Karnataka High CourtProperty and Real Estate LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Gets 25% Deposit Condition Lifted as Karnataka HC Sends Landowners’ Compensation Claims Back for Fresh Decision

KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,v.THE SPECIAL

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Gets 25% Deposit Condition Lifted as Karnataka HC Sends Landowners’ Compensation Claims Back for Fresh Decision. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD., vs THE SPECIAL. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside, while maintaining the setting aside of the Reference Court’s award and the remand for fresh consideration.

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

The Reference Court is to reconsider the reference in accordance with law, with the parties to appear before it on 26 November 2026; it must issue notice to parties not served in this appeal before proceeding.

Pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

Lands belonging to the private respondents were acquired for the appellant, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd., the beneficiary of the acquisition.

¶ 3

The appellant was not made a party before the Reference Court, which passed an award.

¶ 3

In a writ petition filed by the appellant, the Single Judge set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Reference Court, but imposed conditions concerning the beneficiary’s participation, compensation for similarly placed lands, and a 25% deposit of the compensation awarded.

¶ 3, 7

The appellant appealed against those conditions.

¶ 3, 7

The parties submitted that similar conditions had been set aside in connected writ appeals and sought the same disposition here.

¶ 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Single Judge on remand should be set aside, while maintaining the setting aside of the Reference Court’s award and the remand for fresh consideration.

¶ 3, 7

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of consistently with the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026 and the connected appeals.

¶ 4–6

03Law Applied

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, provided the basis for the writ appeal.

p. 2

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 100475 of 2026, which held that where the writ petition succeeded on the ground that the beneficiary had not been impleaded, the Reference Court should be left to decide the remitted matter in accordance with law; directions that restrict its discretion in doing so may be set aside.

pp. 7–9

The Court also followed the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and a connected matter, which applied that approach.

pp. 4–9

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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Single Judge’s order setting aside the Reference Court’s award and remitting the matter was not challenged as such; the appeal concerned the additional conditions governing the remand.

¶ 3, 7

Following the coordinate Bench’s view that the Reference Court must decide the reference afresh in accordance with law, the Court found no reason to impose the conditions previously removed in the connected appeals.

¶ 4–6

It therefore adopted the same disposition while directing the Reference Court to notify parties who had not been served in this appeal.

¶ 7

05Holding

The writ appeal was disposed of in terms of the order in W.A. No. 100590 of 2026 and the connected matter.

¶ 7

The Reference Court is to reconsider the reference in accordance with law, with the parties to appear before it on 26 November 2026; it must issue notice to parties not served in this appeal before proceeding.

¶ 7

Pending applications were also disposed of.

¶ 8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,vsTHE SPECIAL

Karnataka High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment