Intra-court appeals warrant interference only where the Single Judge’s decision is perverse or legally erroneous.

The competent authority determined that the appellants’ family held excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“ULC Act”), and notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) followed.

The land was also subject to acquisition proceedings for the City Improvement Board, Belagavi, and the Single Judge found that possession had been taken and a layout developed. An earlier writ petition challenging the proceedings had been withdrawn with liberty to seek enhanced compensation. The Single Judge dismissed the appellants’ later writ petition, holding that the ULC proceedings had attained finality, while preserving their entitlement to compensation. The appellants challenged that decision in this intra-court appeal.

Under Section 3(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, land deemed vested under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is not restored where possession has been taken by the State or an authorised person; the provision also addresses refund of any amount paid.

Under the intra-court appellate standard, interference is warranted where the Single Judge’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or perverse, not merely because another view is possible; the Court relied on *Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales Private Limited*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 112.

The Court also applied *Narayan S/o Ganesh Bable @ Kamati v. State of Karnataka*, W.A. Nos. 100002 and 100089 of 2018 (11 March 2020), under which the Deputy Commissioner may examine whether land should be restored under Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act or compensation granted; where no award existed as of 1 January 2014, Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 may apply, subject to the relevant facts.

The Court found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s conclusion that the ULC proceedings had attained finality: the statutory notifications had issued, possession was found to have been taken, the land had been developed into a layout, and the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn while reserving a compensation claim.

Those findings also supported the refusal to restore the appellants’ names in the land records.

Applying the restrained standard for intra-court appeals, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge’s order was not perverse or demonstrably erroneous. However, it clarified that if compensation had not been paid, or remained to be determined, the appellants could pursue compensation in accordance with the principles stated in *Narayan*, including consideration of the 2013 Act where applicable.

It preserved the appellants’ entitlement to compensation, if unpaid or still to be determined, to be addressed in accordance with *Narayan* and applicable law; pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.