Narayanamma vs Land Acquisition Officer - Land Acquisition Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Smt. Narayanamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 on 24 March, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16560
WP No. 9195 of 2026

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                        BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9195 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
               BETWEEN:

               1.    SMT. NARAYANAMMA
                     W/O. MUNIRAMAIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                     R/AT. NELAVAGILUR VILLAGE,
                     HOSKOTE TALUK,
                     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

               2.    SMT. JAYAMMA,
                     W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
                     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                     R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
                     KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
                                                             ...PETITIONERS
               (BY SRI. CHINMAY G KURANDWAD.,ADVOCATE)

               AND:

Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001

               2.    SRI. BYRAPPA,
                     S/O. CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR,
                     R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
                     KASABA HOBLI, MALUK TALUK,
                     KOLAR DISTRICT
               3.    DHODDACHOUDAPPA,
                     S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
                     AGED MAJOR, R/AT. MINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
                     KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
                       -2-
                                   NC: 2026:KHC:16560
                                  WP No. 9195 of 2026

HC-KAR

 KOLAR DISTRICT

1. MUNIYAMMA
   W/O. MUNEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR,
   R/AT. MAALASANDRA VILLAGE,
   NARASAPURA HOBLI,

2. SHIKKOLAMMA,
   W/O. LATE DHODDAMUNI SONNAPPA,
   AGED MAJOR, R/AT. KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
   TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,

3. SRI. ADHYAPPA,
   S/O. LATE BHAYAMMA, AGED MAJOR

4. SRI. SAMPANGAPPA,
   S/O. LATE EERAMMA, AGED MAJOR

5. SRI. BYRAPPA,
   S/O, LATE CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR

6. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHI,
   S/O. LATE CHOUDAPPA, AGED MAJOR

7. SMT. SUNANDA
   W/O. MUNIRAJAPPA, AGED MAJOR

8. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
   W/O.NARASIMHAPPA, AGED MAJOR

9. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
   W/O. AMBERLIYORA RAMANNA,
   AGED MAJOR

10. SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
    W/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR

11. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
    W/O. K. GOVINDAPPA, AGED MAJOR
    -3-
    NC: 2026:KHC:16560
    WP No. 9195 of 2026

HC-KAR

1. SRI. MARKONDAPPA,
   S/O. SONNAPPA, AGED MAJOR

2. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
   W/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR

3. SMT. BHAYYAMMA,
   W/O. MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED MAJOR

   ALL THE RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 17 ARE
   R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
   MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI.GOPAL B.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET
   ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LOK
   ADALATH IN LAC NO. 17/2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
   AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE
   FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR FOR ADJUDICATION
   ON MERITS.

   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
   HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                   ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question

the legality and correctness of the settlement dated

14.03.2026 recorded by the Lok Adalat in

LAC No.17/2022. The records disclose that while recording

the said settlement, the Lok Adalat has taken note of the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:16560 WP No. 9195 of 2026 HC-KAR

order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18846/2022,

wherein the general award came to be quashed.

Consequent thereto, the Lok Adalat has ordered closure of

the proceedings in LAC No.17/2022 and has further

directed that the amount deposited by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer be reimbursed to the acquiring

Authority. The said order is assailed by the petitioners on

the ground that their claim for partition and separate

possession in O.S.No.104/2012 is still sub judice and

therefore, closure of the LAC proceedings without securing

their consent suffers from serious legal infirmities and is

liable to be interfered with.

1. At the outset, this Court was inclined to accept

the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners. However, on a deeper scrutiny of the

pleadings and the material placed on record, this Court

finds that the suit in O.S.No.104/2012, wherein the

petitioners had sought partition of their share, has already

been dismissed by judgment and decree dated -5- NC: 2026:KHC:16560 WP No. 9195 of 2026 HC-KAR

10.12.2025. Though it is contended that the said

judgment and decree is under challenge in a Regular

Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 in R.A.No.7/2026 and the same is

pending consideration, this Court is of the considered view

that any right or entitlement now claimed by the

petitioners must necessarily be agitated and worked out in

the said pending appeal.

1. It is not in dispute that as on the date when the

Lok Adalat recorded the impugned settlement, the

partition suit stood dismissed. In that view of the matter,

the petitioners, as on the said date, did not possess an

enforceable subsisting right so as to insist upon

participation or consent in the LAC proceedings.

Consequently, the contention that the settlement is

vitiated for want of their consent cannot be accepted.

1. However, it is equally true that the petitioners'

right, if any, to claim a share in the compensation arising -6- NC: 2026:KHC:16560 WP No. 9195 of 2026 HC-KAR

out of the acquisition proceedings is intrinsically connected

with and dependent upon the adjudication of their rights in

the partition suit. Since an appeal under Section 96 of

CPC., is in the nature of a continuation of the original

proceedings, it is open for the petitioners to work out their

remedies by seeking appropriate reliefs before the

Appellate Court in the pending R.A. No.7/2026.

1. Insofar as the present writ petition is concerned,

this Court finds that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is

also a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court and

therefore, all issues pertaining to entitlement,

apportionment and disbursement of compensation can

effectively be adjudicated by the Appellate Court. Without

availing such efficacious remedy and without pursuing

appropriate applications in the pending appeal, the

petitioners have chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of

this Court to assail the order of the Lok Adalat, which, in

the considered opinion of this Court, is not maintainable,

particularly in view of the pendency of R.A. No.7/2026. -7-

NC: 2026:KHC:16560 WP No. 9195 of 2026 HC-KAR

1. If the petitioners file an application seeking

appropriate interim orders in the pending appeal, the

Appellate Court shall consider the same keeping in view

the necessity of preserving the subject matter of the

appeal. While doing so, the Appellate Court shall advert to

the material and documents placed on record by the

petitioners, afford an opportunity of hearing to all

concerned parties, and thereafter pass appropriate orders

in accordance with law.

Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioners to

pursue and seek appropriate reliefs, including

consideration of any application already filed, before the

Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/2026, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE

NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24