{"id":196623,"date":"2005-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005"},"modified":"2015-04-15T12:11:51","modified_gmt":"2015-04-15T06:41:51","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2024 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAXUMAN\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nCJI R.C. LAHOTI,G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4459\/1999, 607-609\/2000,
\n5547\/2000, 1566\/2000  and 1567\/2001  <\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAll these appeals involve questions connected with the scope
\nand effect of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and
\nadopted in the State of Karnataka.  The brief facts leading to the appeals are
\nas under.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2024 OF 1999
\n\t\tThe State challenges the order of the learned Single Judge of
\nthe Karnataka High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.3682 of 1995 by
\nwhich the learned Judge dismissed the revision filed by the State challenging
\nthe order of the Civil Judge, being the land acquisition court, purporting to
\ncondone the delay in filing an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, as amended in Karnataka.  The notice of the award under
\nSection 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant on 6.1.1984.    Under
\nSection 18(2) of the Act, the claimant had 90 days from the date of service
\nof that notice, to seek a reference under that Section for enhancement of
\ncompensation.   The respondent claimed that an application under Section
\n18(1) of the Act seeking a reference was filed on 15.3.1984, within 90 days
\nof 6.1.1984, but the reference was not made by the Deputy Commissioner
\nwithin 90 days thereafter as enjoined by Section 18(3)(a) of the Act.   The
\nclaimant approached the civil court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act only in
\nApril 1994, more than 10 years after the receipt of the notice of the award.
\nThe claimant also purported to file an application for condoning the delay in
\nmaking the application.   This was in view of the fact that it had been held
\nthat an application to the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act had to be
\nmade within three years of the expiry of 90 days of the date of making an
\napplication seeking a reference for enhancement of compensation.   The
\nState opposed the application for condoning the delay on the ground that
\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act had no application and that, in any event,  no
\nground was made out for condoning the long delay of ten years in filing the
\napplication.   The civil judge proceeded to condone the delay and proceeded
\nto direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference in terms of Section
\n18 of the Act.   In revision, the High Court refused to interfere on the ground
\nthat Section 5 of the Limitation Act had application and there was no reason
\nto interfere with the condoning of the delay by the civil judge.   The High
\nCourt apparently without even a verification, merely accepted the evidence
\nof PW 1 that he had made an application within 90 days of the receipt of the
\nnotice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act.   Feeling aggrieved by
\nthat order, this appeal by special leave has been filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4459 OF 1999<\/p>\n
\t\tIn this case, the civil judge dismissed the application made
\nunder Section 18(3)(b) of the Act by the respondent on the ground that the
\napplication was barred by limitation.   This order of the civil judge was
\nchallenged in an appeal before the District Judge.   It is not clear under what
\nprovision such an appeal was filed, since under Section 54 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act as amended in Karnataka no appeal is provided to the
\nDistrict Court from such an order of the civil judge and an appeal is
\nprovided only against the award.  The appellate court is seen to have held
\nthat Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable and the learned civil
\njudge was in error in dismissing the application for compelling the reference
\nunder Section 18(3)(b) of the Act without deciding the prayer for
\ncondonation of the delay in filing that application.  This order of the District
\nJudge was challenged in revision before the High Court.   The High Court
\nheld that Section 5 of the Limitation Act had application and declined to
\ninterfere with the order of remand made by the Additional District Judge.
\nThe High Court, thus, dismissed the revision filed by the State.   Aggrieved
\nby this order, the State has come up with this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.607-609 of 2000
\n\t\tIn the first case it appears that the application for reference
\nunder Section 18(1) of the Act itself was made only two years after the
\naward.   Another seven years thereafter an application for compelling a
\nreference was made under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.   The civil judge
\ndismissed the application on the ground that it was out of time.   Ten years
\nthereafter, the claimant filed a revision as C.R.P. No.1505 of 1997 before the
\nHigh Court.   The High Court ignored the delay of ten years in filing the
\nrevision in a somewhat cavalier manner and allowing the revision remitted
\nthe reference application to the Land Acquisition Court for entertaining the
\napplication under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.  The others were cases of a
\nsimilar nature.    In all of them there was considerable delay in making the
\napplication for reference and also delay in approaching the court.   In these
\nrevisions also, same lack of application of mind was exhibited by the High
\nCourt and the revisions were allowed and the applications remitted.   The
\ncommon order thus passed, is subjected to challenge in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5547 OF 2000<\/p>\n
\t\tThe State challenges the order of the High Court  passed under
\nthe same circumstances leading to the challenge in C.A. No.4459 of 1999.
\nHere the application for compelling a reference was dismissed on the ground
\nthat it was out of time.   The District court permitted the claimant to file an
\napplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and directed its
\nconsideration.  The High Court refused to interfere.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1567 OF 2001
\n\t\tIn this appeal, the State of Karnataka challenges the order in
\nCivil Revision Petition No.956 of 1998.   In this case also the civil judge
\ndismissed the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act in view of the
\nfact that it was not within time.   An appeal was purported to be filed by the
\nclaimant under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The same
\nwas allowed and the matter was remanded.  Against the order of the District
\nCourt, the revision was filed by the State challenging the competence of the
\norder.   The High Court refused to interfere based on the same reasons it had
\nadopted in the order giving rise to Civil Appeal No.4459 of 1999.   Feeling
\naggrieved, the State has filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1566 OF 2001<\/p>\n
\t\tThis appeal challenges the decision of the Full Bench of the
\nKarnataka High Court which by a majority held that even though the right to
\nthe claimant to apply for compelling a reference under Section 18(3)(b) of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the State of Karnataka may be lost,
\nthe Deputy Commissioner could still make a reference even if it be after ten
\nyears, if he so chose and that in such a situation, the court could also compel
\na reference notwithstanding that the period for applying for reference has
\nexpired.  The State challenges the above view adopted by the Full Bench by
\na majority and contends that the minority view holding that once the right to
\nthe claimant to apply has come to end, the question of reference does not
\narise, is the correct one and deserves to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tSection 18 of the Land Acquisition of the Act, 1894 (for short
\n“the Act”)  as amended by Act 68 of 1984 provided that a person interested
\nin a land acquired and who has not accepted the award of compensation by
\nthe Collector, could apply to the Collector for a reference of his claim within
\nsix weeks of the date of the award if he was present at the time of making of
\nthe award and within six weeks of the notice from the Collector under
\nSection 12(2) of the Act if he was not so present.   In a case that may not be
\ncovered by either of the above situations, the claimant has to make his
\napplication within six months of the date of the award of the Collector.   The
\nState Legislature by an amendment brought to Section 18 of the Act
\nsubstituted the proviso to Section 18(2)  by replacing the period  of six
\nweeks by a period of 90 days and making the starting point, the date of
\nservice of notice from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 12(2) of the
\nAct.   Sub-section (3) was added directing that the Deputy Commissioner
\nshould make the reference to the court within a period of 90 days from the
\ndate of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the
\nAct.   If he failed to do so within the period of 90 days, the party was given a
\nright under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act to apply to the court to direct the
\nDeputy Commissioner to make the reference and the court was conferred the
\npower to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within such
\nperiod as may be fixed by the court.   For the purpose of convenience it will
\nbe better to quote the section as amended in the State of Karnataka:
\n\t“18.   REFERENCE TO COURT(1) Any person
\ninterested who has not accepted the award or amendment
\nthereof, may by written application to the Deputy
\nCommissioner  require that the matter be referred by the Deputy
\nCommissioner for determination of the court, whether his
\nobjection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the
\ncompensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the
\napportionment of the compensation among the persons
\ninterested.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe application shall state the grounds on which
\nobjection to the award is taken:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that  every such application shall be made
\nwithin ninety days from the date of service of the notice from
\nthe Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section12.\n<\/p>\n
3. \t(a)\tThe Deputy Commissioner shall, within ninety
\ndays from the date of receipt of an application under sub-
\nsection (1) make a reference to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tIf the Deputy Commissioner does not make a
\nreference to the Court within a period of ninety days from the
\ndate of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the
\ncourt to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference,
\nand the Court may direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the
\nreference within such time as the Court may fix.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe court to which the application was to be made was the
\nprincipal civil court of original jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tAs can be seen, no time for applying to the court in terms of
\nsub-section (3) is fixed by the statute.   But since the application is to the
\ncourt, though under a special enactment, Article 137, the residuary article of
\nthe Limitation Act, 1963, would be attracted and the application has to be
\nmade within three years of the application for making a reference or the
\nexpiry of 90 days after the application.   The position is settled by the
\ndecision of this Court in The Addl. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
\nBangalore vs. Thakoredas, Major and others (AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 2227).    It
\nwas held:\n<\/p>\n
“Admittedly, the cause of action for seeking a reference had
\narisen on the date of service of the award under Section 12(2) of
\nthe Act.   Within 90 days from the date of the service of notice,
\nthe respondents made the application requesting the Deputy
\nCommissioner to refer the cases to the Civil Court under
\nSection 18.   Under the amended sub-section 3(a) of the Act,
\nthe Deputy Commissioner shall, within 90 days from
\nSeptember 1, 1970 make reference under Section 18 to the Civil
\nCourt which he failed to do .   Consequently, by operation of
\nsub-section 3(b) with the expiry of the aforestated 90 days, the
\ncause of action had accrued to the respondents to make an
\napplication to the Civil Court with a prayer to direct the Deputy
\nCommissioner to make a reference.  There is no period of
\nlimitation prescribed in sub-section 3(b) to make that
\napplication but it should be done within limitation prescribed by
\nthe Schedule to the Limitation Act.   Since no Article expressly
\nprescribed the limitation to make such application, the residuary
\narticle under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act
\ngets attracted.   Thus, it could be seen that in the absence of any
\nspecial period of limitation prescribed by clause (b) of sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 18 of the Act, the application should have
\nbeen made within three years from the date of expiry of 90 days
\nprescribed in Section 18(3)(b) i.e. the date on which cause of
\naction had accrued to the respondent-claimant.   Since the
\napplications had been admittedly made beyond three years, it
\nwas clearly barred by limitation.   Since, the High Court relied
\nupon the case in Municipal Corporation of Athani (AIR 1969
\nSC 1335), which has stood overruled, the order of the High
\nCourt is unsustainable.”\n<\/p>\n
This position is also supported by the reasoning in Kerala State Electricity
\nBoard vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma ( 1976 (4) SCC 634).   It may be seen that
\nunder the Central Act sans the Karnataka amendment there was no right to
\napproach the principal civil court of original jurisdiction to compel a
\nreference and no time limit was also fixed for making such an approach.
\nAll that was required of a claimant was to make an application for reference
\nwithin six weeks of the award or the notice of the award, as the case may be.
\nBut obviously the State Legislature thought it necessary to provide a time
\nframe for the claimant to make his claim for enhanced compensation and for
\nensuring an expeditious disposal of the application for reference by the
\nauthority under the Act fixing a time within which he is to act and conferring
\nan additional right on the claimant to approach the civil court on satisfying
\nthe condition precedent of having made an application for reference within
\nthe time prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tA statute can, even while conferring a right, provide also for a
\nrepose.   The Limitation Act is not an equitable piece of legislation but is a
\nstatute of repose.   The right undoubtedly available to a litigant becomes
\nunenforceable if the litigant does not approach the court within the time
\nprescribed.  It is in this context that it has been said that the law is for the
\ndiligent.   The law expects a litigant to seek the enforcement of a right
\navailable to him within a reasonable time of the arising of the cause of action
\nand that reasonable time is reflected by the various articles of the Limitation
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tOn a plain understanding of the scheme of Section 18 of the
\nAct as amended in Karnataka, it is apparent that a claimant has to make an
\napplication for reference within a period of 90 days of the service of notice
\nunder Section 12(2) of the Act.   The section casts a duty on the concerned
\nofficer to make a reference within 90 days of the receipt of the application
\nfor reference.   The mere inaction on the part of the officer does not affect or
\nstraightaway extinguish, the right of the claimant-applicant.   The claimant is
\nconferred the right to approach the court but he has to do so, within three
\nyears of his having made an application for reference in view of the general
\nlaw of limitation.  It is in this context that it has been held that the time
\navailable to a claimant for approaching the court for getting a reference
\nmade, is in all, three years and 90 days from the date of the accrual of the
\ncause of action.   That accrual is when he makes an application for reference
\nwithin the time prescribed by Section 18(2) of the Act.  The controversy that
\nis generated in these appeals is whether on the expiry of the said period of
\nthree years and 90 days, the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make a
\nreference and that of the claimant to move the court, get extinguished.  It is
\nto be remembered that the claimant had made his application for reference
\nwithin the 90 days prescribed by the statute.   Should a construction be
\nadopted which will lead to a position that a claimant who has done his part,
\nloses his right on the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make the
\nreference within 90 days of the receipt of the application for reference?  That
\nwill depend on the statutory scheme.  If we construe the provision as
\nconferring on the litigant a further right to approach the court for getting the
\nmatter referred, in case a Deputy Commissioner fails to make a reference
\nwithin 90 days of the receipt of the application, we have prima facie to say
\nthat on his failure to approach the court and get the reference made, he
\nwould lose his right to have a reference for enhancement of compensation.
\nObviously, the mischief that was sought to be averted by the Legislature was
\nthe causing of undue delay by Deputy Commissioners in making references
\nand the making of highly belated references, sometimes based on
\napplications clandestinely received long after the award itself had been
\nmade.   If we keep this object in view, the conclusion possible is that, if a
\nclaimant does not get his claim referred to the court within three years of his
\nmaking the application before the Deputy Commissioner within the period
\nfixed and the accrual of a cause of action, his right to claim enhancement of
\ncompensation would get extinguished.   In the context of Section 28A of the
\nAct, there will be no irreparable prejudice caused to the claimant since he
\ncan always make a claim for more based on any enhancement of award by a
\ncourt in any other reference arising out of the acquisition under the same
\nnotification.   The difference may be only in the matter of interest and the
\nlike.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in
\nKarnataka is self contained.  The amendments substantially alter the
\nposition as obtaining under Section 18 of the Central Act.  Under the
\nCentral Act, there is only an obligation on the claimant who is not
\nsatisfied with the award of compensation and receives it under protest,
\nto make an application to the Collector for making a reference of his
\nclaim for enhancement to the Court and to ensure that his application is
\nmade within the time provided under sub-Section (2) of that Section.
\nIn other words, once an application has been made for making a
\nreference for enhancement, no further right is conferred on him, except,
\nmay be that he can approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction,
\nseeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to
\nperform the duty imposed on him by Section 19 of the Act, by making
\nan appropriate reference.  Even in such a case, it is open to the High
\nCourt to decline to issue a writ as sought for by a claimant, when the
\napproach to the High Court is unduly delayed or the petitioner is guilty
\nof latches.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tUnder the Karnataka scheme, the period for making an
\napplication for reference has been enhanced from six weeks to 90 days
\nand the terminus a quo is the receipt of notice from the Collector under
\nSection 12(2) of the Act.  The Section proceeds further and imposes a
\nduty on the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference to the Court
\nwithin 90 days from the date of receipt of the application under Section
\n18(1) of the Act.  Though it may not be conclusive what one has to
\nnotice is that expression used is “shall” and not “may”.  The scheme
\ndoes contemplate a situation where the Deputy Commissioner, in spite
\nof the peremptory nature of the duty cast on him, still fails to make the
\nreference within the time stipulated by sub-Section 3(a) of Section 18.
\nThe claimant is, therefore, given the right to approach the Court,
\nnamely, the Court that is to deal with the claim on the reference being
\nmade, to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within
\na time to be fixed by the Court.  This right to apply to the Court which
\nis to deal with the reference, is not available under the Central Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tWhatever might have been the controversy in the High
\nCourt in that regard, after the decision of this Court in The Addl. Spl.
\nLand Acquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. Thakoredas, Major and others<\/a>
\n(supra), the time for approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act
\nstands crystalised.   The application has to be made within three years of the
\nexpiry of 90 days from the date of application under Section 18(1) of the Act
\nmade by the claimant.   If the application is not made within that time the
\nright to move is lost.    In that case, the court dismissed the application under
\nSection 18(3)(b) of the Act.  We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that
\nthe remedy of approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act gets
\nextinguished on the expiry of the period limited therefor.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThis Court has also held that in proceedings under the Land
\nAcquisition Act before the authorities under that Act, Section 5 of the
\nLimitation Act has no application (See Officer on Special Duty (Land
\nAcquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others
\n(1996 (9) SCC 414).   Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot
\nbe resorted to while making an application under Section 18(1) of the
\nAct  and the application has to be made within the period fixed by
\nSection 18(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe Division Bench of the High Court in Special Land
\nAcquisition Officer vs. G.C. Paramraj  (ILR  1991(2) Karnataka
\n1109) held that the reference court has not only the power, but also the
\nduty, to consider whether the reference was time barred and therefore
\ninvalid.   It also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an
\napplication under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act, a position approved by
\nthis Court.   Then the Division Bench held that the power to make a
\nreference under Section 18(3) subsists till the right of the party to make
\nan application before the court seeking a direction to the Deputy
\nCommissioner to make a reference exists and from this it followed that
\nthere is no power in the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference
\nthereafter and if such a reference is made by the Deputy Commissioner,
\nit is invalid.  An application to the court not made within 3 years after
\nthe expiry of 90 days from the date of the application under Section
\n18(1) of the Act, had to be rejected in limini.   The Division Bench laid
\ndown the law thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“It is a well recognized rule of construction that in order to
\nascertain the true meaning of a provision the intention of
\nthe Legislature, as ascertainable from the language of the
\nprovision is the safe guide.   From the amendment of
\nSection 18, it is clear that in addition to the time limit of 90
\ndays fixed in Section 18, the Legislature intended to create
\na duty in the Deputy Commissioner to make a Reference
\nwithin 90 days and further if within the said period the
\nDeputy Commissioner\/Land Acquisition Officer failed to
\nmake a Reference, to confer a right on the party to make an
\napplication before the Court seeking a direction to the
\nDeputy Commissioner to make the Reference.   If that right
\nis not exercised by the party within time, then the right
\nceases.   Once the right of the party to get a Reference is
\ntime barred, it would be incongruous to hold that the
\nDeputy Commissioner can still make a Reference, at any
\ntime even after decades.   In our view, it is reasonable to
\nconstrue the provision to mean that the date on which the
\nright of the party to get a Reference comes to an end would
\nalso be the date on which the power of the Deputy
\nCommissioner to make Reference comes to an end.   We
\nare not persuaded to agree with the construction suggested
\nfor the respondent that the power of the Officer continues
\neven after the right of the party comes to an end and
\ncontinues for ever.   It means even after an application
\nmade before the Court after three years is rejected as the
\nCourt is powerless to entertain a time barred application,
\nthe Deputy Commissioner would have the power to make a
\nReference, nullifying the order of the Court rejecting the
\napplication as time barred.   Such a construction would lead
\nto a situation in which in one case the Deputy
\nCommissioner could make a Reference if he so desires and
\nin another he could refuse to do so, if he so desires, in
\nwhich even the party would be helpless.   In other words,
\nthe Deputy Commissioner could act according to his whims
\nand fancies.  It is difficult to agree that the Legislature
\nintended to bring about such a result.   Further, such a
\nconstruction which brings about anomalous and
\nincongruous results and gives ample scope for nepotism,
\nfavouritism and corruption, should not be given.  We have
\ncome across several References made after two decades,
\nparticularly after several additional benefits were conferred
\nby Amending Act 68 of 1984 amending the Land
\nAcquisition Act.   In our opinion, the correct view to take
\nis, just as the party loses the right to the Reference if no
\napplication is made within 90 days in terms of Section
\n18(2), the party, who had made an application within 90
\ndays loses the right to secure a Reference if he fails to make
\nan application within three years after the expiry of 90 days
\nfrom the date of the Reference application and
\nconsequently the power of the Deputy Commissioner\/Land
\nAcquisition Officer to make Reference comes to an end.
\nWe are, therefore, of the view that the date of cessation of
\nthe Deputy Commissioner to make the Reference also
\nconstitutes the date of cessation of power of the Deputy
\nCommissioner.   To put it in a nutshell the latter comes to
\nan end on the date on which the former ends and the award
\nof the Land Acquisition Officer becomes final.   Therefore,
\nneither the party can seek a Reference nor the Deputy
\nCommissioner can make the Reference after the expiry of 3
\nyears and 90 days from the date of the Reference
\napplication.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tIn view of some differences of opinion that subsequently
\narose mainly because of the failure to appreciate the reasoning of the
\nDivision Bench as above, the question was referred to a Full Bench.
\nThe Full Bench, by a majority has overturned the above view.   That
\ndecision of the Full Bench is reported as Hanamappa vs. The Special
\nLand Acquisition Officer (ILR 1998 Karnataka  4071).  That decision
\nis challenged in Civil Appeal No.1566 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tWhile one of the Judges agreed with the position exponded
\nby the Division Bench in G.C. Paramraj (supra), two of the learned
\nJudges   proceeded to hold that the Division Bench in G.C. Paramraj
\n(supra) did not lay down the correct law.   It is seen that while holding
\nso, the court stated that there was no mandatory obligation on the
\nDeputy Commissioner to make a reference within 90 days as provided
\nunder Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and  there is no provision for loss of
\nright in the claimant once he had made an application for reference
\nunder Section 18(1) of the Act within the time prescribed by Section
\n18(2) of the Act.   The consequences flowing from the claimant not
\nseeking to enforce his right under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act in a case
\nwhere the reference was not made within the time mandated by the
\nstatute was got over by invoking the theory that there was no provision
\nfor extinguishment of the right and that a party cannot be penalised for
\nthe failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference.  The
\nmajority stated that the decision in The Addl. Spl. Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, Bangalore vs. Thakoredas, Major and others<\/a> (supra) rendered by
\nthis Court would not in any manner suggest that the view they are adopting
\nwas erroneous.   The question whether the expression “shall” used in Section
\n18(3)(a) of the Act made it mandatory for the Deputy Commissioner to
\nmake a reference within 90 days or whether the provision was only directory
\nwas discussed at length.\tThe presiding Judge, on the other hand,
\nadopted the approach made in Paramraj’s case and held that there was
\nno reason to reconsider the view expressed therein.   The learned Judge
\nnoticed that even in the matter of issue of a writ of mandamus under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, in State of M.P. vs. Bhai Lal
\n(AIR<\/a> 1964 SC 1006) this Court had held that after the expiry of the
\nperiod of limitation and on the ground of uncondonable laches, the
\nsame cannot be sought for or issued.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThe majority, in our view, was not justified in mixing up
\nthe position obtaining under Section 18 of the Central Act and the
\nposition obtaining under Section 18 of the Act as amended in
\nKarnataka.  The Court had to consider the scheme of Section 18 as
\nobtaining in Karnataka, the scope of the relevant provisions and the
\nconsequences arising from it, unaffected by what might be the position
\nunder Section 18 of the Central Act.  Section 18 of the Act as in
\nKarnataka, in fact, confers additional rights on a claimant by providing
\nan extended time for making a claim for reference, possibly considering
\nthe situation available in the State and a further right on the claimant to
\napproach the Land Acquisition Court for directing a reference to it,
\nbased on the application already made by him before the Deputy
\nCommissioner.  The High Court, in our view, erred in proceeding on an
\nenquiry as to whether the obligation under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act
\non the Deputy Commissioner was mandatory or directory.  In fact, if
\none were to go by the use of the expression “shall”, and the
\nintroduction of Section 18(3)(b) and the right conferred thereunder,
\nthere is no difficulty even in taking the view that it is mandatory for the
\nDeputy Commissioner to make the reference within 90 days of receipt
\nof the application for reference.  When he fails to perform the mandate
\nof the statute, the provision gives the claimant a right to approach the
\nCourt which could compel the reference to be made by the Deputy
\nCommissioner who had failed to perform his duty under Section
\n18(3)(a) of the Act and in that process, even award costs of the
\nproceedings against the Deputy Commissioner, and in appropriate
\ncases, to be recovered from him personally.  But what is relevant is not
\nthe question whether the duty cast on the Deputy Commissioner under
\nSection 18(3)(a) of the Act as in Karnataka is mandatory or it is
\ndirectory.  On its scheme, the Deputy Commissioner is expected to
\nmake the reference within 90 days of the receipt of the application.  On
\nhis failure to do so, the claimant has to approach the Land Acquisition
\nCourt for getting the matter referred.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tExtinguishment of a right can be expressly provided for or
\nit can arise by the implication from the statute.  Section 18 of the Act as
\nin Karnataka sets out a scheme.  Having made an application for
\nreference within time before the Deputy Commissioner, the claimant
\nmay lose his right by not enforcing the right available to him within the
\ntime prescribed by law.  Section 18(3)(a) and Section 18(3)(b) read in
\nharmony, casts an obligation on the claimant to enforce his claim within
\nthe period available for it.  The scheme brings about a repose.  It is
\nbased on a public policy that a right should not be allowed to remain a
\nright indefinitely to be used against another at the will and pleasure of
\nthe holder of the right by approaching the court whenever he chooses to
\ndo so.   When the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the
\nreference on the application of the claimant under Section 18(1) of the
\nAct stands extinguished on the expiry of 3 years and 90 days from the
\ndate of application for reference, and the right of the claimant to move
\nthe Court for compelling a reference also stands extinguished, the right
\nitself looses its enforceability and thus comes to an end as a result.
\nThis is the scheme of Section 18 of the Act as adopted in the State of
\nKarnataka.   The High Court is, therefore, not correct in searching for a
\nspecific provision bringing about an extinguishment of the right to have
\na reference and on not finding it, postulating that the right would
\nsurvive for ever.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tUnder the scheme of Section 18 of the Act as in Karnataka,
\nthus the claimant loses his right to move the Court for reference on the
\nexpiry of three years and 90 days from the date of his making an
\napplication to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 18 (1) of the
\nAct within the period fixed by Section 18(2) of the Act.  This position
\nis now settled by the decision of this Court in The Addl. Spl. Land
\nAcquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. Thakoredas, Major and others<\/a>
\n(supra).   This loss of right to move the court precludes him from
\nseeking a remedy from the court in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
\nThis loss of right in the claimant puts an end to the right of the claimant
\nto seek an enhancement of compensation.  To say that the Deputy
\nCommissioner can make a reference even after the right in that behalf
\nis lost to the claimant, would be incongruous.  Once the right of the
\nclaimant to enforce his claim itself is lost on the scheme of Section 18
\nof the Act, there is no question of the Deputy Commissioner who had
\nviolated the mandate of sub-Section 3(a) of Section 18 of the Act,
\nreviving the right of the claimant by making a reference at his sweet-
\nwill and pleasure, whatever be the inducement or occasion for doing so.
\nOn a harmonious understanding of the scheme of the Act in the light of
\nthe general principle that even though a right may not be extinguished,
\nthe remedy may become barred,  it would be appropriate to hold that on
\nthe expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of an application for
\nreference made within time under Section 18(1) of the Act, the remedy
\nof the claimant to have a reference gets extinguished and the right to
\nhave an enhancement becomes unenforceable.  The Deputy
\nCommissioner would not be entitled to revive a claim which has thus
\nbecome unenforceable due to lapse of time or non-diligence on the part
\nof the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe object of bringing in Section 18 in the amended form
\nin Karnataka has been highlighted in the decisions of that Court.  The
\nobject was to ensure that under-hand deals did not take place in the
\noffice of the Deputy Commissioner and to prevent belated applications
\nand predated applications being received by his office and references
\nmade, years after the acquisition is completed.  The object was also to
\nensure that all matters in connection with an acquisition were
\ncompleted within a reasonable time and claims for enhancement did not
\nhang like Damocles sword over the Government or over a company for
\nthe benefit of which the acquisition is undertaken.  Therefore, any
\ninterpretation based on which the Deputy Commissioner is given the
\npower to revive a claim which has become unenforceable, would defeat
\nthe very purpose for which Section 18 in the form in which it is, was
\nenacted in the State of Karnataka.  The majority in the full bench was,
\ntherefore, in error in thinking that the Deputy Commissioner could
\nmake a reference at any time at his sweet-will and pleasure,
\nnotwithstanding the fact that the right to move the court in that behalf
\nhas been lost to the claimant himself.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tThe majority, in our view, has not properly appreciated the
\nposition highlighted in the decision of that Court in Assistant
\nCommissioner Versus Laxmi Bai [I.L.R. 1987 Karnataka 2132) that
\nthe power to make a reference under Section 18 (3) subsists till the
\nright of the party to make an application before the Court seeking a
\ndirection to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference exists and
\nthat the cessation of the right of the party to apply to the court for
\nseeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference, is
\nalso the point at which the power of the Deputy Commissioner to refer,
\nceases.  We think that this position logically emerges from the scheme
\nof Section 18 of the Act as adopted in Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tThe language of Section 18 is plain as indicated by the
\nHigh Court.  But the question is what is the scheme that has been
\nformulated by Section 18 of the Act vis-`-vis a claim for enhancement.
\nThe scheme under Section 18 in Karnataka is a departure from the
\nCentral Act and the scheme in Karnataka has to be understood, based
\non the provisions in Section 18 as in Karnataka and the consequences
\nemerging from it.   The question whether the time fixed under Section
\n18(3)(a) is mandatory or directory and whether time fixed for
\nperformance of a duty is generally considered directory or mandatory
\nare all questions that may not have much relevance in the context of the
\nscheme of Section 18 of the Act.  Whether mandatory or directory, on
\nthe failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within 90
\ndays from the date of an application under Section 18(1) of the Act, the
\nclaimant is given the right to approach the Land Acquisition Court
\nseeking the compelling of a reference by the Deputy Commissioner.
\nOnce the right to move for a compelled reference is lost to the claimant,
\non the scheme of Section 18, the very right to have a claim for
\nenhancement, would come to an end in view of the fact that the remedy
\nin that behalf becomes barred.  Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner
\ncannot revive that right to a reference.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe High Court has made much of the fact that there is no
\nobligation on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act to
\nconvey the information to the claimant about the making of the
\nreference or the declining of the application for reference.  Once a
\nclaimant has made his application for reference within the period
\nprescribed by Section 18 of the Act, and he does not get any notice
\nfrom the reference court regarding the reference made to that court for
\nenforcement of his claim for enhanced compensation, it is for the
\nclaimant to move the concerned court for getting a reference made in
\nterms of Section 18 of the Act.  If he gets intimation from the reference
\ncourt about the lodging of the reference, obviously, it becomes
\nunnecessary for him to approach the court for compelling a reference.
\nBut in a case where he gets no intimation from the reference court
\nabout the reference having been made, it is for him to invoke the
\njurisdiction of the reference court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act
\nwithin the time prescribed therefor by law.  The extinguishment of the
\nremedy by way of moving the civil court is not dependent on receipt or
\notherwise of an intimation from the Deputy Commissioner about the
\nfate of his application for reference.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tThe view we have taken, after all, does not deprive a
\nclaimant who had protested, of his right to enhanced compensation in
\nview of the introduction of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
\nHe could seek an enhancement based on any award that might have
\nbeen made within the time prescribed therefor in respect of land
\ncovered by the same notification.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tThen the question is, whether in the context of Section 18
\nof the Karnataka amendment, the decision of this Court in Thakoredas
\n(supra) and our discussion as above, Section 5 of the Limitation Act
\ncould be invoked or would apply to an application under Section
\n18(3)(b) of the Act.   This Court has held that Section 5 of the
\nLimitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Collector
\nor Deputy Commissioner here, while entertaining an application for
\nreference.  We see no reason not to accept that position.   Then arises
\nthe question whether Section 5 could be invoked before the Land
\nAcquisition Court while making an application under Section 18(3)(b)
\nof the Act.   We have held in agreement with the earlier Division Bench
\nof the Karnataka High Court, that the right to have a reference enforced
\nthrough court or through the Deputy Commissioner becomes
\nextinguished on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of
\nthe application for reference made in time.   Consistent with this
\nposition it has necessarily to be held that Section 5 of the Limitation
\nAct would not be available since the consequence of not enforcing the
\nright to have a reference made on the scheme of Section 18 of the Act
\nas obtaining in Karnataka, is to put an end to the right to have a
\nreference at all.   Since in that sense it is an extinguishment of the right,
\nthe right cannot be revived by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation
\nAct.   We may incidentally notice that in Thakoredas (supra) this
\nCourt rejected the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act which
\nwas beyond time, though, of course, there was no specific discussion
\non this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tAn application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act is to compel a
\nreference by the Deputy Commissioner.   We have held that on the expiry of
\nthree years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference
\nseeking enhancement the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the
\nreference comes to an end.   In that context, and in the context of the fact
\nthat the claimant himself loses his right to move the court for compelling a
\nreference, it is not possible to hold that by invoking Section 5 of the
\nLimitation Act before the Land Acquisition Court the claimant can get over
\nthe bar to the remedy created by Section 18 of the Act.   We are, therefore,
\nof the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application
\nwhile approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and if the
\napplication is not within the time as indicated above, the same has only to be
\ndismissed as was done in Thakoredas’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tIn the light of our discussion as above, we hold that the High
\nCourt was in error in holding that the Deputy Commissioner could make a
\nreference even after the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of
\nthe application for reference made by the claimant within the time prescribed
\nby Section 18(2) of the Act.   We uphold the view of the High Court in
\nParamraj’s case (supra) that the remedy having become barred the right
\ncould not thereafter be enforced.   In that context, we hold that the claimant
\nwhile approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act would not be
\nentitled to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act.   In the light of these, we
\nallow these appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court.  We dismiss
\nthe applications for reference made by the claimants.  We also uphold the
\nview of the Land Acquisition Court that a reference made beyond the expiry
\nof three years and 90 days from the date of application for reference by the
\nDeputy Commissioner is incompetent.  We hold that the respondents are not
\nentitled to claim any enhancement by recourse to Section 18 of the Act.  In
\nthe circumstances we make no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2024 of 1999 PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT: LAXUMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2005 BENCH: CJI R.C. LAHOTI,G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":7169,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005"},"wordCount":7169,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T06:41:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-laxuman-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Laxuman on 25 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}