(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and award dated 10.04.2019 passed in Lac No.511/2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Vijayapura vide Annexure-A; and direct the reference court to reopen the proceedings after impleading the present petitioner as a party respondent.

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to a) issue writ of certiorari and quash the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 in Lac.No.963/2018, dated 30.03.2023 in Lac.No.944/2018, dated 09.08.2023 in Lac.No.943/2018, dated 09.08.2023 in Lac.No.941/2018, dated 02.03.2023 in Lac.No.221/2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the Hon'ble 3rd Additional District Judge, and Additional Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And resettlement authority, Vijayapura; b) remand the matters to the Trial Court with specific direction to re-hear the matters afresh after mandatorily impleading the petitioner as one of the respondents and afford it full opportunity to participate in the proceedings, present its defence, adduce evidence, and make legal submissions; c) issue appropriate writs or order declaring that all the judgements obtained from the various reference courts under Section 64 (1) Of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for enhancement of the compensation in respect of the lands covered by UKP III Project, without arraying petitioner/ beneficiary of the lands as a party, is null and void and inexecutable; d) issue appropriate writs or order directing all the reference courts exercising the powers under the Act to implead the petitioner/beneficiary of the lands covered by UKP III project as a party respondent and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before proceeding further in such cases; e) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, fairness and equity under the circumstances of this case.)

Oral Order

1. The above captioned writ petitions are filed by the Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Limited who is the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings assailing the order passed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority, Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court) enhancing compensation payable to the respondents/land owners under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act, 2013).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the question that arises for consideration in these batch of writ petitions is covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.200188/2021 disposed of on 28.03.2025, wherein the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.200605/2019 dated 15.11.2021 holding that the writ petition filed by the beneficiary is maintainable and since the judgment and award was passed by the Reference Court without hearing the beneficiary, the impugned judgment and award were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Reference Court to decide the reference case afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary.

3. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent/State also endorses the said submission made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has taken note of the submission made on behalf of the land owners that the beneficiary-company should not be permitted to pick and chose the matters for filing appeals and it is observed that an uniformity is required to maintain while passing an award. He therefore submits that service of notice on the land owners would be only a formality and since they are required to be heard by the Reference Court after matter is remitted. I find force in the said submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General.

4. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that all these writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in W.A.No.200188/2021 disposed of on 28.03.2025 in the case of Shivabasappa vs. Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited and others.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the owners of the property in some cases however submit that subsequent to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200188/2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.201896/2025 and connected petitions by order dated 19.12.2025 and while allowing the writ petitions of the beneficiary and remanding the matter, certain observations have been made in the said order and therefore, these writ petitions may be disposed of and remitted in terms of the observations found in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.201896/2025 and connected writ petitions. They also submit that the beneficiary has not deposited 25% of the compensation amount awarded in compliance of the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.200605/2019, till date.

6. At this juncture, learned Addl. Advocate General has brought to the notice of this Court that review petitions in R.P.No.200044-45/2026 have been filed seeking review of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.201896/2025 and connected writ petitions and therefore, it would be not proper to place reliance on the said order and on the other hand, the writ petitions could be disposed of in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200188/2021. He also submits that if the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.200605/2019 is not complied till date, necessary action shall be taken to comply the same at the earliest.

7. In W.A.No.200188/2025 the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.200605/2019 dated 15.11.2021, wherein it was held that similar writ petitions filed by the Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited assailing the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court without hearing the beneficiary as maintainable and accordingly had quashed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and had remitted the matter for fresh consideration, subject to conditions.

8. In paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the judgment passed in W.A.No.200188/2021, it is observed as follows:-

          "12. It is very necessary to notice the fact that the petitioner company is not the beneficiary for whose benefit the acquisition notifications were issued. In fact, it is undisputed that the petitioner company was established by the State Government subsequent to the issuance of the acquisition notifications. It is also true that by various Government Orders, the State Government has thought it fit to transfer the irrigation projects along with all the assets and liabilities relating to the projects with instruction to the Nigam that all the works of the respective projects shall be completed within the time stipulated therein. It is also a fact that the petitioner company has satisfied the claim of the land owners by depositing the award amount/enhanced compensation. It is also noticeable that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in several matters including Civil Appeal (D) No.13231/2023 arising out of SLP (C) No.13065/2022 in the case of Executive Engineer, KNNL (supra) dated 12.03.2024, has issued directions while remanding the matter back to this Court in the matter of reconsidering the claim of enhancement of compensation. In this background and having regard to the consistent view taken by the Apex Court, as noticed hereinabove, the person interested, who is also satisfying the compensation, is entitled to canvas its correctness or defend the award of the Collector. In that view of the matter, there can be no doubt that the petitioner company is entitled to question an order of enhancement of compensation. The petitioner company cannot be equated to a subsequent allottee, who is merely paying the value of the property allotted.

          13. Having said so and for the same reason, that the petitioner company is not notified as the beneficiary in the acquisition notifications, the petitioner company may meet with stiff opposition, if it files appeals questioning the enhancement of compensation. The Appellate courts may have to deal with the issue as to whether the appellant company is a beneficiary or person interested and whether such an appeal could be maintainable at its hands. It is also a fact that several hundreds of reference petitions have been filed and several hundreds of reference orders have been passed by the competent courts There is a danger of the appellate courts having to decide the issue regarding the maintainability of the appeals that could be filed by the petitioner company and there is also a danger of foreseeing conflicting decisions. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is better that this Court would decide the said issue, rather than leaving it to be decided by several appellate courts. The issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner company.

          14. However, we should give credit to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents land owners, who contended that that the petitioner company should not be permitted to pick and chose the matters for filing appeals. It is also noticeable that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, KNNL (supra) dated 12.03.2024 has issued directions to this court to take a holistic view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least project wise and make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation to the extent possible."

9. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which has disposed of in W.P.No.201896/2025 and connected petitions by order dated 19.12.2025. However, the terms and conditions imposed while remanding the matter to the Reference Court in W.P.No.201896/2025 and connected writ petitions are found to be different from the terms and conditions that were imposed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200188/2025.

10. Learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted before this Court that, it is only for the said reason the aforesaid review petition is filed with a prayer to review the order passed in W.P.No.201896/2022 and connected writ petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has specified certain terms and conditions to be complied while remanding the matters to the Reference Court, this Court is required to adhere to the very same terms as found in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200188/2021 and therefore, I am of the opinion that these writ petitions are required to be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200188/2021 disposed of on 28.03.2025. Accordingly, the following order :

          i) Writ petitions are allowed.

          ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court are quashed.

          iii) Matters are remitted to the Reference Court with a direction to implead the beneficiary/petitioner in these writ petitions as a party/respondent.

          iv) The beneficiary/petitioner is at liberty to file statement of objections and since the claimants/land owners have already led their evidence, beneficiary/petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the claimants/land owners, if necessary and it is also at liberty to lead its evidence, if any.

          v) On remand, the Reference Court shall call for information from the land owners as well as the beneficiary as to whether the beneficiary or the Special Land Acquisition Officer has satisfied payment of the enhanced compensation in respect of the similarly placed lands.

          vi) If the Reference Court is satisfied that enhanced compensation has been satisfied by the beneficiary/SLAO, then reference in respect of the land owners shall also be disposed of in similar terms, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          vii) If the Reference Court is satisfied that the beneficiary/SLAO has not satisfied the enhanced compensation in respect of any other lands similarly placed, then the Reference Court may proceed to reconsider the reference while also considering the objections permitted to be filed by the beneficiary/petitioner and dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          viii) The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and orders, pending disposal of the LAC appeals before the Reference Court and the same shall be invested in interest bearing deposit by the Reference Court. The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the amount as aforesaid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          ix) The respondent-authorities shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the land owners/claimants and they are at liberty to recover the same from the persons guilty of not bringing the fact of existence of the petitioners to the notice of Reference Court.

          x) In the event, the petitioner does not comply condition No.viii as aforesaid, the land owners are at liberty to file necessary application before the Reference Court bringing to its notice about the non-compliance, and in such event, the Reference Court shall pass appropriate orders on the said applications, expeditiously, but not later than a period of one month from the date of filing of such applications.