- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: C.S. RAMANAIKA SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 1. C.R. KRISHNA S/O LATE C.S. RAMANAIKA, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT "PRASHANTHI" 4TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN-577 101. 2. SMT. C.R. PRAMEELA W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KANCHIPURA, SREERAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527 3. C.R. LOKANATH S/O LATE RAMANAIKA, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN-577101. 4. C.R. KANTHAMANI D/O LATE RAMANAIKA, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN-577101 5. C.R. MOHAN KUMARI W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 RESIDING AT KITTADAL, SREERAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN-577101 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, CANTONMENT, BENGALURU-560048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN AMENDMENT ORDER LAC NO.6/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 IN LAC NO.6/2008-09 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question corrected/wzÀÄÝ¥Àr order bearing LAC No.6/2011-12 dated 10.07.2014 passed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 the respondent No.1, by which the compensation re- determined by the respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.365 of Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District, in terms of the order bearing No.L.A.C. No.6/2008-09 dated 27.03.2014 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was recalled. 2. The petitioners are land losers for a project undertaken by the respondent No.2. An award was passed on 06.01.2000 determining the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Some land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act') and the Reference Court in terms of an order dated 16.04.2008 passed in LAC No.36/2006, determined the compensation in respect of the subject land at Rs.55/- per Sq. ft. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.1 before this Court in M.F.A No.1879/2009, which however was dismissed in terms of a judgment dated 29.06.2011. The petitioners then filed an application before the respondent No.1 seeking the benefit of enhanced compensation as provided under Section 28A of the L.A. Act. The respondent No.1, after considering all the facts - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 and circumstances passed an order dated 27.03.2014 in L.A.C No.6/2008-09, re-determined the compensation payable to the petitioners and held that the petitioners are eligible to receive compensation of Rs.34,06,240/- along with interest. Long thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 10.07.2014 recalling his earlier order dated 27.03.2014 on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make a claim before the respondent No.1 under Section 28A of the L.A. Act within 3 months from the date of the award passed by the Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioners and without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He contends that the respondent No.1 while passing an order under Section 28A of the L.A. Act was satisfied that the claim made by the petitioners was well within time and therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot resile from his earlier order and revoke the earlier order dated 27.03.2014 on the ground that the petition under Section 28A of the L.A. Act - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 was beyond limitation prescribed. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set at nought and the petitioners be granted the benefit of higher compensation as determined by the respondent No.1, vide his order dated 27.03.2014. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that under Section 28A of the L.A. Act, an application for enhanced compensation has to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award passed enhancing the compensation. He submits that the respondent No.1 after being satisfied that such a claim was not made by the petitioners within 3 months, was justified in revoking his earlier order and holding that the petitioners are not entitled to enhanced compensation. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate justified the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 8. The purpose of awarding compensation is to comply a constitutional obligation and the acquiring body is bound to ensure that all land losers are awarded just and equitable compensation depending upon the fertility, potentiality for non- agricultural use, location of the property that they have lost. Section 28A is also incorporated into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the aforesaid avowed objective and to ensure that all land losers similarly placed are paid the same amount of compensation. Therefore, whenever there is enhancement of the compensation, it is the duty of the respondent No.1 - Land Acquisition Officer to ensure that all land losers are informed of the enhanced compensation awarded so that the land losers make a claim for enhancement of the compensation within the time prescribed. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 had entertained the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the L.A. Act and after being satisfied that the claim was within time had enhanced the compensation under Section 28A of the L.A. Act. He therefore cannot upset the apple cart by holding that the petitioners had not filed the application under Section 28A of the L.A. Act within time that too without hearing the petitioners and without giving them an opportunity of being - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31595 WP No. 4411 of 2015 heard. Since it is not in dispute that another land loser in the same village was granted higher compensation, the petitioners are also entitled to be granted a higher compensation as determined in terms of the order passed in L.A.C No.6/2008-09 dated 27.03.2014. 9. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The corrected/wzÀÄÝ¥Àr order bearing LAC No.6/2011-12 dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed. The order bearing L.A.C No.6/2008-09 dated 27.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure 'C' to the petition) is restored. The respondent No.2 shall ensure that the compensation as determined by the respondent No.1 vide order bearing L.A.C No.6/2008-09 dated 27.03.2014 is paid to the petitioners, which shall be complied within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49