Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 32680 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 32679 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 32680/2018
BETWEEN:
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY
SHRI R.V.RAJASEKARAN,
GENERAL MANAGER (MHMSPL),
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE-575 030.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (MHMSPL PROJECT)
HINDUSTAN PERTOLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
MANGALORE DISPATCH STATION,
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE,
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE-575 030.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
MR VIJAYAPRABHA BHAT K
D/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT,
AGED MAJOR,
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/AT KUKKALA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 240.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE PETITION AND TO
DIRECT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018
PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.46/2015 BY THE COURT
OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.
MANGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND
UNTENABLE.
IN WP NO. 32679/2018
BETWEEN:
1.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY
SHRI R.V.RAJASEKARAN,
GENERAL MANAGER (MHMSPL)
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (MHMSPL PROJECT)
HINDUSTAN PERTOLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
MANGALORE DISPATCH STATION,
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE, VILLAGE:BALA,
VIA:KATIPALLA, MANGALORE-575 030.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
K UDAYA SHANKAR BHAT
S/O.LATE KRISHNA BHAT,
(AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS)
R/AT KUKKALA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 240.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE PETITION AND TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED IN
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.47/2015 BY THE COURT OF THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU
VIDE ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
In these petitions, petitioner-Corporation and its
competent authority are before this Court assailing the orders
dated 27.04.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.47/2015
(W.P.No.32679/2018) and in Miscellaneous Case No.46/2015
(W.P.No.32680/2018) by the II Additional District and Sessions
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
Judge, D.K. Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as Reference
Court).
2. Facts in brief are: that land in Sy.No.123/2A
measuring 16 cents (subject matter of W.P.No.32679/2018)
and land in Sy.No.157/1, measuring 35 cents (subject matter
of W.P.No.32680/2018) both situated at Kukkala village,
Belthangady Taluk, were identified and utilised by the petitioner
No.1 for the purpose of laying pipeline under the provisions of
Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962 ('Act' for short). The competent authority of
the petitioner No.1 under the Act while determining the
compensation to the extent of 16 cents of land in Sy.No.123/2A
has taken 90 arecanut trees into consideration awarding
Rs.2,32,108/- for the said trees (as per Ex.R2 in
W.P.No.32679/2018) and in respect of land measuring 35 cents
in Sy.No.157/1, it has taken 50 plantain plantation and 14
arecanut trees into consideration, awarding compensation of
Rs.63,406/- (for plantain plantation Rs.27,300 and for arecanut
trees Rs.36,106 as per Ex.P7 in W.P.No.32680/2018). Being
aggrieved by the same, respondents preferred Reference which
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
was registered in Misc. Case No. 46/2015 and Misc.Case
No.47/2015 respectively. Reference Court by the separate
orders of even date 27.04.2018 enhanced the compensation to
Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization from the respondent
respectively. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this
Court.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this
Court to the records, submits that the impugned orders passed
by the Reference Court suffers from perversity. In that the
Reference Court has not adverted to the documentary evidence
placed on record. He submits that in the award passed by the
competent authority, as regards land in Sy.No.123/2A, the
competent authority had taken 90 arecanut trees based on the
mahazar which was drawn as per Ex.R5, (page 121 of
W.P.No.32679/2018) and as regards land in Sy.No.157/1,
measuring 35 cents, had taken to consideration 50 plantain
plantations and 14 arecanut trees, based on the mahazar which
was drawn, produced as per Ex.R5, (page 111 of the WP
No.32680/2018). He further submits that contrary to this
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
documentary evidence, the Reference Court has erroneously
relied upon the mahazar report produced by the respondents/
claimants marked as Ex.P9 (produced at page 59 of the writ
petition in W.P.No.32680/2018) and while carrying out the
inspection at the initial stage, erroneously number of arecanut
trees were mentioned as 91 in respect of Sy.No.157/1 which
was corrected subsequently in the mahazar produced Ex.R5
wherein the said number of arecanut trees was reduced to 14.
He submits that as regards Sy.No.123/2A is concerned, though
in the mahazar only 90 arecanut trees were shown, the
Reference Court has taken the same as 114. He submits no
reason of any nature whatsoever is assigned by the Reference
Court in taking these erroneous numbers of arecanut trees into
consideration while awarding the compensation which reflect
non-application of mind to the material evidence placed on
record. Therefore, he submits the orders impugned in these
writ petitions suffer from perversity and warranting
interference. He further submits that the quantum or the value
determined by the Reference Court is without any basis. Similar
is the situation in respect of compensation awarded in respect
of compound wall.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents
taking this Court through the deposition of Tahsildar who was
examined as RW1, more particularly, paragraphs 10 and 11 of
the cross-examination, submits that the Tahsildar has
categorically and unambiguously admitted to the existence of
the arecanut trees as per Ex.P9. Such admission read in
conjunction with the contents of Ex.P9 clarify the existence of
91 arecanut trees in Sy.No.157/1. As such, there is no
perversity in the order passed by the Reference Court. He
submitted that the award of compensation in respect of
compound wall is reasonable, warranting no interference of the
matter.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. Exercise of right of usage by the petitioner-
corporation over the lands belonging to the respondents as
above is not in dispute. There is also no dispute to the fact that
the land consisted of arecanut trees and other plantation.
Anomaly is only an account of two mahazar reports which have
been brought on record by the petitioner- corporation as found
at page No.59 and 121 of W.P. No.32679/2018 and at Page
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
Numbers 59 and 111 of WP No.32680/2018. In the mahazar
which is found at page number 59 of the writ petitions, the
number of arecanut trees are shown as 91 and number of
plantain plantation are also shown as 50. However, in the
mahazar report produced at page number 123 (in
W.P.No.32679/2018), the said number of arecanut trees is
shown as 14 instead of 90, while the Plantain plantation
number is shown as 50. Except this there is no other anomaly
on record.
7. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents, Tahsildar who has been examined by the
petitioner-corporation as RW.1 in the cross-examination at
paragraphs 10 and 11 has deposed as under;
"10. 2 . 1
ಈ ೇೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಂೆ ಾ ಪಂಚ ಾ ಾಡಾೆ
10
ಂದ ಾಖೆಗಳನು" ೋಡಾ ಸದ ಪಂಚ ಾಗಳ$
.
ಕಂಡುಬರುವ()ಲ+
11.
ಸ,ಳ ಮಹಜರು ಾಡು0ಾಗ ಮಜಹ ನ1+ ಸದ ಸ,ಳದ1+ 2ಾಗು0ಾ
-17, -1, -1, -2
ಮರ ಆ ೇ45ಾ ಾ6ನ ಮರ 7ೆಬ8ಲಸು 7ಾಗೂ ಾಡು
. . -9), 9
ಮರಗಳ$ ಇ0ೆ ನಮೂದು ಾ:ೆ;ೕ0ೆ ಸ ಸದ ರ
ವರ)ಯ1+ ಅ: ೆ ಮರ ಮತು? ಾ@ೆ ಡಗಳ ವಯಸುA ನಮೂದು ಾ:ೆ;ೕ0ೆ
.
ಎಂದCೆ ಸ "
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
8. Thus, the said documents more particularly Ex.P9
mahazar have been confronted to the said witness, who has not
disputed the contents of the same.
9. The Reference Court in the impugned orders has
indeed referred to Ex.P9 and has proceeded to take into
consideration the existence of 91 arecanut trees as shown
therein. Therefore, the contention that the order passed by the
Reference Court is without appreciating the material evidence
placed on record cannot be countenanced. Discrepancy, even if
any, as sought to be made out by the petitioner or of not that
significant in nature to go to the root of the matter. As such, no
grounds are made out warranting interference. Petitions lack
merit and same are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 32680 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 32679 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 32680/2018
BETWEEN:
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY
SHRI R.V.RAJASEKARAN,
GENERAL MANAGER (MHMSPL),
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE-575 030.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (MHMSPL PROJECT)
HINDUSTAN PERTOLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
MANGALORE DISPATCH STATION,
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE,
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE-575 030.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
MR VIJAYAPRABHA BHAT K
D/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT,
AGED MAJOR,
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/AT KUKKALA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 240.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE PETITION AND TO
DIRECT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018
PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.46/2015 BY THE COURT
OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.
MANGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND
UNTENABLE.
IN WP NO. 32679/2018
BETWEEN:
1.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY
SHRI R.V.RAJASEKARAN,
GENERAL MANAGER (MHMSPL)
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE
VILLAGE:BALA, VIA:KATIPALLA,
MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (MHMSPL PROJECT)
HINDUSTAN PERTOLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
MANGALORE DISPATCH STATION,
MHMB LPG PIPE LINE, VILLAGE:BALA,
VIA:KATIPALLA, MANGALORE-575 030.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
K UDAYA SHANKAR BHAT
S/O.LATE KRISHNA BHAT,
(AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS)
R/AT KUKKALA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 240.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE PETITION AND TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED IN
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.47/2015 BY THE COURT OF THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU
VIDE ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
In these petitions, petitioner-Corporation and its
competent authority are before this Court assailing the orders
dated 27.04.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.47/2015
(W.P.No.32679/2018) and in Miscellaneous Case No.46/2015
(W.P.No.32680/2018) by the II Additional District and Sessions
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
Judge, D.K. Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as Reference
Court).
2. Facts in brief are: that land in Sy.No.123/2A
measuring 16 cents (subject matter of W.P.No.32679/2018)
and land in Sy.No.157/1, measuring 35 cents (subject matter
of W.P.No.32680/2018) both situated at Kukkala village,
Belthangady Taluk, were identified and utilised by the petitioner
No.1 for the purpose of laying pipeline under the provisions of
Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962 ('Act' for short). The competent authority of
the petitioner No.1 under the Act while determining the
compensation to the extent of 16 cents of land in Sy.No.123/2A
has taken 90 arecanut trees into consideration awarding
Rs.2,32,108/- for the said trees (as per Ex.R2 in
W.P.No.32679/2018) and in respect of land measuring 35 cents
in Sy.No.157/1, it has taken 50 plantain plantation and 14
arecanut trees into consideration, awarding compensation of
Rs.63,406/- (for plantain plantation Rs.27,300 and for arecanut
trees Rs.36,106 as per Ex.P7 in W.P.No.32680/2018). Being
aggrieved by the same, respondents preferred Reference which
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
was registered in Misc. Case No. 46/2015 and Misc.Case
No.47/2015 respectively. Reference Court by the separate
orders of even date 27.04.2018 enhanced the compensation to
Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization from the respondent
respectively. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this
Court.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this
Court to the records, submits that the impugned orders passed
by the Reference Court suffers from perversity. In that the
Reference Court has not adverted to the documentary evidence
placed on record. He submits that in the award passed by the
competent authority, as regards land in Sy.No.123/2A, the
competent authority had taken 90 arecanut trees based on the
mahazar which was drawn as per Ex.R5, (page 121 of
W.P.No.32679/2018) and as regards land in Sy.No.157/1,
measuring 35 cents, had taken to consideration 50 plantain
plantations and 14 arecanut trees, based on the mahazar which
was drawn, produced as per Ex.R5, (page 111 of the WP
No.32680/2018). He further submits that contrary to this
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
documentary evidence, the Reference Court has erroneously
relied upon the mahazar report produced by the respondents/
claimants marked as Ex.P9 (produced at page 59 of the writ
petition in W.P.No.32680/2018) and while carrying out the
inspection at the initial stage, erroneously number of arecanut
trees were mentioned as 91 in respect of Sy.No.157/1 which
was corrected subsequently in the mahazar produced Ex.R5
wherein the said number of arecanut trees was reduced to 14.
He submits that as regards Sy.No.123/2A is concerned, though
in the mahazar only 90 arecanut trees were shown, the
Reference Court has taken the same as 114. He submits no
reason of any nature whatsoever is assigned by the Reference
Court in taking these erroneous numbers of arecanut trees into
consideration while awarding the compensation which reflect
non-application of mind to the material evidence placed on
record. Therefore, he submits the orders impugned in these
writ petitions suffer from perversity and warranting
interference. He further submits that the quantum or the value
determined by the Reference Court is without any basis. Similar
is the situation in respect of compensation awarded in respect
of compound wall.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents
taking this Court through the deposition of Tahsildar who was
examined as RW1, more particularly, paragraphs 10 and 11 of
the cross-examination, submits that the Tahsildar has
categorically and unambiguously admitted to the existence of
the arecanut trees as per Ex.P9. Such admission read in
conjunction with the contents of Ex.P9 clarify the existence of
91 arecanut trees in Sy.No.157/1. As such, there is no
perversity in the order passed by the Reference Court. He
submitted that the award of compensation in respect of
compound wall is reasonable, warranting no interference of the
matter.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. Exercise of right of usage by the petitioner-
corporation over the lands belonging to the respondents as
above is not in dispute. There is also no dispute to the fact that
the land consisted of arecanut trees and other plantation.
Anomaly is only an account of two mahazar reports which have
been brought on record by the petitioner- corporation as found
at page No.59 and 121 of W.P. No.32679/2018 and at Page
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
Numbers 59 and 111 of WP No.32680/2018. In the mahazar
which is found at page number 59 of the writ petitions, the
number of arecanut trees are shown as 91 and number of
plantain plantation are also shown as 50. However, in the
mahazar report produced at page number 123 (in
W.P.No.32679/2018), the said number of arecanut trees is
shown as 14 instead of 90, while the Plantain plantation
number is shown as 50. Except this there is no other anomaly
on record.
7. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents, Tahsildar who has been examined by the
petitioner-corporation as RW.1 in the cross-examination at
paragraphs 10 and 11 has deposed as under;
"10. 2 . 1
ಈ ೇೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಂೆ ಾ ಪಂಚ ಾ ಾಡಾೆ
10
ಂದ ಾಖೆಗಳನು" ೋಡಾ ಸದ ಪಂಚ ಾಗಳ$
.
ಕಂಡುಬರುವ()ಲ+
11.
ಸ,ಳ ಮಹಜರು ಾಡು0ಾಗ ಮಜಹ ನ1+ ಸದ ಸ,ಳದ1+ 2ಾಗು0ಾ
-17, -1, -1, -2
ಮರ ಆ ೇ45ಾ ಾ6ನ ಮರ 7ೆಬ8ಲಸು 7ಾಗೂ ಾಡು
. . -9), 9
ಮರಗಳ$ ಇ0ೆ ನಮೂದು ಾ:ೆ;ೕ0ೆ ಸ ಸದ ರ
ವರ)ಯ1+ ಅ: ೆ ಮರ ಮತು? ಾ@ೆ ಡಗಳ ವಯಸುA ನಮೂದು ಾ:ೆ;ೕ0ೆ
.
ಎಂದCೆ ಸ "
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:912
WP No. 32680 of 2018
C/W WP No. 32679 of 2018
HC-KAR
8. Thus, the said documents more particularly Ex.P9
mahazar have been confronted to the said witness, who has not
disputed the contents of the same.
9. The Reference Court in the impugned orders has
indeed referred to Ex.P9 and has proceeded to take into
consideration the existence of 91 arecanut trees as shown
therein. Therefore, the contention that the order passed by the
Reference Court is without appreciating the material evidence
placed on record cannot be countenanced. Discrepancy, even if
any, as sought to be made out by the petitioner or of not that
significant in nature to go to the root of the matter. As such, no
grounds are made out warranting interference. Petitions lack
merit and same are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22