SIDRAMAPPA S/O BASAPPA BY LRS AND ORS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 207378 OF 2017 (LA-UDA)


BETWEEN:




SIDRAMAPPA S/O BASAPPA
DECEASED BY LRS:

MALLIKARJUN S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O BASAVESHWAR COLONY
KALABURAGI

2. SHIVANAND S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O BASAVESHWAR COLONY
KALABURAGI

3. REVANASIDDA@BASAVARAJ
S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O BASAVESHWAR COLONY
KALABURAGI






1.





Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

ADVEPPA S/O BASAPPA
DECEASED BY LRS

SUSHILABAI W/O ADVEPPA
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD
R/O GANESH NAGAR, KALABURAGI


4.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


5. CHANDRAKANTH S/O ADVEPPA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O GANESH NAGAR, KALABURAGI

6.
SHIVAKANTH S/O ADVEPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O GANESH NAGAR, KALABURAGI

7. REVANASIDDA S/O ADVEPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O GANESH NAGAR, KALABURAGI

8. KALYANAPPA S/O BASAPPA
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCCU: NIL
R/O GUBBI COLONY, KALABURAGI


ANNAPPA S/O BASAPPA
DECEASED BY LRS

JAGADEVI W/O ANNEPPA
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD
R/O JAGRATI COLONY, KALABURAGI

10. ANAND S/O ADVEPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE
R/O JAGRATI COLONY, KALABURAGI

11. ARUNA D/O ANNAPPA
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O JAGRATI COLONY,
KALABURAGI

12. ANJALI D/O ANNAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O JAGRATI COLONY,
KALABURAGI
…PETITIONERS

9.
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
BY IT’S SECRETARY

2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001
BY IT’S SECRETARY

3. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY KALABURAGI-585102

4.
SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KALABURAGI-585102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI ADV., FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IN FILE NO.HUD 235 MIB 89
(GDA/LGB/LAQ/EXT/7/88-89) VIDE NOTIFICATIONS DATED
08.09.1988 AND 17.11.1989 AT ANNEXURES A AND B, IN
RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.42 (42/2) OF BADEPUR
VILLAGE TQ-KALABURAGI MEASURING 12 GUNTAS
BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS AS LAPSED IN VIEW OF
SECTION 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, RE-HABILITATION
AND RE-SETTLEMENT ACT 2013; II) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER
OR DIRECTION AS THE HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CORAM:

ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
“ i. Declare that the acquisition in File No.HUD 235
MIB 89 (GDA/GLB/LAQ/Ext/7/88-89) vide notifications
dated 08-09-1988 and 17-11-1989 at Annexures A and B,
in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 42 (42/2) of Badepur
village, Tq. Kalaburagi measuring 12 guntas belonging to
the Petitioners as lapsed in view of Section. 24 (2) of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013,
in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Pass any other order or direction as the Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the
case. ”

2. Heard Sri. Harshavardhan R Malipatil, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Viranagouda
Biradar, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Sri. Shivakumar

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


R Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.3 and meticulously perused
the material available on record.
3. The petitioners are the owners of the land bearing
Survey No.42, situated at Badepur Village, Kalaburagi
Taluk and District. The respondent – authorities proposed
to acquire the petitioners’ land by issuing a preliminary
notification dated 08.09.1988 under Sections 15(1) and
(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,
1987 (‘KUDA Act’ for short) for the purpose of the
Gulbarga-Sedam Road Residential Layout Project.
4. Thereafter, the respondent - State issued the final
notification under Section 19 of the KUDA Act on
17.11.1989. The present writ petition came to be filed in
the year 2017, assailing the aforesaid notifications mainly
on the ground that the respondent - authorities have
neither taken possession of the petitioners’ land nor paid
compensation. On that basis, the acquisition proceedings

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’ for short) have
lapsed.
5. It is to be noticed that the acquisition in-question
was initiated under the provisions of the KUDA Act.
Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the acquisition
proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act has no merit, as the provisions of the 2013 Act has no
application to acquisitions undertaken under the KUDA Act.
6. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, the
respondent - authorities have issued a notice to the
petitioners indicating that an award has been passed in
respect of the acquired land.
7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of INDORE DEVELOPMENT

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11816
WP No. 207378 of 2017


CNR: KAHC030070542017


1
AUTHORITY Vs. MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS and for
the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view
that no good ground is made out to entertain the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits
and the same is rejected .


Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE




PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48


1
(2020)4 SCC (Civ) 496