THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 203460 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
WALMI BUILDING,
BESIDES HIGH COURT
DHARWAD-580011
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
KARANAJ PROJECT, BIDAR
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL ADV., APPEARING FOR
SRI.SHARANABASAVA PASTAPUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR-585401
DIST: BIDAR
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARANAJA PROJECT
BIDAR-585401
4. SANTOSH PATIL
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR RAO PATIL
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O H NO 9-3-149,
NEAR RAO HOTEL
DCC BANK NEW,
BIDAR-585401
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.RAVI B. PATIL ADV., FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND I) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 IN FILE BEARING
NO.LAQ/APCR/295/1979-80 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
“ i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 30.06.2022
in file bearing No.LAQ/APCR/295/1979-80 passed by the
respondent no.3 SLAO vide Annexure-F to the writ
petition.
ii) Pass such other order in the interest of justice
and equity.
”
2. Sri. Sanjeevkumar C Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
the beneficiary of the acquisition. Respondent No.4
submitted an application before respondent No.3 seeking
to redetermine the compensation under Section 28-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the LA Act’ for short). As
the said application was not acted upon by respondent
No.3, respondent No.4 approached this Court, which
issued directions. Pursuant thereto, the impugned award
came to be passed. It is further submitted that there has
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
been a clear lapse on the part of respondent No.3 in
passing the award under Section 28-A of the LA Act. The
award has been passed after a lapse of more than two
decades, and the beneficiary of the acquisition cannot be
compelled to bear the burden of interest arising out of
such delay of the statutory authority. Hence, he seeks to
allow the writ petition.
3. Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3
supports the impugned award and submits that the Land
Acquisition Officer (‘LAO’ for short) passed the award
based on the directions issued by this Court.
4. Sri. Ravi B Patil, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4 also supports the impugned award and
submits that there has been no lapse on the part of the
land loser, who submitted an application way back in the
year 2007. As no action was taken on the said application,
respondent No.4 was constrained to approach this Court,
which issued directions to the competent authority to
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
consider the application. Pursuant thereto, impugned
award has been passed, and the same does not call for
any interference. Hence, the learned counsel seek to
dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to
3, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The undisputed facts between the parties are that
the lands belonging to respondent No.4 were acquired by
the respondent - State Government for the benefit of the
petitioner herein. Respondent No.3 determined the
compensation of the acquired land by passing the award.
Thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted an application
dated 29.12.2007 to respondent No.3 – the LAO, Karanaja
Project, Bidar seeking to redetermine the compensation
under Section 28-A of the LA Act based on the judgment
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
passed in L.A.C.No.132/1995 and other connected
matters.
7. As respondent No.3 did not act upon the said
application, respondent No.4 was constrained to file
W.P.No.200209/2022. This Court, by order dated
20.01.2022, directed the LAO to consider the application
within a period of two months by permitting respondent
N.4 to submit a fresh application. Accordingly, respondent
No.4 herein submitted another fresh application, as
directed by this Court, as is evident from Annexure-E.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the impugned award
under Section 28-A of the LA Act.
8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the delay on the part of
respondent No.3 in passing the award calls for interference
has no merits. The statutory authority failed to act upon
the application submitted by respondent No.4 under
Section 28-A of the LA Act, thereby compelling respondent
No.4 to approach this Court and seek appropriate
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11657
WP No. 203460 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108172025
directions. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court,
respondent No.3 has passed the award under Section 28-A
of the LA Act, in accordance with law.
9. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the
delay or lapse on the part of respondent No.3 in passing
the award under Section 28-A of the LA Act, it is open to
the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies against the
concerned authority i.e., Special Land Acquisition Officer,
in accordance with law in respect of any loss allegedly
suffered on account of such delay or lapse.
10. With the aforesaid observations, I am of the
considered of view that the writ petition is devoid of merits
and the same is accordingly, rejected .
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24