152026
The substantial question of law is answered
accordingly.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the appeal is . The
impugned Judgment dated 25.11.2025 passed by the
Court of IV Additional District and Session Judge, Mysuru
in LAC (Appeal) No.268/2024 is set aside.
Because of disposal of the appeal, interim order
granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory
applications if any are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19