Karnataka High Court
Rangamma @ Kamalamma vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer on 12 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2021 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
RANGAMMA @ KAMALAMMA
AGE : 65 YEARS,
R/O BASAVANAGANGURU VILLAGE
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-577 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
PANKAJA S UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SHIMOGA -577 201
KARNATAKA
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
UPPER THUNGA PROJECT
SHIMOGA -577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH A.S, AGA FOR R1
SRI. B.R.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED. 20.10.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.48/2001, ON THE FILE
OF THE I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CHIEF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCES U/SEC.18. OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
Though this appeal is listed for admission and to hear
on I.A.No.1/2021 for condonation of delay and I.A.
No.2/2021 for stay, however, with the consent of the
learned counsel for respective parties and by considering
the aspect that this appeal is of the year 2021, the same is
taken up for disposal.
2. This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”, for short) is directed against the judgment dated
20.10.2008 passed in LAC No.48/2001 by the I Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Shivamogga
(hereinafter referred as “Reference Court”, for short),
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the claim
petition filed by the appellant by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer
(“LAO”, for short) on 23.07.2001 to Rs.2,00,000/- from
Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of tank fed land of the appellant
bearing Sy.No.72/2 measuring 15 guntas situated at
Basavana Ganguru Village, Holalluru Hobli of Shivamogga
Taluk and District (“land in question”, for short), which
was acquired along with other lands for alignment of
Upper Tunga canal.
3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
The appellant was the owner of land in question. The
said land was acquired for aligment of Upper Tunga canal
by the respondents. Thereupon, the proceedings under the
Act were initiated and notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act was issued on 11.09.1997 and the possession of
land was taken on 19.12.2000. Thereafter, the LAO has
passed the award on 23.07.2001 awarding a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for tank fed land. Being aggrieved
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
by the said award, the appellant filed an application to
refer her matter for reference under Section 18 of the Act
for fixation of reasonable market value for the acquired
land. The Reference Court numbered the said case as
LAC.No.48/2001.
4. The Reference Court, on assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, fixed the market value at the rate
of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as against Rs.1,00,000/-
determined by the LAO for the tank fed land vide
judgment dated 20.10.2008. The said judgment is
challenged in this appeal by the appellant for
enhancement of compensation.
5. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Raju
Bhat for the appellant, the learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.
B.R. Prashanth for respondent No.2.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the Reference Court has grossly
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
erred while passing the impugned award since it has not
appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective,
which has caused injustice to the appellant. He further
contended that the acquired land situated close to
Shivamogga – Davanagere main road and public utility
spaces such as Engineering College, Tobacco Factory,
Ashraya Yojana Layout and Agricultural College. As such,
the acquired land lost its agricultural features. Hence, the
Reference Court ought to have awarded the compensation
by considering all the above aspects.
7. He further contended that the claimant in
LAC.No.57/2001 in respect of same acquisition had
approached this Court by filing MFA.No.5782/2015,
wherein this Court has enhanced the compensation at the
rate of Rs.105/- per sq. ft. As such, since the appellant
also stands on the same footing, she is also entitled for
the same compensation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
appeal.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the appeal filed by the appellant is hopelessly
barred by limitation as there is a delay of 4084 days in
filing the appeal. The reasons assigned by the appellant
for the said inordinate delay are that she belongs to
Scheduled Tribe caste and below poverty line group and
due to her poor financial condition she was unable to
prefer the appeal in time. According to the learned counsel
this reason assigned by the appellant cannot be accepted
to condone the inordinate delay and if that was her case,
she would have approached this Court through Free Legal
Aid Services. Further, the sole ground of financial difficulty
cannot be a reason to condone the inordinate delay of
4084 days.
9. To buttress his argument, he relied on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY
DABRA Vs. PYARE RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2023
SCC ONLINE SC 92, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
held that insufficient fund to pay the court fee on time is
not a ground to condone the delay.
10. Learned counsel also contended that the
Reference Court, after considering the evidence, facts and
circumstances of the case, has rightly fixed the market
value for the tank fed land. The said award was not
challenged by the respondents. However, the appellant
challenged the said award, nearly after lapse of 11 years,
that too after this Court has enhanced the compensation in
MFA.No.5782/2015 arising out of connected matter i.e.,
LAC.No.57/2001. In such circumstances, the parity cannot
be extended to the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal both on merits as well as on
the ground of delay and laches.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having carefully perused the impugned judgment and
also evidence and documents made available before us,
the points that arise for consideration are:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
(i) Whether the inordinate
delay in approaching this Court by
the appellant is justifiable and I.A
No.1/2021 is deserves to be allowed?
(ii) Whether the Reference
Court is justified in partly allowing
the appeal filed by the appellant by
awarding a compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for the tank
fed land of the appellant?
12. We have perused the affidavit accompanied to
I.A.1/2021 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 4084 days in filing the appeal. It is
stated in the affidavit that the appellant is a widow aged
about 65 years and she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and
below poverty line group. It is also stated that since she is
a rustic villager and an illiterate lady, she does not know
the legal consequences. It is also stated that in the year
2015, she met with a road traffic accident and suffered
grievous injuries and she was admitted to McGann
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
Hospital, Shivamogga and thereafter, admitted to
Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, where she took treatment as
an inpatient. After her discharge from the hospital, due to
her financial distress, she was unable to get any
information in respect of the award passed by the
Reference Court and to engage the services of a counsel to
prefer an appeal. Hence, the delay has been caused.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of URBAN
IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. SMT.VIDHYA DEVI AND
OTHERS – CIVIL APPEAL NO.14473/2024 (arising out of
SLP (C) No.12116/2010), while condoning the delay in the
land acquisition case, has observed in paragraphs 46 to 51
as under:
“46. As regards the appellant’s challenge to the
inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the writ
petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that
the same needs to be considered in the facts and
circumstances of the case. While it is true that the
courts have consistently held that undue delay in
approaching the court can be a ground for refusing
relief, the courts have also recognized that in
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
exceptional cases, where the impugned action is
patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the
delay must be condoned.
47. It is pertinent for us to consider the
judgment of this Court in Vidya Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569,
wherein it was held, inter alia, as follows:
“12.12. The contention advanced by the
state of delay and laches of the appellant
in moving the court is also liable to be
rejected. Delay and laches cannot be
raised in a case of a continuing cause of
action, or if the circumstances shock the
judicial conscience of the court.
Condonation of delay is a matter of
judicial discretion, which must be
exercised judiciously and reasonably in the
facts and circumstances of a case. It will
depend upon the breach of fundamental
rights, and the remedy claimed, and when
and how the delay arose. There is no
period of limitation prescribed for the
courts to exercise their constitutional
jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
12.13. In a case where the demand for
justice is so compelling, a constitutional
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
court would exercise its jurisdiction with a
view to promote justice, and not defeat
it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.,
(1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22]”
48. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated
by this Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (2022) 7 SCC
508 wherein the court opined that there cannot be
a ‘limitation’ to doing justice. The relevant
observations are reproduced below:
“16. Given the important protection
extended to an individual vis-a-vis their
private property (embodied earlier in
Article 31, and now as a constitutional
right in Article 300-A), and the high
threshold the State must meet while
acquiring land, the question remains –
can the State, merely on the ground of
delay and laches, evade its legal
responsibility towards those from whom
private property has been expropriated?
In these facts and circumstances, we find
this conclusion to be unacceptable, and
warranting intervention on the grounds of
equity and fairness.”
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
49. Similarly, this Court in its decision in
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
v. Balwant Regular Motor Service reported in
1969 (1) SCR 808 held that:
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of
Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical
doctrine. Where it would be practically
unjust to give a remedy, either because
the party has, by his conduct, done that
which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has, though
perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put
the other party in a situation in which it
would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted in
either of these cases, lapse of time and
delay are most material. But in every case,
if an argument against relief, which
otherwise would be just, is founded upon
mere delay, that delay of course not
amounting to a bar by any statute of
limitations, the validity of that defence
must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable.
Two circumstances, always important in
such cases, are, the length of the delay
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
and the nature of the acts done during the
interval, which might affect either party
and cause a balance of justice or injustice
in taking the one course or the other, so
far as relates to the remedy.”
50. This Court in its decision in Ramchandra
Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317 held that:
“10. … There was a delay of more than ten
or twelve years in filing the petition since
the accrual of the cause of complaint, and
this delay, contended the respondents, was
sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any
relief in a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. We do not think this
contention should prevail with us. In the
first place, it must be remembered that the
rule which says, that the Court may not
inquire into belated and stale claims is not
a rule of law, but a rule of practice based
on sound and proper exercise of discretion,
and there is no inviolable rule that
whenever there is delay, the Court must
necessarily refuse to entertain the petition.
Each case must depend on its own facts.
The question, as pointed out by
Hidayatullah, C.J., in Tilokchand Motichand
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110, 116:
(1969) 2 SCR 824] “is one of discretion for
this Court to follow from case to case.
There is no lower limit and there is no
upper limit …. It will all depend on what
the breach of the fundamental right and
the remedy claimed are and how the delay
arose”. …[ SCC para 11] …”
51. The decisions of this Court have consistently
held that the right to property is enshrined in the
Constitution and requires that procedural
safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-
arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases
of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in
approaching the court, while a significant factor,
cannot override the necessity to address illegalities
and protect right to property enshrined in Article
300A. The court must balance the need for finality
in legal proceedings with the need to rectify
injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and
protect private property cannot be brushed away
merely on the grounds of delay and laches.”
14. Applying the findings enumerated in the above
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts and
circumstances explained in the affidavit accompanied to
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
I.A.No.1/2021, we are of the considered view that the
appellant being a widow aged about 65 years, cannot be
deprived of fair compensation only on the aspect of delay
in approaching this Court. Thus, we answer the first point
in favour of the appellant and the delay in approaching
this Court is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is
allowed.
15. As far as the merits of the case are concerned,
on careful examination of the records, it is seen that the
land in question was acquired along with the other lands
by the respondents for alignment of Upper Tunga canal.
Thereafter, the LAO passed the award, which was
enhanced by the Reference Court in different LACs filed by
the land-losers including the appellant herein. The
claimants in the connected LAC.Nos.08/2002 and 57/2001
have challenged the impugned award passed by the
Reference Court before this Court by filing
MFA.No.8200/2015 c/w. MFA No.5782/2015 respectively.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enhanced the
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
compensation to Rs.105/- per sq. ft. instead of
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre granted by the Reference Court
vide judgment dated 13.01.2020. While allowing the
appeals, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed in paragraph
No.5 and 6 as under:
“5. We have considered the submissions
made on both sides and have perused the
record. The sole question which arises for
consideration in these batch of appeals is
whether it is open for the beneficiary to
assail the validity of the judgments dated
03.02.2011 and 19.02.2011 passed in LAC
No.109/2003 and 102/2003 in these batch of
appeals. The Supreme Court in case of 9
‘UNION OF INDIA VS. BALRAM‘ (2010) 5 SCC
747 has held that if the purpose of
acquisition is the same and the lands are
identical and similar though lying in different
villages there is no justification to make any
discrimination between the land owners to
pay the more compensation to some of the
land owners and less compensation to
others. Similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court in ‘ALI MOHAMMED BEIGH
AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
KASHMIR’, (2017) 4 SCC 717. We are
conscious of the fact that the judgment
rendered in MA No.12/2008 which was
upheld in MSA 33-41/2011, the market value
of the land was assessed in respect of a
residential plot. However, the aforesaid
market value fixed in respect of the
residential plot has been made the basis for
fixation of the market value in respect of
agricultural lands in LAC no.109/2003 and
LAC No.102/2003 decided on 03.02.2011 and
19.02.2011. The aforesaid judgments have
not been challenged by the beneficiary viz.,
10 respondent No.2 and the amount of
compensation have been paid to the land
owners. Therefore, in the peculiar fact
situation of the case, the respondent No.2 is
precluded from contending that the
appellants are not entitled to the benefit of
the judgment rendered by reference court in
LAC Nos.109/2003 and 102/2003. It is
elementary rule of law that a litigant cannot
be permitted to assume inconsistent
positions in the Court, to play fast and loose,
to blow hot and cold, to approbate and
reprobate to the detriment of the opponent.
This wholesome doctrine applies not only to
successive stages of the same proceeding
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021HC-KAR
but also to another proceeding other than the
one in which the position was taken up
provided that the subsequent proceeding also
is of similar nature. [See: ‘AMAR SINGH VS.
UNION OF INDIA‘, (2011) 7 SCC 69]. Apart
from this, the respondent No.2 being the
instrumentality of the State cannot be
permitted to practice discrimination and to
pay compensation to the 11 land owners
even though the land is situated in same
village and has been acquired for the same
purpose at different rates. We are afraid that
respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to raise
such a plea in this batch of appeals.
6. In view of preceding analysis, we hold
that the appellants are entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per
square feet. Needless to state that the
appellants shall be entitled to solatium and
other interest as are admissible under the
provisions of the Act. To the aforesaid extent,
the judgment passed by the reference court
is set aside and is modified.”
16. It is pertinent to note that in all the reference
cases, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as against
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO in respect of
tank fed land situated in Basavana Ganguru Village. This
aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents. It is also not in dispute that the land in
question of the appellant is also a tank fed land situated in
the same village. In such circumstances, in view of the
aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
we are of the considered view that the appellant is also
entitled for the same compensation as fixed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, we answer point
No.2 in the “negative” and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The appellant is entitled to the
compensation at the rate of Rs.105/-
per square feet.
(iii) It is needless to state that the
appellant shall be entitled to
solatium and other interest as are
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:31227-DB
MFA No. 1189 of 2021
HC-KAR
admissible under the provisions of
the Act.
(iv) Accordingly, the impugned judgment
passed by the Reference Court is
set aside and is modified.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27