SRI. SOMAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 101491 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SOMAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.



2. SRI. VITTAL S/O GURAPPA LAMANI
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.



3. SMT. BHIMAVVA W/O SOMAPPA LAMANI
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.



4. SRI. SHIVAPPA VALU LAMANI
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

5. SMT. MANGALA MUNIYAPPA LAMANI
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

6. SMT. RATNAVVA LAMANI
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.


Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench

7. SRI. GURESH LAMANI
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021


8. SRI. CHANDU SHESHAPPA LAMANI
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

9. SMT. ARATHI HANAMANT LAMANI
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

10. SRI. MALESHBAI PANDAYAJI RAJPUT
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587116.

REPRESENTED BY THEIR P A HOLDER
SRI. SOMAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI (P1).
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BILAGI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587116.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION OF UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT - 587101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
ST
PASSED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT UNDER NO.LAQ/SR//02/2010-
11/177 DATED 03.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021


ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioners herein claim to be the joint owners of land
bearing R.S.Nos.155/1B/1, 1552B/2 and 155/2A all
measuring 37 guntas situated at Siddapura Village, Bilagi
Taluk, Bagalakote District.

2. The said land was acquired by respondent No.1 for Teggi-
Siddapur Lift Irrigation Project vide notification dated
09.08.2010. Petitioners were awarded compensation in a
sum of Rs.38,311/- per acre. Thereafter petitioners have
filed an application under Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (“the Amended Act,
1984” for short) as per Annexure-D seeking enhancement
of compensation on a comparative case basis. In that,
petitioners herein relied upon an order dated 25.02.2019
passed in LAC No.25/2018 in respect of the same
notification proposing to acquire land with the same village
for the same purpose, wherein the Reference Court had
awarded the compensation of Rs.10,56,000/- per acre.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021



3. By the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has rejected the said application on the
premise that LAC No.25/2018 based on which the
application which was filed under Section 28A of the
Amended Act 1984 by the petitioners, is subject matter in
appeal before this Court. It is this order which the
petitioners are aggrieved of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
respondent No.1-SLAO could not have rejected the
application merely because an appeal is pending
consideration against the order passed in LA No.25/2018,
instead he could have waited for outcome of the said
appeal. The rejection of said application has rendered
petitioners remediless. Hence this writ petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the
impugned order was passed in light of pendency of the
appeal against the order passed in LAC No.25/2018, based
on which petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation. Therefore no error can be found in the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021


order passed by the SLAO. Hence seeking dismissal of the
petition.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. Petitioners were awarded compensation of Rs.38,311/- per
acre in respect of his land which was acquired for Teggi-
Siddapura Lift Irrigation Project. The acquisition is subject
matter of the notification dated 09.08.2010. Reference
Court in LAC No.25/2018 has awarded Rs.10,56,000/- per
acre as compensation in respect of the land which was
subject matter of very same notification situated within the
same village for the same purpose. It is this which
prompted the petitioners to invoke Section 28A of the
Amended Act 1984 seeking enhancement of compensation
on comparative basis which has been rejected by
impugned order, which reads as under:
:«±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀȵÁÚ ªÉÄîÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£É, ©Ã¼ÀV f.
¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉgÀªÀgÀ
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ £ÀqÀĪÀ½PÉUÀ¼ÀÄ :

«µÀAiÀÄ : PÀ®A 28(J) gÀrAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ
PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR : CfðzÁgÀ ²æà ¸ÉƪÀÄ¥Àà UÀÄgÀ¥Áà ®ªÀiÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ
॥
EvÀgÀgÀÆ ¸Á ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ EªÀgÀ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10-05-2019.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021



¥ÀǪÀð ¦ÃpPÉ:

ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æà ¸ÉƪÀÄ¥Àà UÀÄgÀ¥Áà ®ªÀiÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ
॥
EvÀgÀgÀÆ ¸Á ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀ ©Ã¼ÀV EªÀgÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A
28(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10-05-2019 gÀAzÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:
155/1©/1, 155/2©/2, ºÁUÀÆ 155/2J, gÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå 2£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¹«¯ï
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ±ÉæÃt ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ EªÀgÀ°è
¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.154/2 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ DzÀAvÀºÀ J¯ï.J.¹ £ÀA:
25/2018 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-02-2019 gÀ CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10-05-2019
gÀAzÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹ ¸ÀzÀj rQæ AiÀÄ°è DzÀAvÀºÀ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß (ªÀiÁUÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß)
£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA CAzÀgÉ j.¸À.£ÀA: 155/1©/1, 155/2©/2, ºÁUÀÆ 155/2J,
PÉÌ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ «£ÀAw¹ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ
EzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj J¯ï.J¹. £ÀA: 25/2018 EzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ°è C¦üî ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÀ®A 28(J) gÀr ¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£À ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

: D zÉà ±À :
PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ:J¯ïJPÀÆå:J¸ïDgï:02/2010-11/177 ¢£ÁAPÀ: -09-2020

ªÉÄÃ¯É ¦pPÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ©¼ÀV vÀ®ÆèPÀÄ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.:
155/1©/1, 155/2©/2, ºÁUÀÆ 155/2J, gÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÉƪÀÄ¥Àà UÀÄgÀ¥Áà
॥
®ªÀiÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÆ ¸Á ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ
PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 28(J) gÀ CfðAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ J¯ï.J.¹ £ÀA: 25/2018
gÀ°èAiÀÄ j.¸À.£ÀA 154/2 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C¦üî DVzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¸À»/-
«±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÀȪÉÄÃ.AiÉÆÃ. ©Ã¼ÀV f. ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ

¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß:

1. ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀĺÁ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ, PÀȪÉÄÃ.AiÉÆÃ. £ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021


¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV UËgÀªÀ¥ÀǪÀðPÀ ¸ÀªÀĦð¹zÉ.
॥

2. ²æà ¸ÉƪÀÄ¥Àà UÀÄgÀ¥Áà ®ªÀiÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÆ ¸Á ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ
vÁ®ÆPÀ ©Ã¼ÀV EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV gÀªÁ¤¹zÉ.

3. ²æêÀÄw ªÁuɲæà JA PÀÄ®PÀtÂð CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀĪÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
UÁA¢ü £ÀUÀgÀ ©Ã¼ÀV EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV.

8. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioners, if the order passed in LAC No.25/2018 is
subject matter of appeal, the SLAO ought not to have
rejected the application, instead ought to have awaited
outcome of the said appeal. In normal circumstances,
petitioners would have been relegated to seek reference
under Sections 18 to 28 of the Amended Act 1984, since
his request has been rejected, which itself amounts to
passing of an award. However, the reason assigned for
rejection of application is pendency of proceedings in the
appeal. Therefore, the SLAO was required to have waited
for the order to be passed.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the
matter be remitted to SLAO, who would re-consider the
application filed by the petitioners for enhancement under
Section 28A of the Amended Act 1984, subject to outcome

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17049
WP No. 101491 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020227182021


of the appeal in MFA No.102198/2022 and connected
matters.

10. In that view of the matter, the following;
ORDER
allowed .
(i) The writ petition is

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.09.2020
passed by respondent No.1-SLAO produced
set aside.
as per Annexure-E is

(iii) The application filed by the petitioners under
Section 28A of the Amended Act 1984 is
restored.

(iv) The SLAO shall await the outcome of the
appeals in MFA No.102198/2022 and
connected matters and thereafter proceed to
pass order in accordance with law.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

EM
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39