- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.26635 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE HERJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HALANURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU-572101. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SLAO/SR(T)02/2003-04/502 DATED 23.07.2025 / Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 11.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND 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 Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the endorsement dated 23.07.2025/11.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act” for short) came to be rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to reconsider his application dated 03.08.2020 filed under Section 28A of the LA Act and to re-determine the compensation in respect of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.225, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Halanuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 28A of the LA Act, seeking re-determination of compensation based on an award passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the LA Act in L.A.C.No.257/2006, wherein the compensation was enhanced to ````1,00,000/- per gunta. The petitioner, seeking parity with the said award, filed his application on 03.08.2020 before respondent No.3 – the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. It is contended that the said application was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, as contemplated under Section 28A of the LA Act. The authority observed that the application was delayed by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 153 days from the date of the judgment and award dated 29.02.2020 in L.A.C.No.257/2006. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the period consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and award is liable to be excluded in terms of the proviso to Section 28A of the LA Act, and if such exclusion is granted, the application would fall within the prescribed period. 7. Section 28A(1) of the LA Act read thus: “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.–(1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.” 8. This provision was inserted by the LA (Amendment) Act, 1894 (Act 68 of 1984) to remedy hardship caused to landowners who had not filed reference under Section 18 within time. It enables similarly situated landowners to seek parity of compensation once a reference Court enhances compensation for any other land under the same Section 4(1) notification. 9. Under Section 28A, the criteria is stipulated as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 i) Any landowner covered by same Section 4(1) notification, who did not earlier seek reference under Section 18. ii) Application must be made within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court, excluding the time required to obtain a certified copy. iii) Application is made to the Collector-Special Land Acquisition Officer for a substantive statutory right once a higher award is passed by the reference Court, others under the same notification are entitled to similar re-determination if they apply in time. 10. The principles laid down in this context are as under : (i) Union of India and Another Vs. Pradeep Kumari and Others1 (Pradeep Kumari) - The three month period starts from the date of the first award of the reference Court, exclusion of time for certified copy 1 (1995) 2 SCC 736 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 applies. A liberal interpretation should be adopted to advance the purpose of the Section. (ii) Babua Ram and Others v. State of U.P and Another2 (Babua Ram) - Section 28A applies even if multiple awards are passed under the same notification, limitation runs from the first award. (iii) Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigueses and Another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another3 (Jose Antonio Cruz) - The benefit of re-determination is available only to those whose lands are covered by the same Section 4(1) notification and who did not seek reference earlier. (iv) The State of UP Vs. Harish Chandra and Co.4 (Harish Chandra) - delay in obtaining certified copy must be excluded strictly, limitation applies if there is inaction beyond permissible period. 2 (1995) 2 SCC 689 3 (1996) 1 SCC 88 4 (1999) 1 SCC 63 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 11. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner filed the application within the period of limitation. Once the time consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the award in L.A.C.No.257/2006 is excluded, the rejection of the application on the ground of delay, without considering the statutory exclusion, provided under the proviso to Section 28A is unsustainable and contrary to law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 23.07.2025/ 11.08.2025 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.3, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby quashed. iii. It is held that the petitioner's application dated 03.08.2020 under Section 28A of the Land - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44052 WP No. 26635 of 2025 Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the LA Act. iv. Respondent No.3 shall therefore reconsider the said application on its merits and pass appropriate orders by re-determining the compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment and award passed in L.A.C.No.257/2006, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9