SRI MEHABOOB BABASAB NADAF vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 104616 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MEHABOOB BABASAB NADAF,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O SECTOR NO.10, PLOT NO.120-A,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE,
DISTRICT BAGALKOTE 587 103.
…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOTE 587 103.

2. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER,
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT 587 103.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
SAROJA
HANGARAKI

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.07.2023
BEARING NO. 2023-24 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
¥ÀÄC. ¹§âA¢Ý/¹Dgï:
NO.2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

ORAL ORDER

1. Case of the petitioner is that his mother, namely one
Mehaboob Bee Bhavasab Nadaf was a tenant in respect of
property bearing CTS No.364/1 situated in Ward No.3
which was acquired in the year 1995-96 for the purpose
of Upper Krishna Project, in lieu of which in terms of the
Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of
Sites) Rules 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1993)
she and her son were allotted sites.

2. The said Mehaboob Bee Bhavasab Nadaf was also the
owner of a site bearing BTDA No.190 which was acquired
by a subsequent notification dated 07.01.2008.
Accordingly, petitioner made an application on
06.06.2022 seeking allotment of ‘E’ category site in lieu
of acquisition of site bearing BTDA No.190 in terms of
notification dated 07.01.2008.

3. Non-consideration of the same constrained the petitioner
to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in
W.P.No.105642/2022 which was disposed of directing
respondent No.1 to consider the representation.
Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated for non-

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

compliance of the direction issued in the said writ
petition.

4. Things stood thus, an endorsement dated 13.07.2023
produced at Annexure-G came to be issued by the
respondent-Authorities declining the request of the
petitioner for allotment of site on the premise that since
in lieu of earlier acquisition dated 21.01.1996 petitioner
and his mother having already been allotted site, they
were not entitled for allotment of site in lieu of
subsequent acquisition.

5. It is this endorsement, which has constrained the
petitioner to approach this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier
allotment of site was in lieu of acquisition of property of
the petitioner in the year 1995-96. The present claim was
in lieu of acquisition made by the respondent-Authorities
by a separate notification dated 07.01.2008. She
contends that there is no prohibition or bar under the
Rules, 1993 for allotting sites in lieu of acquisition of land
under two different notifications. Merely because earlier

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

site was allotted in respect of a different acquisition,
respondent-Authorities cannot equate such allotment to
the subsequent acquisition. Therefore, seeks for allowing
the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities on the
other hand fairly submits that since there are two
different acquisition of two different properties, petitioner
would be entitled for allotment of site in respect of the
subsequent acquisition. However, he submits if the
petitioner is having preference, the same will be
considered in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Rules,
1993.

8. Submission is placed on record.

9. The endorsement issued by the respondent-Authorities at
Annexure-G reads as under:
“¥ÀÅ£ÀgïªÀ¸Àw C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ ¥ÀlÖt C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ

PÀæ.¸ÀA.¥ÀÄC:¹§âA¢/¹Dgï:2023-24 ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.07.2013

UÉ,
²æÃ ªÉÄºÀ§Æ§ vÀA. ¨Á¨Á¸Á§ £ÀzÁ¥sÀ
¸ÉPÀÖgÀ £ÀA.08 ¥Áèl £ÀAJ-180
¸ÀgÀPÁj PÀ£ÀßqÀ ±Á¯É ºÀwÛgÀ
£ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ

«µÀAiÀÄ: E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ EªÀgÀ qÀ§Æèå¦
£ÀA.105642/2022gÀ wÃ¦ð£À DzÉÃ±À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.12.2022.
2. vÀªÀÄä Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.12.2022.
3. F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ.
4. ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ªÀiË®å ¨sÀgÀuÁ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.11.2000.
5. ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CVæªÉÄAmï ¸À°è¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.11.2000.
6. F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ «vÀj¹zÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.12.2000.

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (1) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (2)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.03 ¹nJ¸ï
£ÀA.364/1 gÀ D¹ÛUÉ E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛj. vÀªÀÄä
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR (1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ
¦ÃoÀ EªÀgÀ qÀ§Æèå¦ £ÀA. 105642/2022gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.12.2022gÀ wÃ¦ð£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ
¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DzÉÃ±À
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.03 ¹nJ¸ï £ÀA.364/1gÀ D¹ÛUÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ
¨ÁrUÉzÁgÀ ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÌgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ w¼ÀÄªÀ½vÀ
¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ªÀiË®å ¨sÀgÀuÁ ªÀiÁr ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ
¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¥ÀàAzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ F
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÉPÀÖgÀ £ÀA.10 ¥Áèl £ÀA.J-102 ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:
02.12.2000gÀAzÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½
1993gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ E-ªÀiÁzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄ°è
CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¸À»
¥ÀÄ£Àgï ªÀ¸Àw C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¨Á.¥À.C.¥Áæ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ.”

10. The reasons assigned by the respondent-Authorities to
decline the entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of
another site, namely allotment of earlier site in respect of
earlier acquisition cannot be accepted. The deprivation of
right to property shall be in accordance with law. There is
no dispute that property of the petitioner had been
acquired on two different occasions under two different

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, one during the year 1995-96 and another
i.e.
after 12 years thereafter 2007-08. The respondent-
Authorities therefore cannot contend that the allotment of
site for acquisition made in the year 1995 to be treated
as compensation to the subsequent acquisition made in
2007-08 as the same would run contrary to the scheme
of Act. That apart, submits that the subsequent
acquisition also amounts to deprivation of right to
property, which also needs to be compensated as
provided under the provisions of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, endorsement issued by
the respondent-Authorities at Annexure-G deserves to be
quashed and is accordingly quashed.

11. Petitioner is entitled for allotment of a site independently
in respect of the subsequent notification strictly in
accordance with the Rules provided as pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities.

12. Respondent-Authority shall consider the application of the
petitioner for allotment of site in lieu of acquisition of site

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16679
WP No. 104616 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020130172025

bearing No.BTDA 190 made under the notification dated
07.01.2008.

13. Respondent-Authorities shall also consider the
representation for allotment of sites sought on the
premise of deemed/construed separate family of major
children as provided under the explanation to Rule 4 of
Rules, 1993.

14. Should the petitioner choose change of allotment of
category of site, the same will also have to be considered
in accordance with the Rules provided under sub-rule (4)
of Rule 4 of Rules, 1993.

15. Order in that regard shall be passed within an outer limit
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

SH,
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0