- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10365 WP No. 6330 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6330 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LOKESH S/O. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HARADAGERE VILLAGE AT POST, GUBBI TALUK, NITTURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 223. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU 572 101. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMAKURU 572 104. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMAKURU 572 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10365 WP No. 6330 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.11.2024, BEARING NO. SLAO/SR/(GU HAA) (KAI)-01/2021-22/244, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI PROJECT, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU -572104, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH RESPECT TO REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION OF SY. NO.46/2, MEASURING 081/4 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HARADAGERE VILLAGE, NITTURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK AND TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by a decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA & ANR. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS., in W.P.No.25237/2024, dated 21.10.2024, which was also followed subsequently in many other cases. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 - Special Land - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10365 WP No. 6330 of 2025 Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO' for brevity) has issued the impugned endorsement declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), on the ground that the application is filed after a delay of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice at the hands of the SLAO. 2. In the said decision in the case of SMT. LINGAMMA (SUPRA), this Court has noticed that the proviso to Clause 'b' of Sub-section 2 of Section 64 clearly provides that the Collector/SLAO may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there are sufficient cause for not filing the application within the period specified in the first proviso. 3. That being the case, when admittedly the delay is only 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the notice at the hands of the SLAO, the SLAO could not have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10365 WP No. 6330 of 2025 declined to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act. 4. This Court has noticed that despite such directions being issued by this Court and the fact that there is an express provision as noticed herein above, vesting the power with the Collector/SLAO to consider the application for reference by condoning the delay, the concerned SLAOs. are not exercising their discretion. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the State Government, through all the respective Departments which are empowered to acquire lands, may issue a circular to all the concerned SLAOs. / Deputy Commissioners and issue directions to all such authorities to exercise their discretion in terms of the provisions of the Act rather than issuing such endorsement and declining to refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-C dated 12.11.2024, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10365 WP No. 6330 of 2025 issued by the respondent No.2 - SLAO, is hereby quashed and set aside. Directions are hereby issued to respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner, condone the delay and refer the matter in terms of Section 64 of the Act. Necessary orders shall be passed by the respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka for further action. SD/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE RD