- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.189 OF 2020 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAVEGOWDA S/O CHIKKABOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNARAJA SAGARA, ROYAL KOTE PILE, KRS POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK -571438, MANDYA DISTRICT 2. JAYAMMA S/O GOVINDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. RENUKA D/O GOVINDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. LOKESH S/O GOVINDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT GUNGRALCHATRA VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ACHAPPA P B, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN LAC No.12/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 64(1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 FOR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Sreenivasan M.Y, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.B.Achappa, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Claimants are the revision petitioners whose land in Sy.No.54/25 measuring two acres situated at Kallur Naganahalli, Yelvala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk came to be acquired by issuing the final notification on 12.02.2013. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 3. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.30,61,216.50 per acre and total compensation awarded was to the tune of Rs.61,22,433/-. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation amount in LAC No.26/2016 on 28.07.2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mysuru, in view of the inter se dispute among the claimants. As such, Land Acquisition Officer was required to deposit the amount and refer the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was adjudicated in LAC No.26/2016. 5. Earlier to that, notice of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as is contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘Act’ for short) was issued on 22.05.2014. Same was served on the claimants on 30.11.2015. 6. In LAC No.26/2016, there was a settlement arrived among the rival claimants before the Lok Adalat and amount was received through cheque dated 22.09.2016. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 7. However, claimants, after the compromise, filed an application seeking enhancement of compensation which was also sent by registered post on 17.04.2017. Those applications are marked before the Court in the proceeding, which was numbered as LAC No.12/2018 vide Exs.P-2 and P-3. Application was under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on 24.02.2018. 8. Learned Trial Judge rejected the reference under Section 18 on the ground that it is a belated reference. 9. The relevant portion of the Order of the learned Trial Judge in LAC No.12/2018 is at paragraphs 13 to 15, which reads as under: “13. If Ex.P-2 is carefully scanned, it appears that, application bears two seals one xerox copy of the seal so also original sea. It appears that Ex.P-2 is a fabricated one. The date mentioned on Ex.P-2 is 20.10.2016. It is an admitted fact that, as LAC No.26 of 2016 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, which means the petitioner had knowledge of passing of award with respect to Sy.No.54/25 at the time of filing of LAC 26/2016. The petitioners chose not to file application seeking reference - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 of the matter to the authority within the time prescribed by the statute. Ex.P-1 is the application given by the 1st petitioner to the respondent. Ex.P-3 is the postal window receipt dated 17.04.2017. No acknowledgement is produced by the petitioners to show that, the application has reached the respondent. There is absolutely no whisper with regard to date of death of Govindegowda. At the time of cross of PW-1, he states before the Court that, he does not know when the respondent got possession of Sy.No.54/25. He further states that, deceased Govindegowda was residing in Gungralchatra and he is residing in KRS. He also states that, he does not known when deceased Govindegowda died. The petitioner has suppressed the fact with regard to the death of deceased Govindegowda. If deceased Govindegowda was alive at the time of passing of the award and if he had not accepted the award, he would have filed the application to the respondent for referring the matter. Since the petitioner has suppressed the date of death of deceased Govindegowda, I am unable to find out whether the deceased Govindegowda had filed any application seeking reference of the matter to the authority. Even if it is held that, deceased Govindegowda had not filed any application to the respondent, the petitioner should have filed the application within the time prescribed by the statute. 14. After careful perusal of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 it appears that, the evidence of the petitioner that, he has given application to the respondent appears to be doubtful. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 15. Even if it is held that, Ex.P-2 was submitted to the respondent, same is not within time prescribed by the statute. Since petitioner had knowledge of award as on the date of filing LAC 26 of 2016, he chose not to file application before the respondent in time.” 10. Correctness of the said order is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds:  The learned authority had failed to notice that, undisputedly the petitioners have received the award amount under protest and thereafter they have immediately filed the application under section 64(1) of the Act and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable.  The learned authority had failed to notice this Hon'ble in ILR 2002 KAR 3592 (Chandrashekarayya V/s the Special Land Acquisition officer) have held in para 6 of the judgement as "The first proviso to Section 31 of the Act, makes clear that the interested person may receive such payment of compensation under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. The second proviso provides even if a person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make an application u/s 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement. The third proviso is very specific that nothing shall affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 lawfully entitled thereto. On reading of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that the mode of protest is nowhere defined, therefore, if an application u/s 18 is filed, it is deemed to be for enhancement and the receiving of the amount is under protest. When the Act has not specifically stated the mode of protest, the Land Acquisition Act, being a beneficial legislation for the victims who have lost their lands for various public purposes, it is not permissible to construe the provisions in a very stringent and strict manner. Therefore, I am of the clear opinion, that when an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is filed for enhancement, it is deemed to be that the interested person having dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation has filed the application for enhancement which amounts to receiving of the amount under protest. It is in that view of the matter, the interpretation by the learned District Judge that the appellant/claimant has not made any protest while receiving the amount is without any force and the provisions of section 64 of the Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 is paramateria with section 18 of the land acquisition Act and therefore the learned judge ought to have considered the application.  The learned authority had erred in not believing the representation when the respondent had not contended in the statement of objections or in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 cross examination that, the representation is fabricated one and the representation is not tendered.  The learned authority had erred in not referring the matter solely on the ground that, date of death of Govinde Gowda is not forthcoming when the date of Govinde Gowda is also not disputed by the respondent.  The learned authority had erred in not referring the matter solely on the ground that, there is no material placed to find out whether deceased govinde gowda had filed any application seeking reference of the matter to the authority, when no such contentions are raised by the respondent.  The learned authority had passed the impugned order on the assumption and presumption without looking into the materials on record and therefore the same is liable to be set-aside.  The learned authority had failed to notice from the date of withdrawal of the award amount the application filed is in time and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable.  The seal is not disputed by the respondent and they have also not disputed the fact of tendering the representation and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 11. Sri M.Y.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, reiterating the above grounds, contends that in the inter se dispute between the parties, reference under Section 18 was not filed as per the timeline fixed under the Land Acquisition Act. 12. But after the inter se dispute got resolved by entering into compromise before the Lok Adalat on 27.08.2016, claimants realized that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the lower side and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, from the date of compromise, reference application is in time. 13. He further contended that approach of the Trial Court in not considering the application on merits and dismissing on the question of limitation has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, Sri P.B.Achappa, learned counsel for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, supports the impugned order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 15. He would further contend that irrespective of the inter se dispute, parties are required to seek for reference under Section 18 of the Act for re-determination of the compensation amount strictly in accordance with the timeline enunciated in the Land Acquisition Act. 16. On the ground that there is an inter se dispute, a belated application under Section 18 of the Act cannot be entertained which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, notice under Section 12(2) is dated 22.05.2014. Even according to the revision petitioners, the same is served on 30.11.2015. The application vide Ex.P-2 came to be filed on 20.10.2016 and sent by registered post on 17.04.2017 vide Ex.P-3. 19. Pertinently, the timeline fixed under the Land Acquisition Act did not permit the claimants to file a belated application - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44469 CRP No. 189 of 2020 and learned Trial Judge was thus justified in rejecting the application on the ground of limitation, which requires no further consideration before this Court in this revision petition. 20. Merely on the ground that there was an inter se dispute, would not postpone the right of the claimant to seek the enhanced compensation by filing a reference under Section 18 of the Act nor on the ground of the Land Acquisition Officer referring the matter under Sections 30 and 31 in LAC No. 26/2016 would automatically extend the time for the claimants to file a belated application on 20.10.2016 and 17.04.2017 which is numbered as LAC No.12/2018. 21. In view of the above discussion, following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16