Karnataka HC Removes 25% Deposit And Parity-Payment Conditions, Leaving Landowners’ Enhanced-Compensation Claims For Fresh Hearing

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside, leaving the Reference Court to decide 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 the connected matter.

It also directed

Accordingly, the Single Judge’s order setting aside the award and remitting the matter remained in place, while conditions 4 to 9 were set aside.

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 interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd., was the beneficiary of land acquisitions but had not been impleaded in proceedings before the Reference Court, which consequently passed an award.

pp. 3–4

The appellant challenged that award in W.P. No. 109641/2025.

pp. 3–4

The Single Judge set aside the award and remanded the matter, while imposing conditions in the operative order.

pp. 3–4

The appellant appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to set aside conditions 4 to 9.

pp. 3–4

The parties submitted that a coordinate Bench had addressed the same issue in connected appeals and sought a similar order.

pp. 11–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside, leaving the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law.

pp. 3–4, 8–10

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of in line with the coordinate Bench’s decision without first serving the unserved private respondents, subject to notice from the Reference Court.

pp. 4, 11–12

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

p. 3

The Court applied the coordinate Bench’s principle that, where the challenge accepted by the writ court is that an award was made without the beneficiary being a party, the Reference Court should be given a free hand to determine the matter in accordance with law; remand directions should not improperly restrict its discretion over the proceedings or their outcome.

pp. 8–10

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decisions in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026 and W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 with a connected matter.

pp. 4–10

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The appellant’s grievance concerned the conditions attached to the remand, not the setting aside of the Reference Court’s award or the remand itself.

pp. 8–12

The Court found no reason to depart from the coordinate Bench’s approach, which had upheld the setting aside and remand while removing directions that constrained the Reference Court’s consideration of the reference.

pp. 8–12

It therefore adopted that approach, while directing the Reference Court to notify the parties who had not been served in the appeal before proceeding.

p. 12