High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal by Town Municipality in Land Acquisition Compensation Case — Reference Held Within Limitation. Court upholds reference filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as within time, rejecting appellant's limitation plea based on lack of evidence of valid award notice.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 18:08:59

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipur, the beneficiary of land acquisition, appealed against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipur in LAC No. 180/2013, which partly allowed the reference petition filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant raised two main contentions: that the reference was barred by limitation, and that the compensation awarded was on the higher side. The court noted that the appellant filed an application to incorporate additional facts and documents to substantiate the limitation plea. The admitted facts were that the land was acquired for the benefit of the appellant municipality, and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.06.2009. The claimants received compensation under protest and filed a reference petition on 27.11.2012. The appellant argued that the reference was beyond the period of 3 years and 90 days permitted under Section 18 of the Act. However, the court observed that the limitation period under Section 18 is six weeks from the date of notice under Section 12(2) or six months from the date of the Collector's award if no notice is given. The appellant failed to produce any evidence that notice under Section 12(2) was served on the claimants. The reference court had rejected the limitation objection, and the High Court found no reason to interfere. On the quantum of compensation, the reference court had enhanced the compensation based on sale deed evidence and the location of the land. The High Court held that the assessment was not perverse and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Computation of Limitation - The reference under Section 18 must be made within six weeks of the notice of award under Section 12(2) or within six months of the date of the Collector's award if no notice is given. The appellant failed to prove that notice under Section 12(2) was served on the claimants, thus the reference was within time. (Paras 5-10)

B) Land Acquisition - Enhancement of Compensation - Market Value - The reference court enhanced compensation based on sale deed evidence and location of the land. The High Court found no perversity in the assessment and upheld the enhanced compensation. (Paras 11-13)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation, and whether the compensation awarded by the reference court was excessive.

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Limitation for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
1894
Computation of limitation from date of notice of award
Burden of proof on objector to limitation
Enhancement of compensation based on market value evidence

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (04) 19

MFA No. 4373 of 2020 (LAC)

2024-04-18

Justice Anu Sivaraman, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde

Sri Kesavareddy M (for appellant), Sri Pratheep K C (for respondents 1, 3 & 2(a-d)), Smt Azrd J Dundge (for respondent 4)

The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura

C Mohammad Firoz, C Fiyaz Ahamed (deceased by LRs), C Shabeer Ahamed, Assistant Commissioner and LAO, Hassan

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award in land acquisition reference

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the reference court's judgment enhancing compensation and to dismiss the reference as barred by limitation

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the reference court's decision on grounds of limitation and excessive compensation

Previous Decisions

Reference court partly allowed the reference petition and enhanced compensation

Issues

Whether the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was barred by limitation? Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court was excessive?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the reference was filed beyond the period of 3 years and 90 days permitted under Section 18 of the Act. Appellant also contended that the compensation awarded was on the higher side. Respondents supported the reference court's judgment and argued that the limitation plea was not substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is six weeks from the date of notice under Section 12(2) or six months from the date of the Collector's award if no notice is given. The burden of proving that the reference is barred by limitation lies on the party asserting it. In this case, the appellant failed to prove that notice under Section 12(2) was served on the claimants, hence the reference was within time.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant apart from raising a contention that the reference is barred by limitation, has also raised a plea that the compensation awarded by the court is on the higher side. The appellant contends that the reference in LAC No.180/13 is beyond 3 years 90 days permitted under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant failed to produce any evidence that notice under Section 12(2) was served on the claimants.

Procedural History

The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30.06.2009. The claimants received compensation under protest and filed a reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 27.11.2012. The reference court partly allowed the petition and enhanced compensation on 30.01.2020. The appellant filed this appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act on 30.01.2020.