Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Yamuna M.K., approached the High Court of Karnataka under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents in relation to acquisition of her land and payment of compensation.

The petitioner sought a direction requiring the respondents to acquire the entire extent of land belonging to her and to pay compensation within a specified period. She also sought a direction restraining the respondents from deducting GST on the structure valuation and the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a memo dated 1 June 2026 seeking permission to withdraw the proceedings. According to the withdrawal memo, the respondents had taken possession of the entire extent of land of neighbouring landowners, while only the petitioner’s land and house remained.

The petitioner further stated that, due to civil works and digging of trenches in the neighbouring land, the main wall of her house had been damaged and there was an associated risk. In these circumstances, the petitioner decided to withdraw the writ petition, claim the compensation awarded by the respondents under protest, and seek liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for enhancement of compensation as well as to challenge the deduction of GST.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the respondents to acquire the entire extent of land belonging to the petitioner and pay compensation within a specified period.
  2. Whether the respondents could deduct GST on the structure valuation and the compensation payable in relation to the acquired land.
  3. Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition while reserving liberty to seek enhancement of compensation before the appropriate Appellate Authority.
  4. Whether liberty could also be reserved to the petitioner to challenge or seek reduction of the GST deduction as claimed.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner sought acquisition of the entire extent of her land and payment of compensation within a specified period.

The petitioner also sought a direction that GST should not be deducted on the structure valuation and the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land.

Through the memo for withdrawal, the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had taken possession of the entire extent of land belonging to neighbouring landowners, while only her land and house remained.

It was further stated that civil works and digging of trenches in neighbouring land had caused damage to the main wall of the petitioner’s house and created a risk.

In view of these circumstances, the petitioner decided to withdraw the writ petition, accept or claim the compensation awarded by the respondents under protest, and reserve liberty to seek reference to the Appellate Authority for enhancement of compensation and to challenge the deduction of GST.

Respondents’ Arguments

The order does not record any detailed independent counter-arguments or substantive objections advanced by the respondents on the merits of the petitioner’s claims concerning acquisition of the entire land, enhancement of compensation, or deduction of GST.

The matter was ultimately disposed of on the basis of the petitioner’s memo for withdrawal and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Significantly, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation as well as reduction of GST, as sought.

Thus, the Court did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the dispute concerning the quantum of compensation or the legality of GST deduction. Instead, it preserved the petitioner’s liberty to pursue the relevant remedies in respect of enhancement of compensation and the GST-related grievance.

Important Clarification

This order should not be understood as a final judicial determination that GST deduction on structure valuation or land acquisition compensation is either valid or invalid.

The High Court did not decide the GST issue on merits. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn after accepting the petitioner’s withdrawal memo.

The material significance of the order is that the petitioner’s liberty was expressly reserved to pursue enhancement of compensation and reduction of GST, as sought.

Accordingly, any proposition that this judgment conclusively holds GST to be non-deductible from structure valuation or compensation would go beyond the actual findings recorded in the order.

Sections

Article 227 of the Constitution of India — The writ petition was filed under Article 227 seeking supervisory intervention and directions from the High Court.


Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783065544_404.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.