01Facts
Karnataka Neeravari Nigam (KNNL), the beneficiary of the land acquisition, challenged the First Appellate Court’s judgment and award on the ground that it had not been impleaded in the appeal
p. 3During the writ proceedings, the parties participated in mediation and filed a settlement agreement fixing compensation for dry land at ₹41,580 per acre, subject to specified terms concerning statutory benefits, interest, payment, and final settlement of claims
pp. 4–7The Deputy Commissioner had not signed the agreement, although the State had consented to it in principle and the authorized Land Acquisition Officer had signed it
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the mediated settlement could be accepted despite the Deputy Commissioner’s not having signed it
p. 7ii.2. Whether payments made under the settlement were to be made without deduction of tax at source
p. 8iii.3. Whether the settlement should replace any award, judgment, or decree made by the Reference Court or Appellate Court
p. 903Law Applied
The Court treated the settlement as a lawful settlement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, and directed that it form part of the order and substitute any award, judgment, or decree passed by the Reference Court or Appellate Court
p. 9On tax deduction, the Court relied on its earlier order dated 20 August 2025 in W.P. No. 102884/2025, which it said had held that compensation for compulsory acquisition of land was not subject to tax deducted at source under the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act
p. 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 the acquisition beneficiary, and the landowners; the State had consented in principle, and the authorized Land Acquisition Officer had signed the agreement.
p. 7It therefore dispensed with the Deputy Commissioner’s signature and accepted the mediation report.
p. 7Applying its earlier ruling on TDS, the Court directed that payments under the agreement be made without tax deduction.
p. 8It then gave the settlement legal effect under Section 89 and Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, requiring the concerned courts to draw up a decree in its terms.
p. 905Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the mediated settlement, accepted it despite the Deputy Commissioner’s missing signature, and directed that payments be made without TDS.
pp. 7–8The settlement was to operate in substitution for any relevant Reference Court or Appellate Court award, judgment, or decree, and the concerned courts were directed to draw up a decree within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
p. 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
