THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI CHANNABASAV, S/O VISHWANATH DANDINMATH,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARWAD

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100048 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITSSECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT
OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.




2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001.


3. THE TAHASILDAR, BELAGAVI – 590 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH BILKI, GA)

AND:
1. SRI. CHANNABASAVS/O. VISHWANATH DANDINMATH,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST,
R/O: GANACHARI GALLI, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

2. SRI. VILAS, S/O. VISHWANATH DANDINMATH,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST,
R/O: GANACHARI GALLI, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.





Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 107156/2015
(KLR-RES) DATED 24.08.2021 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )

The State is before us calling in question the order of the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.107156/2015 dated
24.08.2021 by which the learned Single Judge allows the claim
of the petitioner on the score that the State has failed to
establish the possession of the properties in question where
possession has been taken in terms of the requirement under
Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).


2. Heard Sri. Rakesh M. Bilki, learned Government
Advocate for the appellants and Sri. S.B. Hebballi, learned
counsel for the respondents and have perused the material on
record.


3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their position in the writ petition.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024



4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:


4.1. The petitioners approach this Court in the aforesaid
writ petition, calling in question an order dated 08.10.1985
passed by the respondent No.2 declaring the lands allegedly
belonging to the petitioners as excess lands under the
provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge allows the
petition by the order dated 24.08.2021. The order reads as
follows:
“The petitioners, who are the joint owners of the
properties bearing R.S. No. 1383 and R.S. No.1364/B/2 of
Belagavi village, Belagavi Taluk, have approached this
Court challenging the order dated 08.10.1985 passed by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A declaring the aforesaid
lands, totally measuring 7,079.48 sq. mtrs., as excess
lands under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short, ‘the ULC Act’)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the urban land ceiling repealing act has come into force in
the year 1999 and having regard to Section 4 of the said
Act since the possession of the properties in question was
not taken over by the competent authority, the entire
proceedings including the order impugned herein stands
abated. He submits that the possession of the properties
in question has not been taken over by the competent
authority under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and
therefore, the alleged possession which is said to have
taken by the Revenue Inspector cannot be considered as
a compliance of the requirement of Section 10(6) of the
Act. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.
No.63674/2011 disposed of on 2nd November 2011 and
also the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.61621/2009
th
disposed of on 4 September 2019 and submits that the
present matter is squarely covered by the said judgments

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

and therefore even this petition may be disposed of in
terms of the said orders.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate
opposing the petition submits that the Revenue Inspector
has taken possession of the properties in question and
therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings stands
abated in view of Section 4 of the repealing act. He
submits that since the entire proceedings was completed
much earlier to the repealing act coming into force, the
provisions of Section 4 of the repealing act is not
applicable to the facts of the case.
4. In the case on hand, though the impugned order
has been passed in the year 1985 itself, the State has
failed to establish that the possession of lands, which are
the subject matter of the impugned order, have been
taken strictly in accordance with Section 10(6) of the Act.
Admittedly, the possession has been taken by the
Revenue Inspector who is not a competent authority
under Section 10 of the ULC Act. This Court in W.P.
No.63674/2011, in identical circumstances, has observed
as follows:
“9. ……………….As far as State of Karnataka
is concerned, the competent authority is the
Special Deputy Commissioner who is authorized
to perform the functions under the Act including
taking possession under sub-Section 6 of Section
10 of the Act. However, the possession when
taken under sub-Section 6 by the competent
authority or delivered by the owner or person
interested under sub Section 5, then it has to be
handed over to a person who is duly authorized
by the State Government. Therefore, the
authorization of the State Government by any
person to take possession under the said
proceedings is a mandatory requirements. The
said authorization can be general authorization
which would be effective in all cases or they could
be specific authorization on a case to case basis.
Therefore, in the absence of there being any due
authorization to any officer by the State
Government, possession taken would not be in
accordance with law since it is only a duly
authorised person of the State Government who
can receive possession under Section 10.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

10. In this context, it would be relevant to
refer to a decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mangalore Urban
Development Authority, Mangalore V/s
Leelavathi and Others reported in (2009 2
KLJ 284), wherein it has been stated that the
Revenue Inspector is not the authorized person-
competent authority under Section 10(6) to take
possession of the land. In the instant case also, it
is seen that it is the I-Grade Revenue Inspector
who has taken possession of the land in question.
There is no provision for the competent authority
to delegate the power under sub-Section 6 of
Section 10 to any other officer or official for the
purpose of taking possession. It is only the
competent authority, which can take possession
under sub-section 6 of Section 10 of the ULC Act.
The said decision squarely applies to the present
case since in the instant case, it is the I Grade
Revenue Inspector and not the competent
authority who has taken possession of the land in
question. Therefore, Annexure-D is contrary to
what is envisaged under Section 10.”
Following the said judgment passed by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court in W.P. No.63674/2011, even in W.P.
No.61621/2009, a similar view has been taken.
5. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered
view that the State has failed to establish that the
possession of the properties in question, which is the
subject matter of the order impugned, has been taken in
compliance of requirement of Section 10(6) of the Act and
therefore, having regard to Section 4 of the repealing act,
the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 with
regard to the lands in question under the ULC Act stands
abated and consequently the entries made in the name of
the Government in the revenue records of the land in
question is directed to be deleted and the name of the
petitioners and other co-owners of the property shall be
restored. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”


5. The State has preferred the appeal on the score
that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

judgment, which is subsequently clarified by another Division
Bench, wherein, while interpreting Section 10(6) of the Act, it is
held that any person authorized by the State can take
possession of the lands under the Act. Therefore, in the light of
the said judgment of a Division Bench, time was granted to the
State to produce the records with regard to authorization to the
Revenue Inspector to take possession of the lands, as the
Revenue Inspector has taken possession of the lands in the
case at hand.


6. The learned Government Advocate on instructions
submits that there is no record traceable in the case at hand
that the authorization was rendered to the hands of the
Revenue Inspector to take possession of the land.


7. If that be so, the act of taking possession by the
Revenue Inspector in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act falls foul
of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT v. SMT.
1
NINGAVVA , wherein it is held as follows:


1
Writ Appeal No.100029 of 2021 c/w Writ Appeal No.100038 of
2021, decided on 19.04.2021.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

“…. …. ….

33. It is true that this opinion was expressed by the Full
Bench while dealing with a matter pertaining to taking
possession in accordance with Sec.16 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act states
that the Deputy Commissioner has to take possession.
Sec. 10(6) of the ULC Act also states that the
competent authority has to take possession. The
competent authority under the ULC Act is any
person authorized by the State Government, and in
the case on hand as can be made out from the
documents, it was the Special Deputy Commissioner
of the District who was notified to be a competent
authority. Given a literal interpretation to these
Sections, it may be stated that the competent
authority should personally go to the spot to take
possession from the land owner. But it is to be
stated that such an interpretation defeats the very
purpose of the Act. The meaning that can be
ascribed is that the possession must be taken under
the supervision of the competent authority, not that
he should personally go to spot and draw up a
mahazar testifying the fact of taking possession. In
this context we may refer to the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gawadu Siddappa
Patil ( supra) where the facts are akin to the facts before
us. Delving upon a situation like this it is held:

“18. A plain reading of Section 10(5) of the Act
would indicate that where any vacant land is vested
in the State Government under sub Section (3), the
competent authority may, by notice in writing,
order any person who may be in possession of it to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State
Government or to any person duly authorized by the
State in this behalf within 30 days of service of
notice. The expression “competent authority ” as
defined under Section 2(d) of the Act would mean
any person or authority authorized by the State
Government, by notification in the official gazette, to
perform the functions of the competent authority
under the Act for such areas as may be specified in
the notification and different persons or authorities
may be authorized to perform different functions.
Petitioner is not disputing that no notice was issued
prior to taking possession. However, the attack is

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

with regard to the competent authority having not
taking possession of land. In this context, if Section
10(6) of the Act is perused, the expression used
would indicate that competent authority may take
possession of the vacant land or cause it to be
given to the concerned State Government or to
any person duly authorized by such State
Government in this behalf . In this background, if
the mahazar Annexure-C is perused, it would clearly
indicate that possession of the land has been taken
by the Revenue Inspector by virtue of the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing him to
take possession of the excess land belonging to the
declarant vide G .O. No . NBG/1286- dated 08.07
.1992.”

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, this judgment makes it very clear that even if
a Revenue Inspector takes over possession pursuant to
authorization given by the competent authority, it is valid
and legal. In this context we have extracted the actual
receipt executed by Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur on
18.01.1980, for having surrendered the possession. [….]

…. …. ….

35. We may also point out that actually Sec.10(6) of the
ULC Act is not applicable to the case on hand. Sec.10(6)
comes into picture when there is no voluntary
surrender of the land in accordance with Sec. 10(5)
of the ULC Act. Sec. 10(6) speaks about taking over
possession by the competent authority. If there is
voluntary surrender in accordance with Sec. 10(5),
Sec. 10(6) is not applicable. Here is a case of
voluntary surrender as discussed above. Therefore,
it is our conclusion that there was no infirmity of
any kind in the surrender of the excess land by
Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur and Sec.3 of the of
the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 did not apply so as to say that the proceedings
under the ULC Act abated. ”

(Emphasis supplied)

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15900-DB
WA No. 100048 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020199092024

The Division Bench in the afore-quoted judgment holds that in
cases of voluntary surrender, Section 10(6) of the Act would
not become applicable. If it is not a voluntary surrender and if
possession has to be taken in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act,
it has to be on an authorization from the hands of the
competent authority. The authorization admittedly is not placed
before us nor before the learned Single Judge.

8. In that light, there is no warrant of interference
with the finding of the learned Single Judge except for the
clarification with regard to the subsequent Division Bench
judgment.


9. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same stands
rejected .

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE




Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
RSH/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31