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. 2During 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. 3–6The Deputy Commissioner did not sign the agreement, but the State had consented in principle and the authorized Land Acquisition Officer had signed it
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the mediated settlement could be accepted and given effect despite the Deputy Commissioner’s not having signed it
p. 7 · ¶ 6ii.2. Whether the settlement should be recorded as a lawful compromise and form the basis for the decree and payment directions
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 8–1003Law 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 · ¶ 9It 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 · ¶ 8Provisions 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 · ¶ 6–7Applying 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 · ¶ 8–905Holding
The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement
p. 10 · ¶ 10The 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 · ¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
