TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL vs SRI R.K.KRISHNAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2631 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1215 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1223 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1224 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1228 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1237 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1238 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1245 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1496 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
IN WA No. 2631/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN 573 201.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573 201
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
AND:
1. SRI.H. N. SADASHIVA
SON OF LATE NANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
SON OF LATE JAVARAIAH H.D.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
3. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH H.D,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
4. SRI. H.R.SHIVANNA
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH H.D,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
(RESPODENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT AMBEDKARNAGARA,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.)
5. SMT. PREMAKUMARI
WIFE OF R.MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SEETHAVILAS ROAD,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
6. A.R.SHARADAMMA
WIFE OF LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
7. P. NARASIMHAIAH
SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOTE,HOLENARSIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
7(A) H N KRISHNA
S/O LATE P NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.2358, WARD 15, VAKKARANE
BEEDI KOTE, HOLENARSIPURA-573 211,
HASSAN(D).
7(B) NAGALAKSHMI SHETTY
W/O N RAMASHETTY,
AGED 68 YEARS
TH
R/O NO.289, 10 MAIN E BLOCK,
J P NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT.
7(C) N SWAMY
S/O LATE P NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A JAYANAGAR, HASSAN
NO.LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA,
ST
1 STAGE, OPP HOLI CHILDREN SCHOOL
JAYANAGARA, HASSAN
7(D) N ASHWATHNARAYANA
S/O LATE P NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A KHB COLONY, NORTHERN EXTENSION
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
7(E) H N PADMAVATHI
W/O PURUSHOTHAMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
NO.248/A, 6 MAIN B BLOCK
R/A J.P NAGAR, MYSURU,
MYSORE SOUTH, MYSORE-570 008.
7(F) H N INDUMATHI W/O ANANDKUMAR M N
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
TH
NO.2747, 4 CROSS,
GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA-571 401.
7(G) N SAROJA
W/O M N JAGADEESHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TH TH
NO.180/A, 12 MAIN, 11 CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570 008.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
7(H) H N RAMU
S/O LATE P NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ST
NO.1830/A, ANUGRHA NILAYA, 1 FLOOR,
BASTGIPUR ROAD,
BEHIND PANDURANGA TEMPLE,
KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA.
8. K. SREENIVAS
SON OF LATE K. KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PETE HOLENARSIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS.
8(A) H V MEENAKSHI W/O LATE K SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/A PEELE MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.2,
HOLENARASIPURA.
8(B) H S SHOBHA C/O DR R ANANTHA,
AGED 58 YEARS
R/O NO. 2/B, 228 CH 42, 4 MAIN,
TH
10 CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU.
8(C) H S SUDARSHAN S/O LATE K SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A HATTIKUMBARA BEEDI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN.
8(D) SUGUNA SINDHU
W/O CHAITRANANDU SINDHU RANGA,
AGE 52 YEARS
TH TH
R/A NO.1364, 5 CROSS, 6 MAIN,
NEW HORIZON PUBLIC SCHOOL,
TH
BEML LAYOUT, 5 STAGE,
ST
1 PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH.
8(E) H S KRISHNAKANTHA
S/O LATE K SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A PEELE MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.2,
HOLENARASIPURA.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
9. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
10.
A)
SMT. GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
KESHAVAIAH S/O BETTAIDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
B) SMT. PARVATHI,
W/O VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
C) SRI. PALAKSHA
S/O KESHAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
D) SMT. SHAKUNTALA,
W/O CHANDRAKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
E) SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O KESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
F) SRI. GOPI S/O KESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT GOWRI KESHAV KRUPA,
BEHIND PRIYADARSHINI SCHOOL,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HOLENARASIPURA-573 211.
11. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
12. B.M. JAYANATHI,
W/O S.J. HANISH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TH
NO.1354, 8 BLOCK, FURTHER EXTENSION,
VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 091.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
13. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
14. SRI.S.T.CHANDREGOWDA,
S/O LATE THIRUMALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
15. SRI.M.S.GOPALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE M.N.SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
16. SRI.S.J.SEENAPPA,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT.
17. SRI LAKKAPPA
S/O LATE SHETTYGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
18. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE ANDANIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,
R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
19. SRI.N.VENKATESH
S/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
20. SRI.N.CHIRANTH S/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
21. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
22. SRI. SURESH S/O RAJANNA,
AGED 50 YEARS,
R/AT HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
23. HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
24. SRI.N.HANUMANTHAKUMAR
S/O LATE S.NINGAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/AT MAIN ROAD,
HOLENARASISPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
25. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE S.NINGAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/AT MAIN ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
26. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
27. SRI. P.MAHENDRA,
S/O LATE S.H.THIMMAIAH,
AGE 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT RIVER BANK ROAD,
NEAR GIRLS JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD,
TAPCMS ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
28. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
29. RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
30. SRI.GOPALA,
S/O LATE JAVARAJIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
31. SRI.S.H. KUMARA
S/O LATE HUCHHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
32. SRI. S.K. SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O SOORNAHALLI, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
33. SRI. S.K. CHIKKANNA,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
34. SRI.BYREGOWDA
S/O LATE BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
35. SMT. NINGAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
36. SRI.C.R. PRABHAKARA,
SON OF LATE RAJAPPA C.S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
37. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
38. SMT. R.K KRISHNAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE S.A. LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
44. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
(VK FILED NOC NOT OBTAINED);
SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.N.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R7(A) TO R7(B) &
R8(A) TO R8(C);
SRI. M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R9, R11, R13,
R21, R26, R28, R37 & R39;
R10(B) TO R10(C) – APPEAL IS DISMISSED
V.C.O DATED 11.4.2019;
R10(A) & R10(F) ARE SERVED;
R14 SERVED;
SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R12, R24, R25, R27;
SRI. T.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R15, R16, R17,
R23, R31, R34;
R18, R19, R20 ARE SERVED;
SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R22;
R29, R30, R32, R33, R35, R36 & R38 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 34297 AND 37898-902/2012 AND
37903-904/2012 C/W WRIT PETITION 37432/2012, 37454/2012,
39887-891/2012, 42427-428/2012, 36131/2012, 29470-471/2012,
40874/2012, 47933-940/2012, 52309/2012, 13767-769/2013
DATED 28/03/2014.
IN WA NO. 1213/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARASIPURA-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B M.,ADVOCATE)
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
AND:
1. SRI. N. HANUMANTHAKUMAR
S/O LATE S.NINGAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI. N.ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE S. NINGAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 29470-471/2012
DATED 28/3/14.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1215/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.N. SADASHIVA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANAIAH,
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
SON OF LATE JAVARAIAH H.D
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH H.D
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. SRI. H.R. SHIVANNA
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH H.D
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT AMBEDKARNAGARA,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
5. PREMAKUMARI
WIFE OF R. MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SEETHAVILAS ROAD,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
6. SMT. A.R SHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
WIFE OF LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT SOORANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
7. SRI P. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
RESIDING AT KOTE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
8. SRI K. SREENIVAS
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PETE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
9. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.S.AMARKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-8;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R9 & R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 34297 & 37898-
37902/2012 DATED 28/3/14.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1223/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI P.MAHENDRA
S/O LATE S.H. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF RIVER BANK ROAD,
NEAR GIRLS JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD,
TAPCMS ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.40874/2012 DATED
28/3/2014.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1224/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA- 573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R.K.KRISHNAMMA
W/O LATE S.A. LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211.
HASSAN DISTRICT
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN – 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M R MAMATHA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 52309/2012 & 13767-
13769/2013 DATED 28/03/2014.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1228/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.M.JAYANTHI
WIFE OF S.J.HANISH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
TH
NO.1354, 8 BLOCK,
FURTHER EXTENSION,
VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 091.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
HASSAN-573 211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.37454/2012 DATED
28/3/2014.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1229/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
1(A) SRI.NAGARAJA
S/O HANUMEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
1(B) SMT.PUNYAVATHI
W/O LATE SRINIVASA
AGED MAJOR
1(C) SMT.ANUSUYA
W/O LATE LAKSHMAN
AGED MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1(A) TO 1(C) ARE
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI. GOPALA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 201
HASSAN DISTRICT.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
3. SRI S.H. KUMARA
S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ALBOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4. S.K. SATHYANARAYAN
S/O LATE KARIAPPAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. SRI. S.K. CHIKANNA
S/O LATE KARIAPPAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,-573211
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6. SRI. BYREGOWDA
S/O LATE BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
7. SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211
HASSAN DDISTRICT.
8. SRI. C.R. PRABHAKARA
S/O LATE RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT.
9. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN - 573201
...RESPONDENTS
(R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE SERVED
BY SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R3-R8;
R2 SERVED;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R9 TO R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 47933-940/2012
DATED 28/3/14.
IN WA NO. 1237/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
A)
SMT. GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
KESHAVAIAH
SON OF BETTADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
B) SMT.PARVATHI
WIFE OF VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
C) SRI.PALAKSHA
SON OF KESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D) SMT.SHAKUNTALA
WIFE OF CHANDRAKANTH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
E) SRI.RAVIKUMAR
SON OF KESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
F) SRI.GOPI SON OF KESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT GOWRI-KESHAVA KRUPA,
BEHIND PRIYADARSHINI SCHOOL,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPURA-573 211.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITISH.K.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-F);
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 37432/2012 DATED
28/3/14.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1238/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA- 573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI S.T. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE THIRUMALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTRIST
RESIDENT OF SURANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 211.
2. SRI.M.S.GOPALAKISHAN
S/O LATE M.N.SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. SRI.S.J.SEENAPPA
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 211.
4. SRI.LAKKAPPA S/O LATE SHETTYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O SURANAHALLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 211.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
5. SRI.NAGARAJ S/O LATE ANADANIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 211.
6. SRI.N.VENKATESH S/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.
7. SRI.N.CHIRANTH S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
R/ O SURANAHALLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.
8. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION,
HASSAN – 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4;
SRI. T.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5-R7;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R8 & R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 39887-891/2012 &
42427-428/2012 DATED 28/3/14.
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1245/2014:
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HOLENARSIPURA,- 573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SURESH S/O RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HOLENARASIPUR TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T.A.KARUMBAIAH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 36131/2012 DATED
28/3/14.
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
IN WA NO. 1496/2014:
BETWEEN:
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN MUNICIPALITY
REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN- 573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND
SMT.NAGASHREE, ,ADVOCATE(NOC))
AND:
1. SRI.M N NAGENDRA,
S/O SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PETE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN -573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI.K SRINIVASA
S/O KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PETE MAIN ROAD,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN -573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O RANGANATHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PETE MAIN ROAD,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN -573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4.
4(A)
JAVARAJI GOWDA
S/O SANNE GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
4(B) SRI. VIJAY S J
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4(C) SRI. YOGA
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4(D) SRI. GOPAL
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4(E) SRI. SHANKAR
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
4(F) SRI. DINESH
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4(G) SRI. RAGHU
S/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
4(H) SMT. SITA S J
D/O LATE JAVARAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 4(A) TO R(H)
ARE R/AT SURANAHALLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK -573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(I) SMT. PUNYAVATHI
W/O LATE SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAPATNA,
HASSAN TALUK – 573 201,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(J) SMT.TULASI
W/O SRI VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT KRISHNAPURA, KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK -573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
4(K) SMT.BHAGYA S J
W/O SRI. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT YARANE, KATAYA HOBLI,
ARAKALAGOODU TALUK – 573 102,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN – 573 201.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN -573 201.
7. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAYANNA.B.L., ADV.,FOR R1,R3,R4(A,B,F &G);
R2,R4(C),(D),(E),(H),(I),(J) &(K) ARE SERVED;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 13925/2007 DATED
24/04/2014.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
Table of Contents
Sl. Page
Particulars
No. No.
I. Introduction 27
II. Batch-I 29
1. Case of the Petitioners 33
2. Defence of the Respondents 34
3. Reasoning and Conclusion of the Learned
35
Single Judge
4. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.1 –
37
State Government and respondent No.2 – LAO
5. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.3 –
39
Municipality
6. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners –
40
Landowners
7. Reasoning and Conclusion 42
III. Batch-II 50
1. Case of the Petitioners 53
2. Defence of respondent No.3 – State
54
Government
3. Defence of respondent No.4 – Municipality 54
4. Reasoning and Conclusion of the Learned
55
Single Judge
5. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.4 –
56
Municipality
6. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners 57
7. Reasoning and Conclusion 58
IV. ORDER 61
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
Introduction:
1. These intra-Court appeals under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 arise out of proceedings
relating to the acquisition of lands for formation of a residential
layout by the Holenarasipura Town Municipality
( ‘Municipality’ ) and the subsequent denotification of the said
lands from acquisition, followed by further acquisition
proceedings. Ten of the appeals arise from the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge,
while the remaining appeal arises from a separate judgment
dated 24.04.2014. For convenience, the former group of
appeals shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Batch-I’ and the
latter as ‘Batch-II’ .
2. Batch-I comprises W.A.No.2631 of 2015, preferred
by the State of Karnataka and the Land Acquisition Officer,
Hassan ( ‘LAO’ ), and nine connected appeals preferred by the
Municipality. These appeals call in question the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.34297 and 37898-37902/2012 and 37903-
37904/2012 (LA-RES) and connected writ petitions. They
concern the validity of the notification dated 22.07.2000 issued
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( ‘the
Act’ ), denotifying the lands from acquisition. The challenge, in
substance, is to the findings of the learned Single Judge as to
whether possession of the lands had been taken prior to the
issuance of the said notification.
3. Batch-II comprises W.A.No.1496 of 2014, preferred
by the Municipality against the judgment dated 24.04.2014
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13925 of
2007 (LA-RES). This appeal concerns the Notification dated
14.03.2007 issued for widening a road through a portion of the
lands in question and the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge in relation thereto.
4. Since the appeals in both batches arise from the
same underlying dispute, they were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
convenience, the appeals in Batch-I are considered first,
followed by the appeal in Batch-II.
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
Batch-I
5. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion,
the parties in W.A. No.2631 of 2015 and the connected appeals
arising from the judgment dated 28.03.2014 shall hereinafter
be referred to according to their rank before the learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.34297 of 2012.
6. The lands situated in Dakshinanala Village,
Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, were notified for
acquisition for formation of a residential layout by the
Municipality under the Ashraya Scheme. Pursuant to Letter
No.G.No.113/95-96 dated 12.02.1996 issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan, directing initiation of acquisition
proceedings, a Preliminary Notification dated 20.02.1996 came
to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Following the
statutory enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, a Final
Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on
29.08.1997, acquiring 87.23 acres of land. Certain landowners
challenged the acquisition before this Court, and the said writ
petitions came to be dismissed. Thereafter, Letter
No.Bhuswaha.9/95-96 dated 23.01.1998 was addressed to the
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
Tahsildar, Holenarasipura, directing delivery of possession of
the acquired lands to the Municipality. On 24.01.1998, the
Tahsildar issued Bhuswadhina 28/97-98 recording delivery of
possession of lands pertaining to 36 khatedars to the Chief
Officer of the Municipality, who acknowledged receipt on the
same day. Subsequent correspondence dated 04.01.1999 and
06.01.1999 reiterated that possession had been handed over.
The acquired lands were also marked on the village map, and
RTC and mutation entries were made in favour of the
Municipality. Between 1998 and 1999, payments aggregating to
Rs.4,06,906/- were made to certain landowners.
7. Subsequently, in its meeting held on 31.12.1999,
the Municipality resolved to abandon the acquisition, recording
that the financial assistance available under the Ashraya
Scheme was limited to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, whereas the
compensation payable was likely to exceed Rs.2,00,000/- per
acre, rendering the scheme financially unviable. The
Municipality also recorded that suitable alternative land was
available on the southern side of the town. Pursuant thereto,
the State Government issued Notification No. RD 20 LAQ 2000
dated 22.07.2000 under Section 48(1) of the Act, denotifying
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
the lands from acquisition. The notification was challenged in
W.P. Nos.31966–31975 of 2000 by Smt. Kamalamma and
others, wherein this Court granted an interim order of stay on
28.09.2000. In separate proceedings, W.P. No.32570 of 2000,
instituted by B.V. Narayana and seventeen others claiming to
be the President and Members of the Municipality, was
dismissed by a Division Bench on 01.03.2002 for failure to
establish that it was a bona fide public interest litigation. The
said judgment dated 01.03.2002 came to be challenged before
the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2502 of 2004, which was
disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 10.09.2007, upon the
State Government submitting that it would withdraw the
notification dated 22.07.2000. Pursuant thereto, the State
Government issued Notification No. RD 96 LAQ 2007 dated
13.09.2007 withdrawing the earlier notification. The writ
petitions filed by Smt. Kamalamma and others were thereafter
disposed of on 23.10.2007 in view of the withdrawal of the
notification dated 22.07.2000.
8. Aggrieved by the notification dated 13.09.2007, the
landowners instituted several writ petitions before this Court.
By order dated 15.10.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
the writ petitions, holding that the notification dated
22.07.2000 was contrary to law as possession had already
been taken and that the acquisition was required to be
sustained. The landowners challenged the said order in W.A.
No.1862 of 2008 and connected appeals. By judgment dated
25.11.2010, the Division Bench noticed that the State
Government and the Municipality had, in the earlier
proceedings before this Court in W.P. Nos.31966–31975 of
2000 and W.P. No.32570 of 2000, as well as before the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2502 of 2004, maintained
that possession had not been taken before the notification
dated 22.07.2000. In W.A. No.1862 of 2008 and connected
appeals, however, they asserted that possession had been
taken before that date. Holding that the validity of the
notifications dated 22.07.2000 and 13.09.2007 depended upon
this disputed question of fact, which could not appropriately be
determined in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Division Bench set aside both
notifications and remitted the matter to the Principal Secretary
to Government, Revenue Department, to determine whether
possession had been taken before 22.07.2000, after hearing
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
the affected parties, and thereafter reconsider the validity of
the denotification in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, the
9.
Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
conducted an enquiry into the question of possession. The
Principal Secretary held that the Act did not prescribe any
particular mode of taking possession and that the absence of a
notification under Section 16(2) was not, by itself,
determinative. Relying on the correspondence and
acknowledgments recording delivery of possession, together
with the RTC and mutation entries in favour of the Municipality,
the Principal Secretary, by order dated 07.08.2012, concluded
that possession had been taken and handed over to the
Municipality before 22.07.2000. Consequently, the Principal
Secretary held that the denotification was not sustainable.
Aggrieved, the petitioners instituted W.P.No.34297 of 2012 and
connected writ petitions before this Court.
1. Case of the Petitioners:
10. The petitioners contended that the decision to
denotify the lands was a considered one, founded on the
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
financial non-viability of the scheme and the availability of
alternative land. Such a decision would not have been taken
had possession of the acquired lands already been obtained. It
was submitted that there was no material establishing that
possession had been taken before the notification dated
22.07.2000. The petitioners also relied upon an unofficial note
dated 04.08.2012 calling upon them to appear for an enquiry
on 07.08.2012, contending that no such enquiry had been
conducted before the order dated 07.08.2012 was passed.
2. Defence of the Respondents:
11. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, the State
Government and the Land Acquisition Officer, did not file
separate statements of objections but relied upon the
correspondence forming the basis of the order dated
07.08.2012.
12. Respondent No.3-Municipality contended that the
acquisition was undertaken for formation of a residential layout
for the weaker sections of society and that physical possession
of the acquired lands had been taken before issuance of the
notification dated 22.07.2000. It was further submitted that the
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
notification itself proceeded on the basis that possession had
vested with the State Government and, consequently, the lands
could not be denotified.
3. Reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge:
The learned Single Judge examined the order dated
13.
07.08.2012 in the light of the directions issued by the Division
Bench in W.A. No.1862 of 2008 and connected matters. It was
observed that, apart from determining whether possession had
been taken, the Division Bench had directed respondent No.1 to
identify which of the two sets of pleadings filed by the
Municipality were false and to initiate appropriate proceedings
against the concerned officials. The latter exercise had not been
undertaken.
14. On the issue of possession, the learned Single
Judge observed that no notification under Section 16(2) of the
Act had been issued after the award and that no notice or
mahazar evidencing the actual taking of possession had been
produced. The acknowledgment dated 24.01.1998, the
communication dated 04.01.1999 and the consequential
revenue and mutation entries were held insufficient, by
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
themselves, to establish that possession had been taken before
22.07.2000. The learned Single Judge further observed that the
Principal Secretary had failed to consider the Municipality’s
resolutions and the inconsistent stands taken by the State
Government and the Municipality in the earlier proceedings
regarding whether possession had been taken.
15. The learned Single Judge held that Section 16 of
the Act contemplated the procedure for taking possession of
acquired lands and that nothing on record indicated that
possession had been taken in the manner prescribed under the
Act. The learned Single Judge also took note of the absence of
a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and the endorsement
issued by the LAO stating that no copy of the mahazar
evidencing taking of possession was available. In the said
circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that the revenue
and mutation entries, by themselves, were insufficient to
establish taking of possession.
16. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon
1
Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal and
1
(2011) 5 SCC 394.
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
2
Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat , wherein the
Apex Court reiterated that Section 16 contemplates actual
possession, and not merely symbolic or paper possession.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed and the order
dated 07.08.2012 was set aside.
17. Aggrieved by the common judgment and order
dated 28.03.2014, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have preferred
these intra-court appeals.
4. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.1-State
Government and respondent No.2-LAO:
18. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri S.H.
Raghavendra, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted
that the Principal Secretary had conducted a detailed enquiry
pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench and
passed a reasoned order after considering the records and
objections of all parties.
It is urged that the learned Single Judge erred in
19.
disregarding the letter dated 23.01.1998 directing delivery of
possession, the acknowledgment dated 24.01.1998, and the
2
(1976) 1 SCC 700 .
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
subsequent communication dated 04.01.1999, which, according
to respondent No.1, established that possession of the acquired
lands had been handed over to the Municipality. It is further
urged that the consequential mutation entries in M.R.
No.36/97-98, M.R. No.4/98-99 and M.R. No.13/99-00, together
with the corresponding RTC entries, corroborate the said
position.
20. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed
to appreciate that the Municipality had revoked its earlier
Resolution dated 31.12.1999 by Resolution dated 30.06.2007,
and had nowhere taken the stand that possession of the
acquired lands had not been taken. It is also urged that the
unofficial memorandum dated 04.08.2012 could not vitiate the
order dated 07.08.2012, as the Principal Secretary was
unaware of the same while passing the order.
21. Lastly, it was submitted that the absence of a
notification under Section 16(2) of the Act did not invalidate the
taking of possession, and that the learned Single Judge erred in
rejecting the documents relied upon by the State and in holding
that possession had not been taken.
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
5. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.3-
Municipality:
22. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vikram Huligol,
appearing on behalf of Sri.Girish Kumar B.M., learned counsel
for respondent No.3–Municipality, submitted that the
notification dated 13.09.2007 was issued pursuant to the
undertaking given by the State Government before the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2502 of 2004. It was
contended that the petitioners, having been parties to the said
proceedings, were estopped from questioning the withdrawal of
the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act and that
the issue had attained finality.
23. It was further submitted that there is no hard and
fast rule for determining whether possession has been taken
under the Act. It was contended that symbolic possession may
suffice depending upon the nature and extent of the acquisition
and that the presence of the owner or issuance of a notification
under Section 16(2) of the Act is not an indispensable
requirement in every case.
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
24. It was contended that the acquisition was
undertaken to provide housing for marginalised communities
and that no suitable alternative land was available. The
acquisition costs fixed by the LAO had already been deposited
and some of the landowners had received the amounts due to
them. It was also contended that the notification under Section
48(1) recorded that possession of the lands would be returned
to the owners, which was relied upon in support of the
contention that possession had already been taken.
25. Lastly, it was submitted that only 15 of the 71
erstwhile landowners had pursued the proceedings and that the
challenge was not bona fide. The Municipality also contended
that its Resolution dated 31.12.1999 had been passed under
pressure upon its members and that the decision to abandon
the acquisition was erroneous.
6. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners-landowners:
26. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas S.
Kannur, appearing for the petitioners along with their
respective counsel on record, sought to sustain the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
27. It is submitted that the Principal Secretary could
not have recorded a finding that possession had been taken
merely on the basis of the letter dated 23.01.1998, the
acknowledgment dated 24.01.1998, and the subsequent
communication dated 04.01.1999, particularly in the light of
the contrary stand taken by the State Government and the
Municipality in the earlier proceedings.
It is further submitted that no notification under
28.
Section 16(2) of the Act was issued after passing of the award
and that no notice or mahazar evidencing taking of possession
was produced. The consequential mutation and RTC entries, it
was contended, could not, by themselves, establish possession
as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act.
29. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, the
question that arises for our consideration is:
“Whether the impugned judgment and order dated
28.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge suffers
from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference
in these writ appeals?”
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
7. Reasoning and Conclusion:
30. The controversy in these appeals stems from the
determination of a foundational question, namely, whether
possession of the acquired lands had been taken before
issuance of the notification dated 22.07.2000 under Section
48(1) of the Act. The earlier Division Bench, by judgment dated
25.11.2010 in W.A. No.1862 of 2008 and connected matters,
remitted the matter to the Principal Secretary to determine this
question. The Principal Secretary answered it in the affirmative,
relying principally upon the correspondence concerning delivery
of possession and the subsequent mutation and RTC entries.
The learned Single Judge, however, found that the material
relied upon did not establish that possession had actually been
taken. The correctness of this conclusion falls for consideration
in these appeals.
31. Section 16 of the Act provides for the vesting of
acquired land in the Government, free from all encumbrances,
upon the Collector taking possession after making the award. In
3
Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat , the Supreme
3
(1976) 1 SCC 700.
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
Court held that possession merely on paper would not suffice
and that the manner of taking possession depends upon the
nature of the land. Therein it observed:
“28. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There can be no question of
taking “symbolical” possession in the sense understood by
judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor
would possession merely on paper be enough. What the
Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of
the land in the Government is the taking of actual
possession of the land. How such possession may be
taken would depend on the nature of the land. Such
possession would have to be taken as the nature of the
land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying
down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of
possession of land. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
32. The absence of a uniform mode of taking
possession does not dispense with the requirement of
establishing that possession was in fact taken. The sufficiency
of the material relied upon must be assessed having regard to
the nature of the land and the circumstances in which
possession is said to have been taken.
4
In Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam ,
33.
the Apex Court recognised the recording of a memorandum or
panchnama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses as an
accepted mode of taking possession. The Court noted that such
4
(1996) 8 SCC 259 .
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
a mode may be necessary where the owner or an interested
person does not cooperate in the taking of physical possession.
5
In Moti Lal Agarwal (supra) , the Supreme Court further
reiterated that the sufficiency of the act to take possession
depended upon the nature of the land. In the case of vacant
land, the acquiring authority going to the spot and preparing a
panchnama would ordinarily suffice. However, where crops are
standing or a building or structure exists on the land, merely
going to the spot would not be sufficient. Ordinarily, the
authority must issue notice to the occupier of the building or
structure, or to the person who has cultivated the land, and
take possession in the presence of independent witnesses,
whose signatures are obtained on the panchnama. In the case
of a large tract of land, an appropriate document prepared in
the presence of independent witnesses may establish
possession, having regard to the circumstances of the
acquisition.
This Court, in Bangalore Development Authority
34.
6
and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others , speaking
through one of us in a different combination, also considered
5
(2011) 5 SCC 394.
6
Judgment dated 03.06.2026 in W.A. No.606 of 2025 .
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
the principles governing the taking of possession of acquired
lands. This Court therein recognised the evidentiary significance
of a mahazar prepared at the spot and the relevance of a
notification under Section 16(2) of the Act as an indication that
the acquiring authority claims to have taken possession. These
principles do not make any one form of documentation an
inflexible condition in every case. They do, however,
underscore the importance of material capable of
demonstrating that possession was actually taken in the
appropriate manner.
35. The present case concerns a substantial extent of
land acquired for the formation of a residential layout. No
mahazar recording the taking of possession has been produced,
nor has any notification under Section 16(2) of the Act been
placed on record. Although the absence of these documents
does not, by itself, establish that possession was not taken, it is
a relevant circumstance in assessing the respondents’ claim,
particularly in the absence of other contemporaneous material
demonstrating the actual taking of possession.
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
36. The State Government and the Municipality have
placed considerable reliance upon the correspondence dated
23.01.1998, the acknowledgment dated 24.01.1998, and the
communications dated 04.01.1999 and 06.01.1999. These
documents form part of the record and cannot be disregarded.
However, they must be assessed for what they establish. A
direction to deliver possession, an acknowledgment of receipt,
or subsequent official correspondence does not, without more,
necessarily establish that possession was actually taken on the
spot in a manner known to law. In the absence of a mahazar or
other contemporaneous material demonstrating the act by
which possession was taken, the correspondence relied upon is
insufficient to establish that possession had been taken before
issuance of the notification dated 22.07.2000.
The mutation and RTC entries relied upon by the
37.
respondents do not advance their case on the question of
possession. It is settled law that mutation entries serve a fiscal
purpose, primarily facilitating the collection of land revenue,
and do not, by themselves, establish that possession of the
acquired lands was taken in the manner contemplated under
the Act. While they may reflect the position recorded by the
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
revenue authorities pursuant to the acquisition proceedings,
they cannot establish the actual taking of possession upon
which vesting under Section 16 of the Act depends. The entry
of the Municipality’s name in the revenue records cannot,
therefore, substitute for proof that possession was actually
taken, particularly when the factum of possession is in serious
dispute.
38. The above material must also be considered
alongside the resolution dated 31.12.1999 passed by the
Municipality. The resolution records that implementation of the
Ashraya Scheme had become financially unviable because the
compensation payable for the acquired lands was likely to
exceed the assistance available under the scheme. It also
records that suitable alternative land was available on the
southern side of the town. On that basis, the Municipality
resolved not to proceed with the acquisition and to pursue the
scheme on alternative land. The State Government thereafter
issued the notification dated 22.07.2000 under Section 48(1) of
the Act.
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
39. The resolution dated 31.12.1999 records that the
Municipality decided not to proceed with the acquisition
because the compensation payable was likely to exceed the
assistance available under the Ashraya Scheme and suitable
alternative land was available. Having consciously taken this
position, the Municipality cannot subsequently seek to sustain
the acquisition on the footing that possession had already been
taken, without explaining the circumstances warranting such a
departure. A public authority cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate on a matter that directly affects the rights of
landowners.
40. The subsequent resolution dated 30.06.2007, by
which the Municipality revoked its earlier resolution, was
passed nearly seven years after the resolution dated
31.12.1999. The later resolution does not, by itself, displace
the circumstances recorded in the earlier resolution or establish
that possession had been taken before 22.07.2000.
41. The contention that the resolution dated
31.12.1999 was passed under pressure upon the members of
the Municipality also cannot be accepted. No material has been
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
placed before us to establish the nature of the alleged pressure
or the circumstances in which the resolution came to be
passed. An unsubstantiated allegation made subsequently
cannot displace the reasons expressly recorded in the
resolution. In the absence of supporting material, the resolution
must be considered on the basis of its contents and the
circumstances in which it was adopted.
42. On an overall consideration of the record, the State
Government and the Municipality have not established that
possession of the acquired lands had been taken before
issuance of the notification dated 22.07.2000. No mahazar or
notification under Section 16(2) of the Act has been produced.
The correspondence relied upon does not satisfactorily establish
that possession was actually taken in the manner contemplated
under the Act, and the mutation and RTC entries cannot
substitute for proof of the same. Further, the Municipality’s
resolution dated 31.12.1999 records its decision to abandon the
acquisition on account of financial unviability and the
availability of alternative land, a position difficult to reconcile
with its subsequent assertion that possession had already been
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
taken. The subsequent resolution dated 30.06.2007, revoking
the earlier resolution, does not cure these deficiencies.
Having given our anxious consideration to the rival
43.
submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record,
we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and
order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge
does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference in W.A. No.2631 of 2015 and the connected
appeals arising therefrom.
Batch-II
44. We shall now consider W.A.No.1496 of 2014, which
arises out of the judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13925 of 2007.
45. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion,
the parties in W.A.No.1496 of 2014 shall hereinafter be
referred to according to their status before the learned Single
Judge.
46. The facts relating to the original acquisition and the
notification dated 22.07.2000 issued under Section 48(1) of the
- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
Act, as well as the challenge thereto in W.P. Nos.31966-31975
of 2000 and the interim order dated 28.09.2000 passed
therein, have already been set out hereinabove. During the
pendency of the said writ petitions, this Court, by order dated
03.07.2006, permitted the State Government to undertake
fresh acquisition of lands required for the proposed widening of
a road pertaining to National Highway No.8, while continuing
the interim order in all other respects. By a further order dated
28.08.2006, this Court clarified that the fresh acquisition was to
be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
47. Pursuant thereto, the State Government issued a
preliminary notification dated 31.07.2006 under Sections 4(1)
and 17(4) of the Act in respect of the lands of the petitioners
and others. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4, along with Hanumegowda
@ Puttegowda and Smt. Lakshmamma, challenged the said
notification in W.P. No.11238 of 2006, contending, inter alia ,
that the urgency clause had been invoked only in respect of
their lands. By order dated 31.01.2007, this Court reserved
liberty to the petitioners therein to file objections before the
LAO and directed that the same be considered in accordance
with law. Pursuant thereto, petitioner Nos.1 and 4 filed
- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
objections on 14.02.2007, which were rejected by order dated
23.02.2007. The order recorded that the lands had already
been acquired for a public purpose, compensation had been
paid to the landowners, and the revenue entries stood in the
name of the Municipality. According to the petitioners, the
order sheet and the final order were furnished to them only on
13.03.2007.
48. The State Government thereafter issued the final
notification dated 14.03.2007 under Section 6(1) of the Act.
The said notification was challenged by Hanumegowda @
Puttegowda and Smt. Lakshmamma in W.P. No.8338 of 2007.
In parallel, the petitioners in W.P. No.11238 of 2006 preferred
W.A. No.640 of 2007 against the order dated 31.01.2007. The
writ appeal was disposed of on 05.06.2007 in view of the
pending challenge to the final notification in W.P. No.8338 of
2007, to which petitioner Nos.1 and 4 herein were not parties.
This Court subsequently dismissed W.P. No.8338 of 2007 by
order dated 12.06.2009, observing that the proceedings had
been instituted merely to claim compensation in respect of the
acquired land and noting that Hanumegowda @ Puttegowda
had already received compensation.
- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
49. Aggrieved by the final notification dated
14.03.2007, the petitioners herein instituted W.P. No.13925 of
2007, giving rise to the present appeals.
1. Case of the Petitioners:
50. The petitioners contended that they had not been
served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act or
notice of the Award dated 23.04.2007. It was submitted that,
despite the pendency of proceedings concerning the validity of
the denotification before the Supreme Court of India, the final
notification and award proceedings proceeded on the basis that
the Municipality was the khatedar of the lands, and notices
were issued only to the Municipality. The petitioners further
contended that their objections had been rejected without due
consideration.
51. The petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.32570 of 2000 and the
order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Apex Court directing
maintenance of status quo. They contended that they continued
to be the owners of the lands when the final notification dated
- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
14.03.2007 was issued and that the Municipality could not be
treated as the owner thereof.
2. Defence of the respondent No.3-State Government:
52. The State Government contended that the
acquisition had been undertaken pursuant to the permission
granted by this Court on 03.07.2006 in I.A. No.1 of 2006 in
W.P. No.31966 of 2000. It was further submitted that, in view
of the stay granted by the Supreme Court of India, the
Municipality was the owner of the lands, as reflected in the RTC
entries.
3. Defence of the respondent No.4-Municipality:
53. The Municipality contended that the RTC entries
reflected its ownership of the lands and that, since the lands
had already been acquired, the petitioners had no right to claim
compensation. It was further contended that the petitioners
lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as they were not the
owners of the lands.
- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
4. Reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge:
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition,
54.
holding that the Municipality’s entry as khatedar was merely a
hangover of the earlier acquisition proceedings and that the
petitioners continued to be the owners of the lands until the
acquisition proceedings attained finality, subject to the issue
concerning the validity of the denotification.
55. The learned Single Judge further held that the
petitioners were entitled to claim compensation under the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
( ‘the 2013 Act’ ). Accordingly, the Award was set aside insofar
as it had been passed in favour of the Municipality, and liberty
was reserved to the State Government to acquire the lands and
compensate the petitioners under the provisions of the 2013
Act. It was clarified that such proceedings would not, in the
usual course, confer any right on the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order,
56.
respondent No.4–Municipality has preferred the present appeal.
- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
5. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.4 –
Municipality:
57. Learned counsel Sri.M.Keshava Reddy, appearing
for respondent No.4–Municipality, contended that the finding of
the learned Single Judge recognising the Petitioners as lawful
owners of the lands was erroneous, particularly when the
judgment dated 28.03.2014 upholding the denotification was
itself under challenge. It was submitted that, while the legality
of the acquisition remained under consideration, the Petitioners
could not have been recognised as owners in possession of the
lands. The Municipality was rightly shown in the acquisition
notices in accordance with the established procedure, and the
LAO was not required to undertake a roving enquiry into the
ownership of the lands.
58. It was further contended that, pending adjudication
of the appeals against the judgment dated 28.03.2014, the
learned Single Judge ought to have directed the LAO to deposit
the compensation payable rather than declare the Petitioners to
be the owners. Learned counsel also submitted that the
findings of the learned Single Judge were inconsistent inasmuch
- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
as, while indicating that the acquisition proceedings were
otherwise in order and the dispute concerned the person
entitled to compensation and the applicable enactment, the
learned Single Judge nevertheless held the acquisition to be
defective and directed initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings
under the 2013 Act.
6. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:
59. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Mayanna B.L.,
appearing for the Petitioners, sought to sustain the impugned
judgment. It was submitted that the Petitioners had neither
been served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act
nor with notice of the award dated 23.04.2007. Despite the
pendency of proceedings concerning the validity of the
denotification, the final notification and award proceedings
proceeded by treating the Municipality as the khatedar, and
notices were issued only to it. The Petitioners’ objections had
also been rejected without due consideration.
60. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.32570 of 2000 and
the order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Supreme Court of
- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
India directing maintenance of status quo, to contend that the
Petitioners continued to be the owners of the lands when the
final notification dated 14.03.2007 was issued and that the
Municipality could not be treated as the owner thereof.
7. Reasoning and Conclusion:
61. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the
materials available on the record.
62. We have already considered, in batch I, the
question as to whether the State Government had established
that possession of the lands had been taken prior to the
issuance of the notification dated 22.07.2000. For the reasons
recorded hereinabove, we have found no ground to interfere
with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the State had
failed to establish that possession had been taken.
Consequently, the notification dated 22.07.2000 withdrawing
the lands from acquisition stands revived.
63. In view of the aforesaid finding, the premise on
which the present appeal is founded cannot be accepted. The
Municipality could not, merely on the basis of the revenue
- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
entries or the earlier acquisition proceedings, be treated as the
owner of the lands when the denotification had taken effect and
the State had failed to establish that possession had been
taken prior thereto. The learned Single Judge was, therefore,
justified in holding that the Petitioners continued to be the
owners of the lands until the acquisition proceedings attained
finality.
64. The fact that the Petitioners had not been served
with either the notice of the award or the notices contemplated
under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act merits consideration. In
view of our finding that the State failed to establish that
possession had been taken prior to the issuance of the
notification dated 22.07.2000, the Municipality could not claim
entitlement to compensation in respect of the Petitioners’ lands
merely on the basis of the earlier acquisition proceedings or the
revenue entries. Any amount received by the Municipality
towards compensation in respect of the Petitioners’ lands
would, therefore, be liable to be returned.
- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
65. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Pramod
7
Gupta considered the liability to return compensation where
the recipient was found not to have title to the acquired land
and recognised the application of the doctrine of restitution.
Applying the said doctrine, any compensation received by the
Municipality, insofar as it relates to the Petitioners’ lands, shall
be refunded.
66. We also note that the learned Single Judge, having
regard to the fact that the acquisition was for a public purpose
and with a view to bring quietus to the dispute, granted liberty
to the State Government to initiate proceedings forthwith under
the provisions of the 2013 Act and in accordance with law, and
to pay just compensation to the Petitioners expeditiously.
67. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we
find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we pass the
following;
7
(2005) 12 SCC 1.
- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
ORDER
(i) Writ Appeal No.2631 of 2015 and connected appeals,
arising out of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 passed
in Writ Petition No.34297 of 2012 and connected writ petitions,
are dismissed.
(ii) Writ Appeal No.1496 of 2014, arising out of the
judgment and order dated 24.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition
No.13925 of 2007, is dismissed .
(iii) The State Government shall be at liberty to initiate
fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the said lands, after
identifying the rightful land losers and determining and granting
fair compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(iv) It is needless to observe that the said amount has
been deposited in the Town Municipality. The Town
Municipality shall return it to the State Government and the
State Government in turn, shall disburse the said amount in
favour of the land-losers without any delay.
- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53662-DB
WA No. 2631 of 2015
C/W WA No. 1213 of 2014
WA No. 1215 of 2014
AND 8 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010120582015
(v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of .
(vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9