20 Claimants’ Bid For Sites On Land Acquired For Dharwad Agriculture University Fails, Karnataka HC Finds No Vested Rights

The petitioners claimed that they had been allotted or acquired residential sites measuring 30 × 40 feet in land originally belonging to Abdul Karim, which was later acquired for the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

The acquisition had been upheld in earlier proceedings, and possession was delivered to the University.

After part of the acquired land was de-notified, the petitioners sought allotment of sites and compensation; their representation was considered by the authorities, and the Assistant Commissioner issued the challenged endorsement dated 23 December 2015 declining their request.

The petitioners sought certiorari to quash the endorsement and mandamus for consideration of their representation and allotment of sites.

The judgment does not expressly cite or apply any statutory provision or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the principle that a claimant must establish a subsisting legal right in the property to obtain relief concerning it; where the land has been acquired, possession delivered to the acquiring beneficiary, and the claimant’s asserted interest is unsubstantiated, the Court will not grant the requested allotment or interfere with the administrative decision.

The Court found that possession of the acquired land had been delivered to the University and that the petitioners were neither established allottees nor shown to have any right, title, or interest in the land.

The Deputy Commissioner’s report recorded the acquisition and delivery of possession, noted that the original owner had received enhanced compensation, and did not recommend allotment to the petitioners; the Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the Deputy Commissioner had recommended allotment.

It further found that the impugned endorsement reflected the report and that the petitioners’ representation had been considered.

In the absence of a demonstrated vested right, the Court saw no basis for judicial intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.