- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.26870 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: NARSIMHEGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT HALUVAGILU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN, HASSAN-573201. 2. RAMESH S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT EWS 105, SEETARAMANJANEYA TEMPLE, NORTH EXTENSION, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; V/O. DATED 15.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F ORDER DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN LAC NO.91/2017 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LA ACT, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LA ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.03.2025 passed in LAC 91/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the reference application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of 04 guntas in Sy No. 274/5, Haluvagilu Village came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. BRIEF FACTS 2. The land measuring 04 guntas in Sy No. 274/5 situated at Haluvagilu Village of Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, belonging to the petitioner's father Venkategowda was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) for public purpose. The SLAO passed an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 award in 2011 and issued notice under Section 12 (2) on 08.03.2012, which was served on 17.03.2012. The petitioner's father received compensation on 22.08.2012 and filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act, 1894 on 23.08.2012 seeking reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The matter was forwarded to the reference court which was registered as LAC 91/2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite filing the Section 18(1) application of the Act, 1894 seeking reference, the authority failed to forward the reference in time and has issued an endorsement treating the application as delayed, which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the claimant had made several representations to the authorities for enhancement, but no action was taken, compelling him to seek adjudication of proper market value before the Civil Court. 4. It is his contention that apart from filing the application under Section 18 (1) immediately after receipt - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 of the compensation, his father had also instituted Miscellaneous Petition 27/2015 before the Civil Court on 13.08.2015, seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference for determination of proper compensation. The said Miscellaneous Petition was placed before the Lok Adalat on 13.01.2016, wherein the office was directed to intimate the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to take steps for referring the matter for enhancement of compensation. 5. According to the learned counsel, the Miscellaneous Petition 27/2015 was filed under Section 18(3) of the Act, 1894 seeking reference and this proceeding evidences the fact that the claimant was continuously asserting his right to seek reference and the statutory request for reference had already been brought to the notice of the Civil Court. It is further contended that the dismissal of the reference in LAC 91/2017 is without taking note of the pendency and direction issued in Miscellaneous No. 27/2015 resulting in prejudice, as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 petitioner's effort to secure a reference had been acknowledged by the Court itself through a Lok Adalat proceedings. Indisputedly the award was approved on 19.07.2011. Section 12(2) notice was issued on 08.03.2012 and served on 17.03.2012. The father of the petitioner received compensation on 22.08.2012 and Section 18(1) application was filed on 23.08.2012. 6. Section 18 (2) sub-clause (b) provision reads thus: “18. Reference to Court.- (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every application shall be made, - (a) xxx (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 7. The six weeks from the service of notice i.e. 17.03.2012 would expire around 28.04.2012 and six months from the date of award i.e. 19.07.2011 would expire around 19.01.2012 and under the statute whichever period expires earlier. Thus the Section 18 (1) application was barred by time. The petitioner's father thereafter filed a separate Miscellaneous Proceedings, Miscellaneous No. 27/2015 seeking a reference before the Civil Court on 13.08.2015, which is more than 3 years after the notice and almost 4 years after the award and therefore cannot revive a time barred reference. The matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 13.01.2016 directing to intimate the SLAO to refer the matter. The direction issued in the Lok Adalat cannot revive or validate a request that was already barred by limitation. Section 18 (3)(b) applies only where an application is filed in time. But the Deputy Commissioner fails to make a reference within 30 days and does not assist a claimant whose - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49709 WP No. 26870 of 2025 original request itself was time-barred. Accordingly, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the reference petition as barred by time. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 on the ground of limitation shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the independent statutory remedy under Section 28A of the Act. The Apex Court in Bir Wati and Others vs Union of India and Another1 has categorically held that even where an application under Section 18 is dismissed as time barred, the land loser would still be entitled to maintain an application under Section 28A subject to fulfillment of the statutory conditions. Liberty is therefore reserved to the petitioner to pursue such remedy if so advised. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 1 AIR 2017 SC 4069