After 102-year-old waited 21 years for a land-compensation reference, Karnataka High Court orders ₹1 lakh compensation, with salary deduction if unpaid

The petitioner challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 2004 and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, asserting that the compensation was inadequate.

After his requests to the Special Land Acquisition Officer were not acted upon, he approached the reference court under Section 18(3)(b).

On 29 November 2022, that court directed the officer to refer the dispute within 30 days.

The petitioner sent the order to the officer with a representation on 8 December 2022, but no reference was made, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the respondent No. 2 should be directed to refer the petitioner’s compensation dispute under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in compliance with the reference court’s order.

2. Whether the respondent No. 2’s failure to act warranted an award of compensation to the petitioner.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for reference of a compensation dispute to the civil court; Section 18(3)(b) enables an interested person to seek such a reference through the reference court.

The Court treated compliance with the reference court’s direction and performance of the statutory duty to refer the dispute as obligations of the respondent No. 2.

No precedent was cited.

The petitioner had objected to the compensation and pursued a reference, culminating in the reference court’s order requiring the respondent No. 2 to act within 30 days.

Despite receiving that order with the petitioner’s representation, the officer had not referred the dispute.

The Court viewed this prolonged inaction as negligence and non-compliance with both the statutory duty and the reference court’s order.

It therefore granted mandamus and separately awarded compensation for the delay and resulting harassment.

The respondent No. 2 was directed to refer the dispute under Section 18(3)(b) within one month of receiving a certified copy of the High Court’s order.

The respondent No. 2 was also directed to pay the petitioner ₹1,00,000 within the same period; failing payment, the amount was to be deducted from the salary of the officer responsible for the delay and in office when the petitioner made the 8 December 2022 representation.

The matter was listed for compliance on 23 November 2026.