- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102913 OF 2022 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANITA ALIAS AKKAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ INGALALLI @ INGALAGI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGAWATI, TQ. GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL. 2. SMT. NIRMALA @ SUJATA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR KATTI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER MUNIRABAD MEHABOOB NAGAR, RAILWAY LINE, TQ. SINDHANUR, DISTRICT 583227. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH WEST RAILWAYS DIVISION NO.3, CLUB ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI 580023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.28 10:36:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2022 IN NO.KAM/VI BHOO SWA AA/MU MA RAILWAY/02/2016-17/295 AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2022 IN NO.KAM/VI/BHOO SWA AA/MU MA RAILWAY/02/2016-17 296 VIDE ANENXURE-J AND J1 RESPECTIVELY AND PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the impugned orders dated 15.06.2022, passed by respondent No.1- Special Land Acquisition Officer (Annexures-J and J1), whereby the petitioner's application seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short), were rejected solely on the ground that a consent award has already been passed and consequently the petitioners were not entitled to seek enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 Brief facts: 2. The petitioners are absolute owners of the land now bearing Sy.Nos.233/7 and 233/8, carved out of pursuant to podhi from original Sy.No.233 of Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. The acquisition proceedings were initiated for railway line purposes, and a consent award came to be passed only in the names of other landowners of Sy.Nos.233/1, 233/2 and 233/3, without notice to the petitioners and without their consent. Though the petitioners’ name did not figure out in the preliminary or final notification, possession of their land measuring 1 acre 24 guntas was admittedly taken in the year 2009 and railway tracks were laid. 3. The petitioners were constrained to approach this Court in a series of writ petitions seeking initiation of acquisition and compensation. During the pendency of W.P.No.108389/2017, this Court recorded that the petitioners had lost their lands without acquisition and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 directed payment of an interim amount of ₹20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) subject to final determination. Subsequently, R.P.Nos.100063/2020 and 100064/2020 were disposed of by this Court on 21.12.2021, categorically observing that mere non-mentioning of the petitioners’ name in the notification or award would not disentitle them from seeking enhancement of compensation, and liberty was expressly reserved to avail remedies available in law. 4. Availing the said liberty, the petitioners filed application under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894 seeking reference to the Civil Court for determination of proper market value. By the impugned orders dated 15.06.2022, the respondent rejected the applications holding that, since a consent award has already been passed, the petitioners were not entitled to seek reference, giving rise to the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the consent award is not binding on them as they were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 neither parties to it nor they have given consent. It is argued that taking possession, without acquisition and compensation, itself vitiates the action of the respondents. The respondents have completely ignored the binding observation made by this Court in the review petitions, which expressly preserved that the petitioners’ right to seek enhancement. The rejection of Section 18(1) of Act, 1894 application is mechanical contrary to law and amounts to overriding a judicial order, rendering the impugned orders unsustainable. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, seek to justify the impugned orders contending that once consent award is passed, the award attains finality and no reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894 is maintainable. It is contended that the compensation has already been fixed for the acquired lands and therefore no further adjudication is required. 7. The central issue that arises for consideration is: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 Whether landowners, who were not parties to the consent award and whose lands were taken without their consent can be denied a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894? 8. The answer must necessarily be in the emphatic ‘No’, for the following reasons: i. The consent award binds only those who are parties to it, the petitioners were admittedly not parties to the consent award nor had they consented to the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the bar applicable to the challenge of consent award cannot be extended to the petitioners. ii. Statutory right under Section 18(1) of Act, 1894 cannot be extinguished by implication. The right to seek reference is a valuable statutory right and the same can be taken away only in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 A consent award passed in favour of a third party cannot extinguish the petitioners’ right. iii. This Court, while disposing of the review petitions, had specifically held that non- mention of the petitioner's name would defeat their right to seek amendment and reserved the liberty to avail the remedies under law. 9. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 in R.P.No.100064/2020 is culled out as under: “6. Hence, in my considered opinion the review petition is not maintainable. It is however, made clear that irrespective of the name of the petitioner not having been mentioned in the 4(1) notification or in the final notification, since the admitted fact being that the petitioner is the owner of a portion of the land which has been acquired by respondent No.2 for the benefit of respondent No.1, the petitioner would be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 entitled to avail all remedies available under law including the remedy for enhancement of the compensation, if they are so entitled to. The mere non-mention of the name of the petitioner in the 4(1) notification or 6(1) notification will not be a ground to deny the petitioner of higher compensation. 7. Though the name of the petitioner has been included in the revenue records on account of a Phodi which occurred subsequent to the final notification, it is made clear that since they are admittedly the land owners they would be entitled for compensation irrespective of the Phodi being carried out either subsequent to 4(1) notification or 6(1) notification.” 10. The respondent was bound to act in conformity with the said order and could not sit in the appeal over it. 11. The impugned orders merely reiterate that the consent award exists without examining, i. whether the petitioners were party to it?, ii. whether consent award was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 obtained from them? and iii. whether the liberty granted by this Court has been honoured? Such approach renders the orders arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners’ application under Section 18(1) of the Act, 1894 are vitiated in law, being contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the judicial direction and the petitioners are entitled to have their claim for enhancement adjudicated by the competent reference Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned orders dated 15.06.2022 (Annexures-J and J1), passed by respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer, are here by quashed. iii. Respondent No.1 is directed to refer the petitioners’ claim to the Jurisdictional Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Land - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:817 WP No. 102913 of 2022 Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of proper and reasonable compensation in respect of the petitioners’ land, uninfluenced by the so-called consent award, passed in favour of the other landowners. iv. The reference Court shall consider the claim on its own merits in accordance with law after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. v. All the contentions on the quantum of compensation are kept open. vi. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80