Vijayendra S/O. Keshavrao Vernekar Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Vijayendra S/O. Keshavrao Vernekar Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the earlier representations (with the present petition treated as a further representation), re-consider the case of the petitioners regarding compensation/market value enhancement, and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within three months of receipt of copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation enhancing the market value to Rs.3,000/- per sq ft for 4 acres 14 guntas of land acquired in Sy No.760/2C of Kusugal village (for National Highway road formation), i.e., treating the land as non-agricultural/commercial rather than agricultural. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the representations of the petitioners were stated to have been considered by the respondents, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to re-consider the payment of compensation and enhancement of market value in accordance with the representations of the petitioners, and to treat the present petition as a further representation of the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

A writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to consider the representations given earlier and to treat the present petition as a representation, and re-consider the case of the petitioners.

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No.106509/2023 (LA-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur), decided 10-07-2025: Six members of the Vernekar family, owners of Sy No.760/2C of Kusugal village, Dharwad (12 acres 29 guntas, earlier owned by their mother Smt. Savitribai Vernekar), sought a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for compensation at Rs.3,000/- per sq ft for 4 acres 14 guntas acquired (notification dated 17.05.2011) for National Highway road formation, claiming the land as converted non-agricultural/commercial (conversion 25.02.2010; Town and Country Planning plan approval dated 18.03.2010) rather than on the agricultural basis on which the award was passed; the award amount lay deposited but uncollected, representations for reconsideration went unanswered, and the mother's earlier W.P. No.113396/2015 against the acquisition notification remained pending. Held/disposed: petition allowed in part; respondents directed to re-consider payment of compensation and enhancement of market value in accordance with the representations, the petition being treated as a further representation, and to pass suitable orders in accordance with law within three months. The Court did not itself determine whether the land is commercial or agricultural. No precedents cited.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 106509 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

VIJAYENDRA S/O. KESHAVRAO VERNEKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

RAJENDRA S/O. KESHAVARAO VERNEKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

SURENDRA S/O. KESHAVRAO VERNEKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

SMT. SHAILA W/O. SUNIL REVANKAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

JAGADESH S/O. KESHAVRAO VERNEKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

SMT. JAYA W/O. SATISH VERNEKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O. NO.43, BAILAPNAVAR NAGAR,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

HUBBALLI-580029.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA S/O. KESHAV RAO VERNEKAR, PARTY IN PERSON-P1; SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR P2-P6)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, OFFICE OF SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DHARWAD-580001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

i. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.3,000/- PER SQ FEET FOR 4 ACRES 14 GUNTAS OF LAND ACQUIRED IN SY NO.760/2C OF KUSUGAL VILLAGE, DIST DHARWAD WITH ALL OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

ii. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONERS TO ACQUIRE ENTIRE 12 ACRES OF LAND AND PAY APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

Learned counsel Sri V.M.Sheelvant appearing for petitioners is present. The party-in-person Sri. Vijayendra S/o. Keshavtao Vernekar appearing for himself as petitioner No.1 is present before this Court so also learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2.

The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents for a direction to pay compensation enhancing the market value of the property, which is sought to be acquired and used

by the respondents for laying of the road in the National Highway. Petitioners are the owners of property bearing No.760/2C measuring 12 acre 29 gunta of Kusugal village. Earlier the said property was in the name of mother of the petitioners Smt. Savitribai Vernekar. It is the contention of petitioners that after the mother gave an application for conversion of land from agriculture to commercial use to the Deputy Commissioner, the same was granted and

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

property was converted for non-agricultural use i.e., for commercial purposes to an extent of 4 acre out of 12 acre 29 gunta so also the Town and Country Planning Authority has also approved the plan vide order dated 18.03.2010. On 17.05.2011, acquisition notification was issued; the land of the petitioners to an extent of 4 acre 6 gunta was acquired. Mother of the petitioner objected to the said acquisition notice dated 21.06.2010. Without considering the said objections and also commercial potentiality of the said land, respondent acquired the land of the petitioners and passed the award on the premises that the land is an agricultural land, but award had not been disbursed in favour of the petitioners.

It is the contention of party-in-person (petitioner No.1) that land is commercial land and sufficient documents are available and produced before the authority to establish the same to show it is not the agricultural land and it is converted for commercial use.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

Petitioners made several representations to the respondent to consider the payment of compensation of their land to be commercial land and not agricultural land and to grant enhanced compensation on reexamination of representations of the petitioners however, all the representations have gone and vain and the request of the petitioners have not be considered, hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

It is further contended by party-in-person that

earlier a writ petition was filed by the mother of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.113396/2015 seeking quashing of the notification dated 17.05.2011. The said petition is still pending adjudication.

Petitioners being aggrieved by the in action on the part of the respondents in not considering the representations for grant of suitable compensation by treating their land as commercial land, are before this Court.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

Per Contra, the learned AGA representing respondent/State contends that the representations of the petitioners were considered on earlier point of time. Therefore, there is no nothing much left to consider and hence the petition requires to be dismissed as it would not survive for any further consideration and in accordance with the procedures and the rules the acquisition is taken place and so also award is passed and the amount is deposited, which the petitioners are at liberty to collect, but they are not collecting the same.

It is further contention of party-in-person and other petitioners that representations so made were not considered in accordance with law and though he was told that they would appoint a mediator to re-examine the representation on the acquisition proceedings for grant of compensation as to whether the land acquired is in the nature of agriculture or non-agriuclture/commercial purpose and same is not taken place all efforts of the petitioners have gone in vain.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent/State. Apparently, the land of petitioners is acquired for formation of the road. It is submitted that road formation is completed and acquisition proceedings are over, award had been passed and amount has been deposited, but the petitioners have not received or collected the award amount. According to the petitioners, the land requires to be valued as non agriculture/commercial purpose as land was converted for non-agriculture purpose way back on 25.02.2010 and they had approved a plan for putting up of commercial activity vide order dated 18.03.2010 and acquisition proceedings taken place in June, 2010, so therefore respondents ought to have considered the grant of compensation in terms of the land as commercial land rather than agriculture land, which has not been done.

In view of the fact that the representations of petitioners though stated to have been considered by respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8592 WP No. 106509 of 2023

HC-KAR

respondents to re-consider the payment of compensation and enhancement of market value in accordance to the representations of the petitioners made herein above and the petition herein shall be treated as further representation of the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following :

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents to consider the representations given earlier and so also the present petition to be a representation and re-consider the case of

the petitioners and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CKK CT-MCK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46