High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Case — Reference Rejection Set Aside Due to Procedural Error. Power of Attorney Holder Entitled to Maintain Reference Under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD

Admin

2026-05-18 21:41:53

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Santosh S. Nayak, as Power of Attorney holder of the land owner Manappa Ramappa Lamani, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the compensation awarded for acquisition of land. The reference Court, by judgment and award dated 13.12.2011 in LAC No.148/2009, rejected the reference petition solely on the ground that the appellant had not produced the copy of the Power of Attorney, and thus was an incompetent person to maintain the reference. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court heard the appeal and observed that the reference Court committed a grave error in rejecting the reference without giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce the Power of Attorney. The Court noted that the appellant was the GPA holder and had sought reference on behalf of the land owner. The High Court held that the reference Court ought to have allowed the appellant to produce the Power of Attorney rather than dismissing the reference. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remitted the matter back to the reference Court for fresh consideration, directing the reference Court to give an opportunity to the appellant to produce the Power of Attorney and then decide the reference on merits in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the reference Court on 20.05.2024.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Maintainability by Power of Attorney Holder - The reference Court rejected the reference petition on the ground that the appellant, who sought reference as Power of Attorney holder of the land owner, did not produce the copy of the Power of Attorney. The High Court held that the reference Court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to produce the Power of Attorney rather than rejecting the reference outright. The impugned judgment and award were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the reference Court for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference petition solely on the ground that the appellant, as Power of Attorney holder, did not produce the copy of the Power of Attorney?

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 13.12.2011 in LAC No.148/2009 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot, is set aside. Matter remitted back to reference Court for fresh consideration. Reference Court to give opportunity to appellant to produce Power of Attorney and then decide reference on merits in accordance with law. Parties to appear before reference Court on 20.05.2024.

Law Points

Power of Attorney holder can maintain reference under Land Acquisition Act
1894
Rejection of reference for non-production of PA copy is erroneous
Reference Court must give opportunity to produce document

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (04) 12

MFA No. 102510 of 2016 (LAC)

2024-04-04

Vijaykumar A. Patil

Sri. M. M. Patil for appellant; Sri. Abhishek Patil, HCGP for R1; Sri. Shivaraj C. Bellakki for R2

Santosh S. Nayak (P.A. Holder)

1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MIP, No.1, Navanagar, Bagalkot; 2. The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Niravari Nigam Ltd, M.B.C, Divn.No.I, Gaddanakeri Camp, Tal: Bagalkot

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against rejection of reference petition under Land Acquisition Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of reference Court's judgment and award rejecting reference

Filing Reason

Reference Court rejected reference petition on ground that appellant, as Power of Attorney holder, did not produce copy of Power of Attorney

Previous Decisions

Reference Court rejected reference petition in LAC No.148/2009 on 13.12.2011

Issues

Whether the reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference petition solely on the ground that the appellant, as Power of Attorney holder, did not produce the copy of the Power of Attorney?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel submitted that reference Court committed grave error in rejecting reference on ground of non-production of PA copy, and ought not to have rejected reference once appellant claimed to be PA holder.

Ratio Decidendi

A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by a Power of Attorney holder cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-production of the Power of Attorney; the reference Court must give an opportunity to produce the document before deciding the reference on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference Court has committed grave error in rejecting the reference petition on the ground that the reference is sought by one Sri.Santosh S.Nayak, the appellant herein, as a Power of Attorney of the land owner Sri.Manappa Ramappa Lamani and he has not produced the copy of PA. The reference Court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to produce the Power of Attorney rather than rejecting the reference petition.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot, which was rejected on 13.12.2011. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 54(1) of the Act before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.