SRI HALAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 57848 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HALAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS
SRI. HANUMAGOWDA
S/O HALAPPA YERAHALLI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUGINAGONDI
POST- GOVINAHALA,
HARIHAR - TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. DEEPIKA D. POOJARY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DIST.
DAVANAGERE - 577002
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE - 577002
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF ZILLA PANCHAYAT
DAVANAGERE
DIST: DAVANAGERE - 577002
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
(BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. N.R.JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KUM E.152: BHOO SWA CH 2011
DATED 29.03.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN RESPECT OF LAND
BEARING SY.NO.26/1 AND 38 OF MUGINAGONDI VILLAGE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the notification bearing
No.KUM.E.152:BHOOSWA:CH:2011 dated 29.03.2012 issued
by the respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.26/1 and 38 of Muginagondi village, Malebennuru Hobli,
Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District.
2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.26/1 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas and
Re.Sy.No.38 measuring 6 acres 29 guntas situate at
Muginagondi village, Malebennuru Hobli, Harihara Taluk,
Davanagere District, which was notified for acquisition by the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
respondent No.1 in terms of a preliminary notification dated
04.03.2011 for the purpose of formation of a road. The
petitioner submitted his objections to the notification. However,
objection filed by the petitioner was rejected and proceedings
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken
out. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued two notices under
Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to
determine the compensation payable. The petitioner contends
that he submitted his objections to the notices and claimed that
the land is acquired to provide access to reach land of others
and therefore, the land is not needed for any public purpose. It
is contended that the respondent No.2 passed an award dated
30.08.2014 determining compensation at a sum of
Rs.1,80,021/-. The petitioner contends that the road was not
necessary as there was already a road which was serving needs
of the residents of the Muginagondi village. The petitioner is
therefore, before this Court challenging the acquisition.
3. When this writ petition was listed for ‘Preliminary
Hearing B – Group’, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that a road is already formed in the land bearing
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
Sy.Nos.26/1 and 38 of Muginagondi village but compensation is
not paid to the petitioner.
4. When this Court called upon the learned High Court
Government Pleader to secure instructions whether the
compensation was paid, she submitted that after an award was
passed, compensation that was received from the office of the
respondent No.3 was kept in revenue deposit by the
respondent No.2. She therefore, submitted that the
compensation is not offered to the petitioner and no notice
under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued to the petitioner.
5. In view of the fact that the land is already used for
the purpose for which it was acquired, no purpose would be
served in going into the validity of the notification issued to
acquire the land in Sy.Nos.26/1 and 38 of Muginagondi village.
However, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation in
respect of the land lost. It is not in dispute that a notice under
Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued
to the petitioner and that compensation of Rs.1,80,021/- was
determined. There is nothing to show that the said
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
compensation was offered to the petitioner and that the
petitioner had refused to receive it. There is also nothing to
show that any attempt was made by the respondent No.2 to
deposit the compensation before the reference Court as
required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since the respondent No.2 has kept the compensation in
revenue deposit, that does not sub-serve the purpose of
granting compensation which is mainly to rehabilitate and
resettle the landloser. It is under these circumstances, that the
Courts have time and again held that the landlosers would be
entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation by moving the
date of preliminary notification so as to ensure that the
landloser get adequate and just compensation, as held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and
others vs. Government of Karnataka and others [(2025)
7 SCC 580], where it was held as follows:-
“55. If the compensation to be awarded at the
market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it
would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and
making the constitutional provisions under Article
300-A a mockery.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
56. Since the State/KIADB was in deep slumber
from 2003 to 2019 and acted for the first time only
after the notices were issued in contempt
proceedings, we find that though SLAO had no power
to shift the date for determination of market value,
he had rightly done so. The learned Single Judge of
the High Court also does not say that the
determination of compensation to be awarded by
shifting of the date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was
unjust but only sets aside the award on the ground
that SLAO had no jurisdiction to do so.
57. There is another reason for doing so. If on
account of the inordinate delay in paying the
compensation and thereby depriving the
constitutional right to the appellants under Article
300-A, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed,
the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in
order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh
acquisition notification by invoking the provisions as
applicable under the 2013 LA Act which would entail
huge expenditure to the public exchequer.”
6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed
in part. The challenge to the notification bearing
No.KUM.E.152:BHOOSWA:CH:2011 dated 29.03.2012 issued
by respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.26/1
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57926
WP No. 57848 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010103242015
and 38 of Muginagondi village, Malebennuru Hobli, Harihara
Taluk, Davanagere District, is rejected.
7. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh
award determining compensation as on the date of this order
and as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. It is needless to mention that the
petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and also
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this
order till the date of payment of compensation. The
respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders determining the
compensation within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48