After Project Beneficiary Was Left Out Of Landowners’ Case, Karnataka HC Removes 25% Deposit And Matching-Compensation Conditions From Remand

In brief

The question

1. Whether conditions (iv) to (ix) imposed by the Single Judge should be set aside, leaving the Reference Court to determine the reference afresh in accordance with law

The court held

The writ appeal was disposed of in terms of the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matters.

It also directed

The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court on 26 November 2026; the Reference Court was directed to issue notice to parties not served in the appeal and then proceed in accordance with law. Pending applications were also disposed of

01Facts

The appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, was the beneficiary of an acquisition of private respondents’ lands but was not impleaded before the Reference Court, which passed an award.

pp. 3–4

In the appellant’s writ petition, the Single Judge set aside the award and remanded the matter, while imposing conditions (iv) to (ix) concerning the beneficiary’s participation, consideration of compensation paid for similarly placed lands, timelines, and deposit of part of the awarded compensation. The appellant challenged those conditions in this appeal

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether conditions (iv) to (ix) imposed by the Single Judge should be set aside, leaving the Reference Court to determine the reference afresh in accordance with law

pp. 3–4 · pp. 8–10

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of without notice to unserved respondents, subject to directions for notice and participation before the Reference Court

p. 3 · p. 11

03Law Applied

Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the High Court may hear a writ appeal challenging an order of a Single Judge.

pp. 8–10

Where an award is set aside because the beneficiary was not made a party, the Reference Court should be permitted to decide the remitted reference in accordance with law; directions that constrain its discretion on the manner or terms of that determination may be set aside.

pp. 8–10

The Court followed the coordinate Bench decision in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026, which affirmed setting aside and remand but set aside conditions (iv) to (ix)

pp. 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the appeal raised the same issue addressed in connected appeals and agreed with the coordinate Bench’s view that the Reference Court must have a free hand to decide the reference in accordance with law.

pp. 4–10

Since the beneficiary’s non-joinder had led to the award being set aside and the matter remanded, the additional conditions governing how the Reference Court should assess compensation, proceed on remand, and require a deposit were not retained.

pp. 4–10

The Court therefore applied the coordinate Bench’s approach and directed the parties to appear before the Reference Court, which was to issue notice to parties not served in the appeal

pp. 4–10 · p. 11