Two representations in 2005, a civil court order in 2022, and still no reference: the Karnataka High Court has now told a Land Acquisition Officer to make it within a month and to pay the landowner Rs 1,00,000.
Bengaluru: Faulting a Special Land Acquisition Officer for sitting on a landowner’s request that has been pending since 2005, the Karnataka High Court has ordered the officer to refer the compensation dispute to a civil court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within one month, and to pay the landowner Rs 1,00,000 for harassing him. If the amount is not paid, it is to be recovered from the salary of the responsible officer [B Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another].
The order was passed by Justice R. Nataraj on August 31, 2026, in a writ petition filed by B Ramaiah. Advocate G.A. Srikante Gowda appeared for the petitioner, and High Court Government Pleader Pooja M. Koorse for the State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
One month to refer, Rs 1,00,000 for the delay
The respondent No.2 is directed to refer the dispute under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Compensation of Rs 1,00,000 is payable to the petitioner for harassing him by not considering his request from 2005 till date. Should it not be paid within one month, the drawing officer is to deduct it from the salary of the officer responsible for the delay who was in office when the petitioner gave his representation dated December 8, 2022. The petitioner had also sought costs of litigation, which the order does not award. The petition is listed for compliance on November 23, 2026.
From a 2004 acquisition to a second visit to the High Court
The State acquired 29 guntas of the petitioner’s land in Bengaluru Rural district in 2004, for an alternate road to the Devanahalli international airport from Bettakote Village. He said the land was worth more than the compensation fixed and asked the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to a civil court under Section 18 of the Act. Representations followed in June and October 2005, but no action was taken.
The High Court directed him to approach the civil court, and in 2007 he filed a petition before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Devanahalli. In 2022 that court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make the reference within 30 days. Copies of the order went to the officer with representations in 2022 and 2025, yet the reference was still not made, so the petitioner returned to the High Court seeking a direction to make it.
The Court’s finding on the officer
Justice Nataraj found that the officer had complied neither with a statutory duty nor with the civil court’s direction.
This therefore shows the apparent negligence on the part of the respondent No.2 in not complying with the statutory duty
The Court added that the officer was “liable to be hauled up for playing around with the life of the petitioner so despicably.”
What the order adds
A reference under Section 18 is the step that carries a landowner’s compensation dispute to a civil court. Even after a civil court has directed it, an officer’s inaction on that step can attract personal financial accountability and not only a direction to comply, the order shows.
Recovery is tied to the salary of the officer who held the post when the 2022 representation was made. Responsibility thus rests on the individual officer rather than falling on the State.
Case Title: B Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another [W.P. No. 12897 of 2026 (LA-RES)]
Bench: Justice R. Nataraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: August 31, 2026
Appearances: Advocate G.A. Srikante Gowda for the petitioner; High Court Government Pleader Pooja M. Koorse for the respondents