01Facts
The appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, was the beneficiary of land acquisitions but had not been made a party before the Reference Court, which had passed an award concerning the acquired lands.
¶ 2–3 · pp. 3–4, 10–11The appellant challenged that award in a writ petition. The Single Judge set aside the award and remitted the matter, while imposing conditions numbered 4 to 9 on the remand proceedings.
¶ 2–3 · pp. 3–4, 10–11The appellant appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to have those conditions set aside. The private respondent was unserved; the Division Bench proceeded without notice in view of the safeguards it directed for the respondent.
¶ 2–3, 7 · pp. 3–4, 10–1102Issues
i.1. Whether the directions and conditions numbered 4 to 9 imposed by the Single Judge should be set aside so that the Reference Court may decide the remanded proceedings in accordance with law.
¶ 3–7 · pp. 3–4, 10–11ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of without first serving the unserved private respondent, subject to directions safeguarding that respondent’s participation in the remand proceedings.
¶ 2, 7 · pp. 3, 10–1103Law Applied
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, provides the basis for the writ appeal.
¶ 4–6 · pp. 4–10The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Writ Appeal No. 100475 of 2026, which held that where a writ petition succeeds on the ground that the beneficiary was absent from the Reference Court proceedings, the Reference Court should be left to determine the matter afresh in accordance with law; directions that restrict its discretion as to how the reference is to be decided should not be imposed.
¶ 4–6 · pp. 4–10The Court also followed the order in Writ Appeal No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matter, which applied that principle to similar conditions.
¶ 4–6 · pp. 4–10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4
04Reasoning
The appellant’s challenge concerned the conditions imposed on remand, not the setting aside of the Reference Court’s award or the remand itself.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 10–11Applying the coordinate Bench’s reasoning, the Division Bench concluded that the Reference Court should have a free hand to decide the reference in accordance with law, rather than be bound by the challenged conditions.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 10–11As the parties agreed that a similar order was appropriate, the Court disposed of the appeal on the same basis as the earlier connected appeal.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 10–11Although the private respondent had not been served in the appeal, the Court directed the Reference Court to issue notice to unserved parties before proceeding.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 10–1105Holding
The appeal was disposed of in terms of the order in Writ Appeal No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matter.
¶ 7–8 · p. 11The 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 thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
¶ 7–8 · p. 11Pending applications were disposed of.
¶ 7–8 · p. 11Original Court PDF
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,vsTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
