- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26026 WP No. 4537 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4537 OF 2026 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY Y AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT SONNENAHALLI, GUNDAMAGERE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL-561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOWTHAMA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ADDRESS: DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, DODDABALLAPURA ADDRESS: SRI. BALANJANEYA SWAMI PRASANNA COMPLEX BANK OF BARODA, SECOND FLOOR, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, ROJIPURA, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 4. VISVESHWARAYA JAL NIGAM LIMITED YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26026 WP No. 4537 of 2026 YETTINAHOLE PROJECT SUB DIVISION, NO.4, MADHUGIRI - 572 132 REPTD. BY ITS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RECONSIDER AND REDETERMINE THE COMPENSATION, BY AWARDING INTEREST NOT ONLY ON THE LAND BUT ALSO ON THE ERECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, AS ENUMERATED AT SL.NO.2 TO 5 OF THE AWARD NOTICE DATED 25.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND TO PAY THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER EXPEDITIOUSLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to reconsider and re-determine the compensation by awarding interest not only on the land but also on the improvements thereto, as stated at Sl.Nos.2 to 5 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26026 WP No. 4537 of 2026 the award notice dated 25.07.2025 and to pay the same to the petitioner in terms of her representation dated 08.01.2026. 3. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the land in Sy.No.6/5 measuring 03 guntas situate at Gundamagere, Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru district which was notified for acquisition for Yettinahole Integrated Drinking Water Project in terms of a notification dated 07.03.2021. An award was passed on 23.07.2025 and an award notice was served on the petitioner on 25.07.2025. It is her claim that the respondents have determined compensation at Rs.9,36,049/- without taking into consideration the improvements made to the land and that no interest is awarded. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to just compensation and hence, respondent No.3 is liable to be directed to reconsider and re-determine the compensation. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was bound to raise a dispute soon after she received a notice of award and she must have sought for reference for enhancement of compensation. He therefore submits that the writ petition seeking for a writ in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26026 WP No. 4537 of 2026 the nature of mandamus to reconsider and re-determine the compensation is not maintainable. 5. I have considered the contentions urged by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 6. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that an award is passed determining the compensation at a sum of Rs.9,36,049/-. She has also not disputed the fact that she received a notice of the award. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the compensation so determined, she was bound to seek a reference as provided under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents cannot be directed to reconsider or re-determine the compensation on the ground that the alleged improvements made to the land were not taken into consideration. 7. If the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation on any ground, she is bound to seek the appropriate remedy as provided under law and certainly not by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26026 WP No. 4537 of 2026 filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within 10 days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30