- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.29642 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI PRAHLADA NAIKA S/O OMKARANAIKA., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATIONL: AGRICULTURE WORK., R/AT NITTUVALLI GRAMA, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 007. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. R P MUNJAJI., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS, INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. KA RA HE A YO/YO/A GHA/ SA. AA/BHU. SVA/ S.R-01/2015-16 42-A (ROB-1) /P.R-10/757 DATED 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.11.2024 AT ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC. 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 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.2 and also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-B). 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Survey No.63/2A1AP6 measuring 0-00.04 guntas, situated at Tholahunase Village, Davanagere Taluk and District, which was notified for acquisition on 08.06.2015 for the development of Davangere-Birur Highway road. An award was passed on 08.04.2016, followed by an amended award - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 on 18.04.2016 and as per the endorsement, the petitioner was paid Rs.1,85,954/-, which according to him does not reflect the correct market value and that the land located in the heart of Davangere City has much higher market value than what was assessed by the respondent-The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the SLAO'). It is stated that the same acquisition proceedings was initiated by one Sri.T.K.Lakshman Naik by challenging the award in LAC.No.5/2017, wherein the reference Court by its judgment dated 05.09.2024 enhanced the compensation. The petitioner relies on the said judgment to claim parity. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate and contrary to the actual market value. It is urged that other similarly placed landowners have received enhanced compensation through reference Court and thus, the refusal to refer his claim results in arbitrariness and discrimination. 4. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') is a beneficial legislation and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 the authorities ought to have referred the matter instead of rejecting the representation. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-C) indicates that the application for reference was barred by limitation having been filed several years after the award of 2016. Under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, a reference can be sought within six(6) months from receiving notice of the award and the authorities therefore, are not empowered to make a reference after limitation has expired and the writ Court cannot compel a statutory authority to violate statutory timelines. 6. The award in the petitioner's case was passed in the year 2016. The petitioner's request for reference has been made only in November, 2024, after lapse of more than 8½ years. Under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the application for reference must be made within six(6) months from the date of receipt of the notice of the award or six(6) months - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 from the date of the award. This statutory requirement is mandatory and authorities cannot extend the limitation. No perversity or illegality is found in the endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-C), which correctly records that the petitioner's request is time barred. 7. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as no mandamus can be issued to compel a statutory authority to do an act prohibited by law, namely making a belated reference. Even though the Section 18 of the Act, 1894 reference is barred, the petitioner still has an alternative remedy under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation. 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 28-A 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. 1 AIR 2017 SC 4069 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51872 WP No. 29642 of 2025 For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) The impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-C) does not call for interference as the petitioner's request for reference is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. iii) However, dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy available under law including the remedy under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, if the same is still within limitation and in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7