Karnataka HC Removes 25% Deposit And Compensation-Parity Conditions From Fresh Hearing Of Landowners’ Compensation Claims

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge, particularly conditions 4 to 9, should stand when the Reference Court considers the remanded reference afresh.

The court held

The writ appeal was disposed of in terms of the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matter, thereby applying the coordinate Bench’s approach to the challenged conditions and leaving the Reference Court to proceed in accordance with law.

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 this appeal and thereafter proceed according to law. Pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, was the beneficiary of land acquired from the private respondents but was not made a party before the Reference Court, which proceeded to pass an award.

p. 3

The appellant challenged that award by writ petition. The Single Judge set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Reference Court, while imposing conditions, including directions concerning payment of enhanced compensation and a deposit of 25% of the awarded amount. The appellant’s appeal challenged conditions 4 to 9 of the Single Judge’s order.

pp. 3–4, 5–7

The parties referred to a coordinate Bench decision which had set aside comparable conditions and left the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law.

pp. 7–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge, particularly conditions 4 to 9, should stand when the Reference Court considers the remanded reference afresh.

pp. 3–4, 5–7

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of without prior notice to the unserved private respondents, subject to directions protecting their participation in the remanded proceedings.

pp. 3, 10–11

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle stated by a coordinate Bench in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026 that, where the award is set aside because the beneficiary was absent from the Reference Court proceedings, the Reference Court should be given a free hand to decide the reference in accordance with law; directions that constrain its discretion as to how the reference is to be determined should be set aside.

pp. 7–10

The Court followed the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matter, which applied that principle to comparable conditions imposed on remand.

pp. 4–5, 10

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The appellant’s challenge concerned the conditions attached to the remand, rather than the setting aside of the Reference Court’s award itself. The Court considered the coordinate Bench’s reasoning that the Reference Court should determine the reference afresh without restrictions on its discretion.

p. 3, 10

Finding no reason to depart from the approach adopted in the comparable appeal, it disposed of this appeal on the same basis. Although notice had not been served on some private respondents, the Court directed the Reference Court to issue notice to those parties before proceeding.

pp. 10–11