- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.110907 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. LATE HAMPANNA KALAGATTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVLI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CUM- LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2009 PASSED IN MISC.NO.44/2000 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT KOPPAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REFER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 18(1) ON 25-03-1999 TO THE CIVIL COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Misc.No.44 of 2000 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Koppal (“Reference Court” for short), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A.Act” for short) seeking a direction to refer his claim for enhancement of compensation was rejected as being barred by limitation. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.1/A measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situated at Kampli Village, Koppal Taluk, out of which, 1 acre was acquired for construction of houses for weaker section of the society. An award came to be passed by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer on 14.02.1978. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A.Act was ever served either on him or on his father. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 petitioner's father has expired on 04.04.1964 much prior to the passing of the award. According to the petitioner he came to know about the award only on 25.03.1999, whereupon he immediately filed an application under Section 18(1) of the L.A.Act seeking reference to the Civil Court. As the respondent failed to make a reference within the statutory period of 90 days, the petitioner filed Misc.No.44 of 2000 under Section 18(3)(b) of the L.A.Act before the Reference Court. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 06.02.2009 holding that the reference was hopelessly barred by time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the rejection of the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the L.A.Act is found on an erroneous assumption that notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A.Act was served. It is urged that in the absence of proof of service of such notice, the question of limitation could not have been decided against the petitioner. It was further contended that the Trial Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 failed to appreciate that the limitation under Section 18 of L.A.Act commences only from the date of service of notice or knowledge of the award. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order by contending that the award was passed long back and the application seeking reference was filed after an inordinate delay, and therefore the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the petition. 5. This Court has carefully considered the material on record. 6. There is no document whatsoever has been filed by the State to demonstrate service of notice under Section 12(2) of L.A.Act upon the petitioner. In the absence of such proof, the very foundation on which the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground of limitation is rendered is unsustainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 7. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of State Through Land Acquisition Officer, Bidar Vs. Abdul Raheem Khan1 (“Abdul Raheem Khan” for short) has held at paragraph No.4 as under: 4. Under the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961, it has been provided that every application under Section 18(1) shall be made within 90 days from the date of service of the notice by the Deputy Commissioner or from the office of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 12(2). It is further provided that on application being made within 90 days from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) as per Section 18(3), the Deputy Commissioner if fails to make the reference within the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application under Section 18(1), the claimant will have a further right to move the Civil Court with a prayer that the Deputy Commissioner be directed to make the reference within such period as the Court may deem fit. This application under Section 18(3)(b) has to be 1 1998 SCC OnLine, Kar. 405 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 made within a period of 3 years from the date of expiry of 90 days period, given to the Deputy Commissioner to pass the order of reference on the application under Section 18(1). When I so mention and say that within three years from the date of expiry of 90 days period within which the reference has to be made by the Deputy Commissioner, the claimant will get a period of three years according to Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Land Acquisition Act or amended provision does not prescribe any period of limitation for moving the Court under Section 18(3) of the Act and in such cases where special as well as general law provides no period of limitation for doing an act or for moving the petition, the provision of Article 137 which is a residuary provision will be applicable as held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Thakoredas [(1997) 2 SCC 412.] and Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Thakoredas, Major [(1997) 11 SCC 412 : AIR 1994 SC 2227.] . In order to show that the application under Section 18(1) was time-barred, the State has to specifically state - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 the date on which the notice under Section 12(2) was served. That the Deputy Commissioner has been entitled to dispose of the application under Section 18(1) of the Act within ninety days period from the date of receipt of the application. If the Land Acquisition Officer, allows this period of ninety days to expire and does not pass any order or does not refer the case within the aforesaid period, then person aggrieved like the respondent may have the cause to move the Court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and it is from the date of expiry of aforesaid ninety days period, the period of three years—is to be counted and if within this 3 years period application is not made under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act then only an application under Section 18(3)(b) can be said to be barred by limitation. The State has stated no such date of issuance of notice under Section 12(2). If the State had to allege that either application under Section 18(1) or under 18(3) of the Act was time-barred, the burden had been on the State to show the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) on the claimant. The document in this regard must be in possession of the State and the Special Land - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 Acquisition Officer i.e., the Deputy Commissioner. Why those documents were not produced when this plea was placed? No explanation has been offered and when no document has been furnished and no date has been indicated, then adverse presumption may be drawn against the plea taken by the State i.e., if the document would have been favourable to the State, then the State would have definitely produced those documents showing the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and it can be presumed the date of service if would have been indicated then from that date definitely claim would have been within time i.e., why the State Government has not produced the document before the Civil Court and no doubt therefore it can be said that plea raised by the State was frivolous. Any way I do not wish to make any final observations. In such cases, the decision on question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The fact that is to be alleged and proved is firstly on which date the notice under Section 12(2) was served on the claimant i.e., the person whose land has been acquired. Then within 90 days he had got - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 the right to move the application under Section 18(1). He could move under Section 18(1) an application on the last date of 90 days period before Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter 90 days further time was available to the Commissioner to dispose of that application and make reference and if within that 90 days period, the Land Acquisition Officer did not pass any order, definitely it has always been open to the applicant or the claimant to move under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act within a period of three years from the last date of above period. I may say on the expiry of 180 days period from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2), the period of three years for limitation has to be counted to see that whether the application under Section 18(3) is within time. These questions of fact may have to be decided after going through the evidence and the record. The stage of evidence, I am sure is not yet reached. It is also one of well-settled principles that under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC that where a case though can be disposed of on a preliminary issue, but where issue involves mixed questions of law and fact and it cannot be decided as a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 pure question of law, then the preliminary issue has to be determined and decided along with all other issues after recording evidence. 8. In Abdul Raheem Khan's case it has been categorically held that the burden lies on the State to establish the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of L.A.Act, if it seeks to contend that an application under Section 18(1) or 18(3)(b) is barred by limitation. In the absence of such proof, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the state. 9. Section 18(2)(a) and (b) of L.A.Act reads thus: “18. Reference to Court. – (1) xxxx (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 made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. (Emphasis supplied) 10. The law is well settled that limitation under Section 18 of L.A.Act begins to run only from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) or from the date of actual knowledge of the award. When the service of notice itself is not established, the rejection of petitioner’s application as time barred cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order suffers from manifest error of law and warrants interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Misc.No.44 of 2000 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal (Annexure-G) is hereby set aside. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:123 WP No. 110907 of 2014 iii. The respondent/Assistant Commissioner cum Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the petitioner's application dated 15.03.1999 filed under Section 18(1) of the L.A.Act, to the competent Civil Court for determination of market value in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48