Facts
The petitioner owned land (CTS No. 3528/C) at Unkal Cross, Hubballi, which was acquired for the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) project under the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964
Source reference: p. 3-4Following a price negotiation meeting, the petitioner executed an indemnity bond and agreement on 23.11.2015, consenting to receive compensation of ₹1,52,25,307/- at the residential rate of ₹4,000/- per sq. ft.
Source reference: p. 4-5Consequently, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed a "consent award" under Section 27 of the Act on 26.11.2015
Source reference: p. 5After receiving the payment (less TDS), the petitioner sent an email on 01.12.2015 claiming the payment was accepted "under protest" and issued a legal notice on 29.02.2016 seeking a reference under Section 35 of the Act, arguing the land should be treated as "commercial" (valued at ₹6,250/- per sq. ft.)
Source reference: p. 5-6The SLAO rejected this request via an endorsement dated 24.08.2016
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether a person who has accepted compensation through a consent agreement under Section 27 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, is entitled to seek a reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 35 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 11-132. Whether the subsequent "protest" via email and legal notice nullifies the validity of a consent award passed based on an executed indemnity bond and agreement.
Source reference: p. 11 / para. 16Law Applied
Section 27 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, which provides for determination of compensation by agreement
Source reference: p. 8Section 28, which applies only when there is a "default of agreement"
Source reference: p. 8Section 35, noting that a reference to a Civil Court is only available to persons aggrieved by an award made under Section 28
Source reference: p. 9Supreme Court precedent in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, which established that parties accepting a consent award without demur are estopped from seeking a reference
Source reference: p. 12High Court decision in Suresh D. Bankapur v. State of Karnataka, holding that consent awards are intended to conclude proceedings and prevent further litigation unless the agreement is proven void due to fraud or collusion
Source reference: p. 13-15Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme creates a clear distinction between compensation by agreement (Section 27) and compensation by adjudication (Section 28)
Source reference: p. 8-9Since Section 35 explicitly limits the right of reference to awards passed under Section 28, a petitioner who enters into a Section 27 agreement has no standing to invoke the reference procedure
Source reference: p. 10The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct—specifically executing the indemnity bond and providing bank details for remittance—demonstrated voluntary consent
Source reference: p. 10-11The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument of receiving the amount "under protest" via email, noting that such a delayed protest cannot override a concluded contract (the consent award)
Source reference: p. 11Under the principle of estoppel, the petitioner was precluded from reopening the valuation once the agreed sum was paid and accepted
Source reference: p. 14Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that a reference under Section 35 is legally impermissible once a consent award is passed under Section 27
The Court ruled that the respondents were justified in rejecting the reference application as the petitioner had waived the right to further adjudication by signing the agreement. The Writ Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit
Source reference: p. 15Original Court PDF
SMT.PRAMEELABAIvsTHE KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in