Karnataka HC Sends Landowners’ Compensation Claims Back For Fresh Hearing, Removes 25% Deposit Condition On Project Beneficiary

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside so that the Reference Court may reconsider the reference proceedings 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 connected matters.

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 the appeal and then proceed in accordance with law.

Pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd., was the beneficiary of land acquisitions but had not been made a party before the Reference Court, which had passed an award concerning the private respondents’ lands.

In W.P. No. 109689/2025, the learned Single Judge set aside the award and remitted the matter, while imposing conditions on the Reference Court’s reconsideration, including directions concerning evidence, payment of enhanced compensation, and deposit of part of the award amount.

The appellant appealed, challenging conditions Nos. 4 to 9 of the Single Judge’s order.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside so that the Reference Court may reconsider the reference proceedings in accordance with law.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 5–6, 12

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of without notice to the unserved private respondents, subject to directions for notice before the Reference Court.

¶ 2, 7 · p. 5, 13

03Law Applied

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, provides for an appeal to the High Court in the circumstances applicable to this writ appeal.

The Court applied the principle stated by a coordinate Bench in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026: where a writ petition succeeds on the ground that an award was made without impleading the beneficiary, the Reference Court should be left to decide the remitted matter in accordance with law; directions that constrain its discretion as to how the reference is to be determined should be set aside.

¶ 4 · pp. 6–10 · ¶ 5 · pp. 10–11

The Court also followed the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and connected matters.

¶ 4–6 · pp. 6–12

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The appellant and the State submitted that the appeal should be resolved consistently with the earlier decisions concerning similar orders.

The Court agreed with the coordinate Bench’s view that the Reference Court should have a free hand to decide the reference afresh, and found no reason to depart from the approach taken in the connected appeals.

¶ 5–6 · p. 12

Although the appeal was heard without notice to the unserved respondents, the Court directed the Reference Court to issue notice to parties not served in this appeal before proceeding.

¶ 2, 7 · p. 5, 13