Lessee’s Claim for Compensation in Land Acquisition Dismissed by Karnataka High Court

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.(High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench)

Writ Petition No. 101551 of 2025 (LA-RES)

Date: 27th February 2025

Key Takeaways

• Lessee’s Rights Limited: The court clarified that a lessee (tenant) cannot claim the compensation due to the landowner when land is acquired by the government.
• Owner’s Right to Compensation: The landowner retains the right to withdraw compensation, even if there’s a pending dispute about how the compensation should be divided (apportionment).
• No Substitution of Owner: The lessee cannot substitute themselves for the owner in compensation matters unless there’s a sale deed, not just a lease deed.
• Petition Dismissed: The court found no grounds to grant the lessee’s request and dismissed the writ petition.

Issue

Can a lessee prevent the landowner from withdrawing compensation awarded for land acquired by the government, pending the outcome of apportionment proceedings?

Facts

• Parties:
• Petitioner: Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited (lessee, represented by its Manager-Legal, Mr. Abbas Rajesab Nidaseshi)
• Respondents:

1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkote
2. State of Karnataka (represented by Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote)
3. Ravi S/o Shankar Basannavar (landowner)

• Background:
• The government acquired land for a public project.
• The landowner (Respondent No. 3) was awarded compensation by the II Additional District Judge and Additional Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Bagalkote (LAC No. 748/2019, dated 05.12.2024).
• The petitioner, as a lessee of the landowner’s father, claimed entitlement to a share of the compensation and wanted the court to stop the owner from withdrawing the money until a related apportionment case (LAC No. 216/2019) was decided.

Arguments

Petitioner (Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited)

• Claimed entitlement to compensation as a lessee under a lease deed.
• Sought a writ of certiorari to quash the compensation award to the owner.
• Requested an order restraining the owner from withdrawing the compensation until the apportionment case was resolved.

Respondents

• The State and Land Acquisition Officer were represented by the Additional Government Advocate.
• The main argument (as noted by the court) was that the petitioner was only a lessee, not an owner, and thus could not claim the compensation or prevent the owner from withdrawing it.

Key Legal Precedents

Note: The judgment does not cite any specific case law names or section/rule numbers. The decision is based on general principles of property and land acquisition law, particularly the distinction between the rights of a lessee and an owner regarding compensation for acquired land.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
• Reasoning:
• The petitioner was only a lessee, not the owner.
• There was no sale deed in favor of the petitioner—only a lease deed.
• A lessee cannot substitute the owner in claiming compensation for land acquisition.
• The owner (Respondent No. 3) is entitled to withdraw the compensation, even if apportionment proceedings are pending.
• Order: Petition dismissed; no grounds made out for the relief sought.

FAQs

Q1: Can a lessee claim compensation for land acquired by the government?

A: No, unless the lessee has a sale deed or ownership rights. A lease alone does not entitle the lessee to claim compensation in place of the owner.

Q2: What happens if there’s a dispute about how compensation should be divided?

A: The owner can still withdraw the compensation. The apportionment (division) of compensation can be decided separately, but it does not stop the owner from accessing the funds.

Q3: Why was the petition dismissed?

A: The court found that the petitioner, as a lessee, had no legal basis to prevent the owner from withdrawing compensation for the acquired land.

Q4: Did the court cite any specific case laws or legal sections?

A: No specific case laws or statutory sections were cited in the judgment. The decision was based on general legal principles regarding ownership and compensation rights.