- 1 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 Reserved on : 31.07.2025 Pronounced on : 19.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100055 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHRIKANT S/O. BHAVU DESAI AGE. 60 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE 2. SMT. HIRA W/O. BHAVU DESAI AGE. 78 YEARSO OCC. HOUSEHOLD BOTH ARE R/O. AKETHI VILLAGE TQ. JOIDA DIST. KARWAR-581301 (NOTE: THE PTITIONER NO. 1 IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR. ADVOCATE) AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA DHARWAD 580003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2019 MADE IN MISC.NO.23/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HALIYAL VIDE ANNEXURE C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U.S.18(3)(B) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO REFER THE 18(1) APPLICATION TO CIVIL COURT VIDE (ANNEXURE-A). R MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.19 15:12:39 +0530 - 2 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The Revision Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 9th January, 2019 passed in Misc. No.23 of 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal (for short hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”). 2. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are as follows: The petitioners filed an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the LA Act”), seeking a direction to the respondent to forward the reference application filed by them under Section 18(1) of the LA Act. It is stated in the application that petitioner No.1 is the son and petitioner No.2 is the wife of late Bhavu Krishna Desai of Akethi Village. The deceased, Bhavu Krishna Desai, was the owner of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.90, measuring 8 acres 22 guntas, situate at Akethi Village, Joida Taluk. Out of the said extent, 2 acres 22 guntas were acquired by the respondent for the purpose of the National Highway, along with other lands of Akethi Village. It is further stated - 3 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 that the deceased, Bhavu Krishna Desai, was not served with the award notice. Upon making enquiries in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Dharwad, the petitioners came to know that the award had already been passed long back. They immediately applied for a certified copy of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Survey No.90 of Akethi Village, Joida Taluk. The application for certified copy was filed on 25th October, 2017, and the certified copy was obtained on 30th October, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference to the Civil Court, as the compensation awarded to them was grossly inadequate. However, the respondent rejected their application on the ground that it was filed 22 years after the date of the award. The petitioners contend that the acquired land has non- agricultural potential, being situated near Anamod Bus Stand on the Belgaum–Goa Highway, and that an international resort, “Shangri-La,” is located just 2–3 km away from the acquired land. It is further stated that Bhavu Krishna Desai expired on 23rd March 2005 at Akethi Village, leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. Petitioner No.2 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.1, as she - 4 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 was aged and unable to attend Court proceedings. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.2 has since passed away, and her legal representatives have been brought on record in the present petition. The petitioners further submit that their application under Section 18(1) of the LA Act was filed promptly after obtaining the certified copy of the award, i.e., within three months from 30th October, 2017. Despite this, the respondent failed to refer the matter to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal, though it was his statutory duty to do so. On these grounds, the petitioners seek to allow the application. 3. On behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Government Pleader, Yellapura, filed objections stating that the present application, in its current form, is not maintainable under law. It is submitted that notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on Bhavu Krishna Prasad on 14th February 1995. Since the petitioners filed the application under Section 18(1) of the LA Act only on 9th November 2017, after a lapse of 22 years, the respondent rightly rejected the same as being barred by limitation. It is further contended that the provisions of the Land Acquisition - 5 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 Act are not applicable to the present case, as the Act has been repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 1st January 2014. Hence, it is submitted that there is no cause of action for filing this application. On these grounds, dismissal of the application is sought. 4. To substantiate their case, Srikanth, son of the petitioner, was examined as PW1, and eight documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. Upon closure of the petitioner’s side evidence, the trial Court afforded the respondent an opportunity to adduce evidence. However, the respondent failed to produce any evidence. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner No.2, Hira, wife of Bhavu Krishna Desai, expired, and it is submitted that petitioner No.1 is her legal heir. Accordingly, the memorandum of petition was amended. Learned counsel for - 6 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 the revision petitioner submits that the respondent failed to issue the award notice as required under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. After the death of the original owner, Bhavu Krishna Desai, when the petitioners came to know about the award, they made enquiries, applied for a certified copy of the award, and thereafter filed a reference petition within 90 days from the date of knowledge of the award. Consequently, the petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was filed within the prescribed period of ninety days from the date of knowledge of passing of the award. It is further pointed out that the respondent did not adduce any evidence, nor was a copy of the award notice produced to establish that it was duly served on the petitioner’s father. In the absence of such material, the finding of the Reference Court that the award notice was duly served on the landowner cannot be sustained. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has sought to allow the petition. 6. As against this, Sri Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that the Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence and record and rejected the application filed under Section 18(3)(b) - 7 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the Reference Court has erred in holding that the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Karnataka Act 71 of 1961, was duly served on the claimant? (ii) Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to allow this Revision Petition? 8. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence on record, it is necessary to first refer to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as follows: “12. Award of Collector when to be final (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not - 8 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.” 9. It is relevant to mention here as to the provisions of Sections 9 and 45 of the Land Acquisition Act, which pertains to service of notice to persons interested and service of notices. The same read thus: “9. Notice to persons interested (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to - 9 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 7, for " registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866 (14 of 1866)" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]. “ 10. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “45. Service of notices (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under section 4, by the officer therein mentioned, and, in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or the Judge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him; and if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the Court-house, - 10 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired: Provided that, if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business and [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 25, for " registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866 (14 of 1866)" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressees receipt.” 11. It is also relevant to mention here as to Order V Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. The same reads as under: “15. Where Service may be on an adult member of defendant’s family: Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Explanation.—A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this Rule.” - 11 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 12. In the present case, the respondents have not produced either the copy of the notice or any documents relating to the mode of service of such notice. However, the trial Court has observed that the notice dated 13th February 1995, produced by the respondent, consists of two pages. On the first page, the land acquisition case number, names of the parties, survey number, extent of land, amount of the award, and date of appearance are mentioned. The said document, dated 13th February 1995 and referred to in the impugned order, has not been brought on record in accordance with law. The respondent has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Even during the course of cross-examination of PW1, this document was not confronted to him. Without the document being properly placed before the Court in accordance with law, and without serving a copy of the same on the present petitioner, the trial Court nevertheless accepted the document shown by the respondent and concluded that notice was duly served. In the present case, without proper proof or due production of the document, the trial Court verified it on its own and erroneously held that notice was duly served. The trial Court also failed to ascertain who issued the said notice, the name and designation of the person who allegedly served it - 12 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 on the deceased claimant, whether the LTM (left thumb mark) of the deceased claimant was duly identified, and whether the copy of the award contained the essential prerequisite— viz. the grounds in support of the award, albeit briefly, if not in detail. Furthermore, the respondent has not even pleaded in the statement of objections regarding the mode of service or the fact that the notice was duly served on the claimant, Bhavu Krishna Desai. In the absence of such pleadings or supporting evidence and by following the principles laid down in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, the finding of due service recorded by the trial Court is legally unsustainable 13. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of GURU SIDDAPPA MALLAPPA KHADABADI v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL PROJECT, HIDKAL, reported in 1991(4) KAR.LJ 134, by referring to the decisions in the cases of (i) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. APARAI KRISHNA GADAKARI AND OTHERS reported in 1972(2) Mys.LJ 181; (ii) STATE OF PUNJAB v. MST. QAISAR JEHAN BEGUM AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604; (iii) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. DATTATRAYA NAGESH WADER reported in ILR 1991 KAR. 1899 (DB); and (iv) - 13 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 KAMALAJAMMANIVARU v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 1968 Sh.Notes, has held as under: "The notice under section 12(2) If it was intended to serve as the nodal point, Visa, the land owner in order to fix him with the knowledge of the passing of the award for the purpose of computing the period of limitation within which he should move the land acquisition officer for making a reference to the Court, that notice must carry the essential prerequisite, name, grounds in support of the award albeit in a circumscribed fashion, if not elaborately. If the notice falls short of this requirement and makes only a reference to the amount awarded and nothing else, then such notice, even on service thereof on the claimant, should not start the countdown for the period of limitation. When that is the situation, even in a case where the land owner had with drawn the amount awarded by the land acquisition officer in terms of the award notice and if the landowner applies for a certified copy of the award, later on, and obtain it, the period of limitation and section 18(1) Commence only from the date of receipt of the copy of the award and not from the date of service of the notice under section 12(2).” 14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in another decision, in the case of APARAI KRISHNA GADAKARI (supra), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MST. QAISAR JEHAN BEGUM (supra), has held that, “where a notice issued by the land acquisition officer under Section 12(2) - 14 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 did not mention the grounds of the award, but only mentioned the amount awarded, a request for reference after the claimant obtained a certified copy of the award would be in time.” 15. In another decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAUNDATTI v. FAKIRAPPA YALLAPPA POOJARI AND OTHERS reported in 1996(1) KAR.LJ. 265, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of RAJA HARISHCHANDRA RAJ SINGH v. DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, and in the case of P.S. MURUGESAM PILLAI v. GNANA SAMBANDHA PANDHARA SANNADHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1917 PC 6, has held that the period of limitation does not commence that, the limitation does not start running unless notice section 12(2) of the Act is served. Notice communicating passing of award not served on party, party within his rights to make an application on getting knowledge of award. Date of award not material for computation of limitation and burden to prove service of notice on Deputy Commissioner passing award. 16. In the case of SANNEGOWDA v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MANDYA reported in 1999(2) KAR.LJ - 15 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 231, this Court has observed that mere dispersal of amount to awardee After obtaining his signature or thumb, impression on voter does not constitute notice of award. By not giving notice of award, authority cannot deprive person of his right to seek reference of case to civil Court for adjudication. The coordinate bench of the Court in the set case has also referred to article 39A of Constitution of India. Article 39A of Constitution of India reads thus: “39A. Equal justice and free legal aid The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.” 17. In another decision in the case of K LAKSHMINARAYANA SASTRY v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHIKKABALLAPUR reported in 1994(3) Kar.LJ 70, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if no notice has been served under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the period of limitation has not begun running at all as against the revision petitioner and any application filed by the claimant on coming to know of the award is within time. The knowledge - 16 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 of the award by the claimant, either actually or constructively is a material in the light of the proviso to section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1961. 18. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention as to the provision of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: “300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” 19. In the present case, the petitioners have categorically stated that notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1961, was never served on the deceased Bhavu Krishna Desai. The petitioners, upon making enquiries with the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Dharwad, came to know that the award had already been passed long back. Immediately thereafter, they applied for a certified copy of the award on 25th October, 2007, obtained the same on 30th October, 2007, and thereafter filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to the - 17 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 Civil Court on the ground that the compensation awarded was grossly inadequate and meagre. It is further seen that the respondent, by letter dated 18th November 2007 bearing No. LAQ/UKCR/1/91-92, merely informed the petitioners of the rejection of their application but did not disclose anything with regard to service of the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the name of the person who served such notice, the mode of service adopted, or even a copy of the alleged award notice. The respondent has not entered the witness box nor deposed anything to establish service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. From the date of rejection order dated 18th November 2007, the petitioners filed the present revision petition on 23rd November 2007, which is well within the prescribed period of limitation. The trial Court, however, has failed to properly appreciate the material on record in its correct perspective. 20. Having carefully examined the entire material placed before me, so also, keeping in mind the provisions regarding the mode of service, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, Articles 39A and 300A of the Constitution and the - 18 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 commitment to social justice as per Preamble to Constitution of India, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased Bhavu Krishna Desai, filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the Civil Court within the period of limitation measured from the date of their knowledge of the passing of the award. Accordingly, I answer the points framed for consideration in the affirmative. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following order: following: O R D E R i) Revision Petition is allowed with costs; ii) Order dated 9th January 2019 passed in Misc. No.23 of 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal, is hereby set aside; iii) Consequently, Application filed by the petitioners under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by the Karnataka Act 17 of 1961), is allowed; iv) The respondent is directed to refer the matter to the Reference Court for determination of the actual market value of the property acquired, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas out of 8 acre 22 - 19 - CRP No.100055 OF 2019 guntas in Survey No.90 of Akethi Village, Joida Taluk, within a period of two months from the date of receipt this order, along with all relevant records as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; v) In the event of failure to comply with this order, the respondent shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per day to the petitioners until compliance is made. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU