- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 26498 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. CHAMARAJA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KEREHALLI VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SLAO) YETTINAHOLE INTEGRATED DRINKING WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 4TH CROSS, MASTHI VENKATESHA IYENGAR ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR YETTINAHOLE INTEGRATED DRINKING WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 4TH CROSS, MASTHI VENKATESHA IYENGAR ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YETTINAHOLE INTEGRATED DRINKING WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, VISHWESHWARAIAH JALA NIGAM LIMITED SAKALESHPURA, KARNATAKA - 573 134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R- 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 24.06.2021 AT ANNX-A AND 25.06.2021 AT ANNX-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents. The petitioner is before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 24.06.2021 at Annexure-A and 25.06.2021 at Annexure-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and cultivator of land measuring 1 acre 28½ guntas in Survey No.54/3 situated at Kerahalli Village, Palya Hobli, Alur Taluk. To mitigate water scarcity in drought-prone districts, the project called 'Yettinahole Integrated Drinking Water Supply Project' was initiated (hereinafter referred to as (Yettinahole Project') by the State. Respondent no.3 issued notification dated 16.10.2020 under Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2013') notifying the intention to acquire 1 acre 11½ guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre 28½ guntas in Survey No.54/3 for the said project. 3. The notification invited objections to the proposed acquisition. The petitioner submitted objections, stating that the acquired land was fertile and used for cultivation of coffee and other plantations. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, while determining compensations the respondent erroneously treated the land a 'dry land' rather than as a coffee plantation. Consequently, the petitioner submitted representation on 28.10.2020 requesting that the land be considered as a coffee plantation for the purpose of determining fair compensation. However, despite such representation, the respondents have not considered his request, prompting this writ petition. 5. Per Contra, the learned AGA appearing for the State submits that there are no merits in the writ petition as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It is submitted that the proper recourse was to file an application before the Collector seeking reference to the competent authority and the Collector failed to forward such an application within the provided period, the petitioner could have approached the authority directly requesting it to direct the Collector to make reference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 Since the petitioner has failed to do, the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 7. It is undisputed that an award was passed on 04.08.2021 under Section 37(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, awarding a sum of ₹16,21,812/- to the petitioner as compensation for the acquisition of the schedule property for the Yettinahole Project. The compensation, however, was determined treating the land as a 'Dry Land.' The petitioner's grievance is that the land should have been classified coffee plantation. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file an application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, which provides as follows: "64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41773 WP No. 26498 of 2025 made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 8. In light of the specific statutory mechanism provided under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25