High CourtDivision Bench2024-03-12Appeals disposed of. Remanded to High Court for...

The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4053 of 2024

Neutral Citation:[2024] 3 S.C.R. 661

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Surya Kant
K. V. Viswanathan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: The instant civil appeals are disposed of. The High Court of Karnataka is remanded to reconsider the entire subject-macquisition in a holistic, project-wise manner, ensuring uniformity where possible and respecting final awards already paid. The High Court should proceed expeditiously, preferably within three months, and take up pending matters along with Rajshekhar’s case and related matters, ensuring that it does not reduce compensation to rates already paid and finalised. The parties are to appear before the High Court on the specified date to facilitate expeditious disposal.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of. Remanded to High Court for holistic, project-wise reconsideration; expeditious disposal within three months; no reduction of already-paid final awards; maintain due process and uniformity where possible.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Executive Engineer, KNNL

Respondents

Subhashchandra & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv.; Hetu Arora Sethi; Abhimanyu Verma; Lalit Mohini Bhat; Disha Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant

Counsels for Respondents

• Anand Sanjay M Nuli; Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs.; Suraj Kaushik; Agam Sharma; Nanda Kumar; Dharm Singh; M/s. Nuli & Nuli; Sharanagouda Patil; Harshvardhan Malipatil; Jyotish Pandey; Supreeta Sharanagouda; S. J. Amith; S. Anuradha Bhat; Harisha S.R., Advs. for the Respondents

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch relates to a massive land acquisition in Karnataka (approximately 13,000 acres) by the State for the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL) to execute drinking water and irrigation projects (Bennethora, Lower Mullamari, Amarja, and in some references, Upper Tunga). The High Court of Karnataka had enhanced compensation across numerous appeals, but the Supreme Court found that the High Court did not analyze the cases independently or village/notification-wise, and relied on earlier decisions that this Court had already set aside. Consequently, the Court allowed Special Leave, granted leave, and remanded the matters to the High Court for a holistic, project-wise reconsideration, with a view to harmonizing awards to the extent possible in accordance with law. It cautioned that relief should not reduce compensation to levels already paid to some landowners where such amounts had attained finality. The judgment emphasizes uniformity in the award of compensation while preserving final payments where appropriate, and directs expeditious disposal and fresh adjudication on remand (preferably within three months). The decision thus anchors a unified, project-centric approach to compensation, avoiding blanket or village-wide uniform rates while ensuring due process and consistency across batches of projects.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 4 and 6)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-Corporation contends that after remand the High Court has only partly heard the matter, and that there is a need for project-wise, notification-wise consideration to achieve uniformity, while ensuring that gains already paid to some landowners are not rolled back. The Corporation emphasizes that many later High Court judgments granting enhanced compensation have attained finality and should not be reopened indiscriminately; it argues for parity with similarly situated cases only if justified by village/notification specifics, and cautions against dilatory delays that could undermine the remand direction. The appellant also contends that the High Court should complete reconsideration expeditiously and in accordance with the parameters laid down by this Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents-landowners argue that numerous judgments granting enhanced compensation have already been paid and that those decisions have attained finality; they urge parity among landowners who were similarly situated. They contend that the High Court’s prior approach was valid for the broad acquisition and projects in scope, and that uniform enhancement across all cases should be pursued. They also stress the need for expeditious disposal given the decades-long delay in acquisition and seek to rely on past High Court decisions in support of higher awards.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Annarao @ Anveerappa case	—	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority establishing the standard that the High Court must analyze each case independently, ideally on a village/notification basis; the current judgment aligns with Annarao’s approach and remands for fresh consideration.
Rajshekhar s/o Sangappa deceased by Lrs. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer	MSA No.200020/2018 (LAC)	Overruled	The present Court states that reliance on Rajshekhar’s case by the High Court did not meet the Annarao standard and is not accepted for determining project-wise compensation on remand.
Kalappa S/o Paudapppa v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer	MSA No.200014/2018 (LAC)	Overruled	High Court’s reliance on Kalappa’s judgment is not approved in light of Annarao’s guidance and is set aside on remand.
Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.	MSA No.200055/2016 (LAC)	Overruled	The Court does not accept the High Court’s reliance on this decision as a stand-alone basis for increased compensation and remands for independent, case-specific analysis.
Motibee W/o Mashak Patel v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.	MSA No.200147/2017 (LAC)	Overruled	Similar to the above, the decision is not followed as a basis for uniform enhancement; remand for project-wise reconsideration is mandated.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 661 : 2024 INSC 208 ## **The Executive Engineer, KNNL** ## **v.** ## **Subhashchandra & Ors.** (Civil Appeal No. 4053 of 2024) 12 March 2024 ## **[Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** Huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres was acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for different projects. High Court while passing the impugned orders enhancing the compensation for the acquired land, relied upon its own decisions which judgments did not find favour with this Court in earlier litigation as regards the same chunk of land and were remanded to High Court for reconsideration. ## **Headnotes** **Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Award of compensation – Big chunk of land acquired for different projects at different points in time – Enhancement in compensation granted by the High Court varied from project to project – Supreme Court found that the High Court did not analyze each case independently, matters remanded to High Court – High Court while passing the impugned orders enhancing the compensation for the acquired land, relied upon said decisions which were set aside and were remanded to High Court for reconsideration – Plea of the appellant-Corporation that after the remand, the matter was heard in part by the High Court – Respondentsland owners contended that there were numerous cases in which similarly placed land owners have already been paid compensation at enhanced rate granted by the High Court and those judgments of the High Court attained finality and are not subject matter of these appeals:** **Held:** It is not in dispute that a batch of cases was remanded by this Court for reconsideration by the High Court – It is also an admitted fact that those matters pertained to the same broader acquisition, though they possibly pertain to different projects – In a peculiar situation where some of the judgments of the High Court attained finality as the compensation amount, as enhanced, stands paid whereas the others are still subject matter of adjudication, * Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 662 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** these cases also remanded to the High Court so that a holistic view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least project wise, can be taken by the High Court – High Court to make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation, to the extent possible, in accordance with law. [Para 14] ## **List of Acts** Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ## **List of Keywords** Land Acquisition; Drinking water and irrigation projects/schemes; Award of compensation; Compensation enhanced. ## **Case Arising From** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4053 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 of the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in MSA No.200214 of 2017 With Civil Appeal Nos.4076, 4070, 4064, 4056, 4068, 4054, 4055, 4057, 4058, 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4069, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4075, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4084, 4085, 4086, 4087, 4088 And 4089-4090 Of 2024 ## **Appearances for Parties** Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Abhimanyu Verma, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Disha Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Suraj Kaushik, Agam Sharma, Nanda Kumar, Dharm Singh, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Sharanagouda Patil, Harshvardhan Malipatil, Jyotish Pandey, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, S. J. Amith, Mrs. S. Anuradha Bhat, Harisha S.R., Advs. for the Respondents. ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Judgment** ## **Surya Kant, J.** **1.** Permission to file special leave petition is granted in Diary No.12213/2023. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 663 ## **The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.** **2.** Delay condoned. **3.** Leave granted. **4.** These civil appeals impugn the judgements dated 28.02.2017, 28.11.2017, 15.02.2018, 20.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 02.03.2018, 22.03.2018, 06.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.04.2018, 07.12.2018, 12.12.2018, 14.01.2020, 24.01.2020 and 03.03.2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench, whereby compensation for the acquired land was enhanced. The appellant-Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (in short, “Corporation”) claims to be the beneficiary of the subject-acquisition. **5.** The Corporation has been entrusted with the assignment to plan, execute and operate drinking water and irrigation projects and schemes in the State of Karnataka. About 13000 acres of land was acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for various projects like (1) Bennethora Project (2) Gandori Nala Project (3) Lower Mullamari Project and (4) Amarja Project. Certain civil appeals also refer to a fifth project, namely, the Upper Tunga Project. This huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres also included the parcels of lands owned by the respondent-land owners of different villages. The acquisition was carried under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “Act”). The present civil appeals pertain to the Bennethora Project, Lower Mullamari Project and Amarja Project situated in Kalaburagi, Karnataka. **6.** The acquisition proceedings in these appeals, as per the project-wise classification, progressed as follows- - **(i) Bennethora Project** - a) Civil Appeal Nos.4053, 4054, 4055, 4956, 4061, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4075, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4085, 4086, 4087 of 2024 pertain to this project. In this batch of civil appeals coming under the Bennethora Project, land measuring a consolidated total of **131 acres and 451 guntas (Approx. 142 acres)** was acquired through different notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Act. The Section 4 notifications and the Section 6 declarations were issued on the following dates- [2024] 3 S.C.R. 664 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** |**Date of Section 4** **Notification**|**Date of Section 6** **Notification**| |---|---| |18.02.1982|10.05.1984| |17.03.1983|23.02.1984| |05.04.1990|22.11.1990| |05.07.1990|09.05.1991| |23.08.1990|04.04.1991| |07.02.1991|28.11.1991| |16.05.1991|26.03.1992| |13.06.1991|20.12.1991| |19.06.1991|17.12.1992| |11.07.1991|27.08.1997| |06.08.1992|13.01.1994| - b) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short, “SLAO”) passed the awards for the acquired lands on different dates, whereby compensations were granted at the following rates- | following rates-|| |---|---| |**Date of SLAO award**|**Compensation granted by** **SLAO(Rupees/acre)**| |23.01.1985|3,167| |28.02.1985|3,500| |08.01.1991|5,400| |20.05.1991|6,000 for wet lands| |15.06.1992|9,800| |30.01.1993|28,000 for dry lands & 42,000 for wet lands| |03.02.1993|15,000| |22.11.1993|15,000| |27.11.1993|15,000| |24.12.1993|15,000| |31.05.1994|9,000| c) The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court was further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 665 ## **The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.** - d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court, the compensation amounts as further enhanced by the District Court and impugned compensation amounts granted by the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as follows- |**Amount** **granted** **by SLAO** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted by** **Reference** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by District** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by the** **High Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**| |---|---|---|---| |3,167|11,000|19,000|1,09,034| |3,500|11,000|26,100|83,500| |5,400|25,500|50,500|1,52,059| |15,000|28,500|74,000|1,64,223| |15,000|32,000|74,000|1,64,223| |9,000|32,000|67,000|1,76,388| |15,000|32,000|81,400|1,76,388| |6,000|36,000|Rs.90,200|2,28,088 for wet lands| |28,000 for dry lands & 42,000 for wet lands|42,000 for limited extent of land instead of 28,000|55,888 for dry lands 83,832 for wet lands|1,52,059 for dry lands 2,28,088 for wet lands| |9,800|42,000|75,750|1,64,223 for dry lands 2,46,334 for wet lands| ## **(ii) Amarja Project** - a) Civil Appeal Nos.4057, 4058, 4059, 4060 & 4062, 4084 of 2024 pertain to this Project. In the batch of civil appeals coming under the Amarja Project, land measuring a [2024] 3 S.C.R. 666 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** consolidated total of **15 acres 83 guntas (Approx. 17 acres)** was acquired through a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Section 4 notification and the Section 6 declaration were issued on the following dates- |**Date of Section 4** **Notification**|**Date of Section 6** **Notification**| |---|---| |07.04.1988|06.07.1989| - b) Thereafter, the SLAO passed the award for the acquired lands whereby compensations was granted at the following rate- | rate-|| |---|---| |**Date of SLAO award**|**Compensation granted by** **SLAO(Rupees/acre)**| |06.03.1990|7,000| - c) The rate of compensation awarded by the SLAO was enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced compensation amount granted by the Reference Court was further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court. - d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rate of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced compensation amount granted by the Reference Court, the compensation amount as further enhanced by the District Court and impugned compensation amount granted by the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as follows- |**Amount** **granted** **by SLAO** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted by** **Reference** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by District** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by the** **High Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**| |---|---|---|---| |7,000|30,000|79,200|1,78,429| [2024] 3 S.C.R. 667 ## **The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.** ## **(iii) Lower Mullamari Project** - a) Civil Appeal Nos. 4063, 4088, 4089 of 2024 pertain to this Project. In the batch of civil appeals coming under the Lower Mullamari Project, land measuring a consolidated total of **19 acres 59 guntas (Approx. 20 acres)** was acquired through notifications under Section 4 of the Act followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Act, which were issued on different dates. The Section 4 notifications and the Section 6 declarations were issued on the following dates- | dates-|| |---|---| |**Date of Section 4** **Notification**|**Date of Section 6** **Notification**| |30.05.1991|11.05.1992 / 03.09.1992| |14.01.1993|07.04.1994| |04.03.1993|07.04.1994| - b) Thereafter, the SLAO passed the awards for the acquired lands on different dates, whereby compensations were granted at the following rates- | granted at the following| rates-| |---|---| |**Date of SLAO award**|**Compensation granted by** **SLAO(Rupees/acre)**| |04.05.1983|8,000 for dry lands & 10,000 for wet lands| |18.11.1995|10,000 for dry lands & 15,000 for wet lands| |01.01.1996|8,000| - c) The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court was further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court. - d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court, [2024] 3 S.C.R. 668 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** the compensation amounts as further enhanced by the District Court and impugned compensation amounts granted by the High Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as follows- |**Amount** **granted** **by SLAO** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted by** **Reference** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by District** **Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**|**Amount** **granted** **by the** **High Court** **(Rupees/** **acre)**| |---|---|---|---| |8,000 for dry lands & 10,000 for wet lands|70,000|-|1,15,086| |10,000 for dry lands & 15,000 for wet lands|50,000 for dry lands 75,000 for wet lands|-|1,24,992 for dry lands 1,86,440 for wet lands| |8,000|33,000|74,750/75,543|1,33,500| **7.** It may thus be seen that the enhancement in the compensation granted by the High Court varies from project to project and while the minimum amount is Rs.83,500/- per acre, the maximum amount is seen to have gone up to Rs.1,78,429/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 2,46,334/- for wet lands. **8.** Having regard to the big chunk of land acquired for different projects referred to above, at different points in time, the enhancement made by the High Court in a few cases, where the compensation of Rs.1,20,814/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.1,81,221/- per acre for wet lands was awarded, came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of appeals, including C.A. No.2591/2022 (The Executive Engineer, KNNL Vs. Annarao @ Anveerappa & Anr.), in which this Court, _vide_ Judgment dated 10.05.2022, having found that the High Court has not analyzed each case independently, much less notification wise, concerning particular village or area and that the parameters delineated in various decisions of this Court were not adverted to, held as follows: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 669 **The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.** “In the impugned judgment(s) and order (s), the High court has made no effort to analyze the concerned case(s) either notification-wise or for that matter, village-wise, including the other parameters required to be observed for arriving at a just compensation amount. Further, in most of the appeals, the appellant (Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited} was not made party in the appeal proceeding before the High Court. It is also the grievance of the appellant that most of the cases, entertained at the instance of land owners, were grossly delayed and yet they have been granted enhancement, and in some cases along with interest. The fact remains that the High Court in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) has not analyzed each case independently much less notification-wise concerning particular village or area and keeping in mind the parameters delineated in the reported decision, adverted to earlier. In our opinion, it is appropriate that the parties are relegated before the High Court for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh and in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the land owners were at pains to point out that some matters pertaining to some of the notifications, referred to in the present appeal proceedings, have reached upto this Court and decided in favour of the land owners, including in some cases the appellants have acted upon the decision by paying compensation amount. Even the effect of such orders passed by this Court can be examined by the High Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, we keep all contentions available to both sides open, to be considered by the High Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) are set aside and the concerned appeals/petitions are remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in the above terms. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 670 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.07.2022, when the High Court may assign suitable date for hearing of the concerned batch of cases which, as aforesaid, must proceed notification-wise pertaining to concerned village as a separate group. Needless to observe that some of the notifications pertain to the year 1983, therefore, it would be appropriate that the High Court disposes of the appeal(s) expeditiously. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.” **9.** The High Court judgments, which were set aside and the cases remanded back for fresh consideration, also included the judgments rendered by the High Court in MSA No.200020/2018 (LAC) titled Rajshekhar s/o Sangappa deceased by Lrs. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MSA No.200014/2018 (LAC) titled Kalappa S/o Paudapppa v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and MSA No.200147/2017 (LAC) titled Motibee W/o Mashak Patel v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. decided on 19.02.2018, 21.02.2018 and 09.01.2018 respectively, awarding compensation of Rs.1,64,223/acre, Rs.1,64,223/acre and Rs.1,52,059/acre respectively for the dry lands. Consequently, _Rajshekhar’s case_ (supra) has also been remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. The abovementioned judgements of the High Court had in turn placed reliance on MSA No. 200055/2016 (LAC) titled Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr, decided by the High Court on 13.03.2017, which has also been remanded to the High Court vide this Court’s order dated 10.05.2022 in _Annarao @ Anveerappa case_ (supra). **10.** We find that in the present batch of appeals, the brief impugned order passed by the High Court in CA No.4053/2024, has solely relied upon its own decision in _Rajshekhar’s case_ (supra). In some of the other appeals, namely CA Nos. 4954, 4055, 4056, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4087 and 4088 of 2024, the High Court has relied upon its decision in _Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun_ (supra) _, Kalappa_ (supra) _(which placed reliance on Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra))_ and Motibee (supra) _(which placed reliance on Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra))_ . These judgments did not find favour with this Court in _Annarao @ Anveerappa case_ (supra), whereby the matters have been remanded to the High Court for reconsideration. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 671 ## **The Executive Engineer, KNNL v. Subhashchandra & Ors.** **11.** Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation, submits that after the remand, the matter has been heard in part by the High Court. **12.** On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents-land owners submits that there are numerous cases in which similarly placed land owners have already been paid compensation at enhanced rate granted by the High Court. Those judgments of the High Court have attained finality and are not subject matter of these appeals. **13.** Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s), however, counters this submission, as according to him, those matters pertain to different villages and the respondents cannot claim parity with those cases. **14.** We have considered the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a batch of cases has been remanded by this Court for reconsideration by the High Court, as seen above. It is also an admitted fact that those matters pertain to the same broader acquisition, though they possibly pertain to different projects. In a peculiar situation where some of the judgments of the High Court attained finality as the compensation amount, as enhanced, stands paid whereas the others are still subject matter of adjudication, we deem it appropriate to remand these cases also to the High Court so that a holistic view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least project wise, can be taken by the High Court. The High Court will make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation, to the extent it is possible, in accordance with law. **15.** It goes without saying that the High Court, while undertaking this exercise, will not reduce the compensation to a rate which has already been paid to some of the land owners and which has attained finality. The rest of the contentions from both sides are kept open to be gone into by the High Court. **16.** It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. **17.** The parties are directed to appear before the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench on 18.03.2024. We request the High Court to take up these matters also, along with the _Rajshekhar’s case_ (supra) and other cases, which are already part heard before the High Court. Since the acquisition is more than three decades old, we request [2024] 3 S.C.R. 672 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** the High Court to decide the matters expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of this judgement. **18.** The instant civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms. _Headnotes prepared by:_ Divya Pandey _Result of the case:_ Appeals disposed of.