- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49708 WP No. 26830 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.26830 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GIDDAMMA, W/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O ETHINAKATTE 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, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II, HASSAN-573201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA, GORUR, HASSAN DIST-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTIONS OR ORDER QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-E ORDER DATED 03-02-2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT HASSAN IN LAC NO.15/2023 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LA ACT, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LA ACT. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49708 WP No. 26830 of 2025 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 03.02.2025 in LAC 15/2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Hassan, (‘the trial Court’ for short) dismissing her reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) in respect of 7 guntas in Sy No. 6, Ethinakatte Village acquired for Yagachi Reservoir Project. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner's land was acquired under the preliminary notification followed by the final notification and the award was passed on 26.05.2007. The petitioner received the compensation on 23.02.2018 allegedly under protest, claiming that the lands are quite fertile, capable of two crops per year and fetches `. `. `. `. 50,00,000/- per acre and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49708 WP No. 26830 of 2025 has fixed an unscientific and meager value without considering her objection. She filed a protest petition before the SLAO on 13.04.2018 which was within 90 days of receiving the compensation, but the authorities forwarded the reference on 12.12.2023 nearly 5 years later. The trial Court held that though the petition under Section 18(1) was filed within time, she failed to take recourse to Section 18 (3) (b) by filing Miscellaneous Petition before the Civil Court within 3 years 90 days from her application to compel the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference and consequently rejected the application as time barred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had received compensation under protest on 23.02.2018 and had filed her application under Section 18(1) seeking reference within the prescribed time. But the authorities failed to forward the reference within the statutory period thereby compelling her to seek adjudication of enhanced compensation before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49708 WP No. 26830 of 2025 reference court. It is contended that the delay was solely attributable to the action of the respondents. 4. From the material on record and settled statutory scheme under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion of the Reference Court that the petition under Section 18 (1) was hopelessly barred by limitation. The award was passed in the year 2007, compensation was received on 23.02.2018 and though the claimant submitted a protest application on 13.04.2018, she did not invoke the remedy under Section 18 (3) (b) within the prescribed outer limit. Consequently, the subsequent forwarding of the reference on 12.12.2023 could not revive a right that had already stood extinguished in law. The dismissal of the reference petition on the ground of limitation therefore warrants no interference. Accordingly, 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 does not preclude the petitioner from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49708 WP No. 26830 of 2025 availing the independent statutory remedy under Section 28A of the Act, 1894. 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, in accordance with law. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 1 AIR 2017 SC 4069