The Karnataka High Court has ordered a Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to a 102-year-old man after years of inaction over his demand for a judicial review of the compensation awarded for his acquired land.
Justice R Nataraj took a stern view of the officer’s failure to act despite repeated representations and a specific direction from a civil court. The Court observed that the officer had subjected the elderly petitioner to deplorable treatment by allowing the dispute to remain unresolved for years.
The officer, who was in charge when the man submitted a representation in 2022, must pay the amount within one month. If the payment is not made within the stipulated period, the drawing officer has been directed to recover the sum from the officer’s salary.
The case arose from the acquisition of 29 guntas of land in Bengaluru Rural district in 2004. The State had taken over the property to construct an alternative road connecting Bettakote Village to the international airport at Devanahalli.
Believing that the compensation offered by the government was inadequate, the landowner sought a reference to a civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows disputes over compensation to be examined by a court.
He submitted representations to the land acquisition officer in June and October 2005, requesting that the dispute be referred for judicial consideration. However, no action followed.
The elderly man subsequently approached the High Court, which directed him to pursue the matter before the civil court. He filed a petition before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Devanahalli in 2007.
In 2022, the civil court ordered the land acquisition officer to refer the dispute within 30 days. Despite this direction, the officer failed to act even after the petitioner submitted copies of the order through further representations in 2022 and 2025.
With the matter still unresolved, the petitioner returned to the High Court seeking enforcement of the direction to refer his compensation dispute to the civil court.
The High Court found the officer’s continued inaction unacceptable, pointing to the apparent negligence in discharging a statutory responsibility and complying with the civil court’s order.
Taking particular exception to the manner in which the 102-year-old man had been treated, the Court remarked that the officer was liable to face action for having played with the petitioner’s life in such a reprehensible manner.
In its August 31 order in B Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka, the Court directed the officer to refer the compensation dispute to the competent court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act within one month. It also imposed the ₹1 lakh compensation payment for the prolonged harassment caused by the failure to act.
The ruling underscores the consequences of public officials ignoring statutory duties and court directions, particularly when their inaction leaves an elderly citizen waiting years for a chance to challenge the compensation awarded for his land.