Karnataka High CourtProperty and Real Estate LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Bidar Landowner’s Dry Land Valued At ₹43,890/Acre In Karnataka HC-Approved Settlement, With KNNL’s 3.5-Year Interest Waiver Tied To Payment Within 4 Months

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bidar Landowner’s Dry Land Valued At ₹43,890/Acre In Karnataka HC-Approved Settlement, With KNNL’s 3.5-Year Interest Waiver Tied To Payment Within 4 Months. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA  AND  ORS. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the mediated settlement could be accepted and given effect despite the Deputy Commissioner’s not having signed it

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement

It also directed

The settlement was made part of the order and declared to operate in substitution for any award, judgment, or decree of the Reference Court or Appellate Court. The concerned courts were directed to draw up a decree in its terms within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, and payments were directed to be made without TDS

01Facts

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam (KNNL), the beneficiary of a land acquisition, challenged the First Appellate Court’s judgment and award dated 2 January 2015, contending that it had not been impleaded before that court

p. 2

During the writ proceedings, the parties reached a mediated settlement, which provided, among other terms, a market value of ₹43,890 per acre for dry land, statutory benefits subject to specified exclusions of interest, and payment within four months

pp. 3–6

The Deputy Commissioner did not sign the agreement, but the State had consented in principle and the authorized Land Acquisition Officer had signed it

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the mediated settlement could be accepted and given effect despite the Deputy Commissioner’s not having signed it

p. 7 · ¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the settlement should be recorded as a lawful compromise and form the basis for the decree and payment directions

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, to record the mediation agreement as a lawful settlement

p. 9 · ¶ 9

It also relied on its order dated 20 August 2025 in W.P. No. 102884/2025, which held that compensation for compulsory acquisition of land was not subject to tax deduction at source under the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act

p. 8 · ¶ 8

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 89

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the settlement because the dispute was principally between KNNL, as beneficiary, and the land loser; the State had consented in principle, and the authorized Land Acquisition Officer had signed the agreement. It therefore dispensed with the Deputy Commissioner’s signature

p. 7 · ¶ 6–7

Applying Section 89 and Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the Court treated the agreement as a lawful settlement, and, relying on its prior order concerning TDS, directed that payments under the agreement be made without tax deduction at source

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 8–9

05Holding

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement

p. 10 · ¶ 10

The settlement was made part of the order and declared to operate in substitution for any award, judgment, or decree of the Reference Court or Appellate Court. The concerned courts were directed to draw up a decree in its terms within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, and payments were directed to be made without TDS

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 8–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Karnataka High Court · October 12, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment