Disposed¶47

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WP/116065/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition - mere representation to State insufficient unless State required to answer claim; incidental/vicarious liability on State impermissible; crop-loss compensation claim (Rs.10 lakhs; sugarcane fire; negligent tractor driver of Mylar Sugar Factory; low-lying IP/HT power lines); liberty to pursue alternative remedies; Section 14 Limitation Act protection against limitation plea by respondent No.2 after six years' pendency; Karnataka High Court Dharwad; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; WP No. 116065 of 2019 (GM-RES); disposed 21-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to avail all remedies available in law; in any such remedy respondent No.2 is barred from raising the plea of limitation, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No compensation awarded. ¶47

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar Vs Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable where the alleged wrong-doer is respondent No.2 (Mylar Sugar Limited) and representations were merely addressed to the State respondents (Deputy Commissioner and HESCOM). +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

A writ petition does not become maintainable merely because a representation was given to the State (the 1st and 3rd respondents); it becomes maintainable only if the State is required to answer the claim.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners seek to project an incidental liability on the part of the State, which is impermissible.

¶46

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to avail all remedies available in law; no compensation was adjudicated or awarded in these proceedings.ratio¶47
If the petitioners avail any such remedy, respondent No.2 shall not be permitted to raise the plea of limitation, as the petition was pending before this Court for six years, and the petitioners shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (M. Nagaprasanna J., 21-11-2025): Farmers' writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking mandamus for action on their representations and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for sugarcane crop loss caused by fire when a tractor of Mylar Sugar Limited touched low-lying IP/HT power lines. Held: a petition does not become maintainable merely because representations were addressed to the State (Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and HESCOM) unless the State is required to answer the claim; projecting an incidental liability on the State is impermissible. Petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail all remedies in law; respondent No.2 not permitted to plead limitation in any such remedy given six years' pendency, with benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16058 WP No. 116065 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 116065 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CHANDRAPPA BASAPPA BANAKAR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶7

REVANAPPA BASAPPA BANAKAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶8

2a. ASHWINI D/O. REFVANEPPA BANKAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEOWORK, R/O. NO.123 STAGE SRINIDI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BBMP, BENGALURU-560097.

¶9

2b. NAYANA D/O. REVANELPPA BANAKAR AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O. NO.123 SATE SRINIDI LAYOUT,VIDYARANYAPURA BBMP, BENGALURU-560097.

¶10

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶11

2c. ANITHA D/O. REVANAPPA BANKER AGE: 32 YEARS,OCC HOUSE WORK R/O. NO.123 SATE SRINIDI LAYOUT,VIDYARANYAPURA BBMP, BENGALURU-560097.

¶12

NAGAPPA BASAPPA BANAKAR AGE: 64 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16058 WP No. 116065 of 2019

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYLAR SUGAR LIMITED, BEERABBI, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVRI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE-583216.

¶21

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) RANEBENNUR DIVISION, HESCOM, RANEBENNUR-581115.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. B.M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶25

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶26

ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO TAKE A CORRECTIVE ACTION OF OUR LETTER DATED 11.07.2019 AND 09.09.2019 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO2 MYLAR SUGAR FACTORY AS MENTIONED IN THE AS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE D AND E AND ALSO BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 23.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE K AND 19.06.2019 ANNEXURE-F 05.07.2019 AS PER ANNEXURES L FURTHER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3. THEREAFTER TAKE APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION AS PER LAW ON INTEREST SO THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE FARMERS AND GET THE JUSTICE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY.

¶27

ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 2 AND 3 TO COMPENSATE THE CROP LOSSES OF SUGAR CANE DUE TO FIRE AND NEGLIGENCY OF TRACTOR DRIVER OF MYLAR SUGAR FACTORY TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA31 T 2833 WITH TWO TROLLEYS 1) NO.KA 24 TRS 694 2) MH 13 AJ 4395 HAD TOUCH THE LOW LYING OF IP AND HT POWERLINE AND ESTIMATED LOSS OF RS.10.00LAKHS BY THE RESPONDENT 1, 2 AND 3. FURTHER GIVE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.1 2 AND 3 TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS OF SUGAR CANE DUE TO NEGLIGENCY AND PRAY FOR COMPENSATION OF RS.10.00 LAKHS.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16058 WP No. 116065 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶34

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶35

a. “Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to take a corrective action of our letter dated 11.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 before Respondent No2 Mylar Sugar Factory as mentioned in the as mentioned in the ANNEXURE-D and E and also before respondent No.1 dated 23.02.2019 as per ANNEXURE-K and 19.06.2019 ANNEXURE-F 05.07.2019 as per ANNEXURES-L further before respondent No.3. Thereafter take appropriate remedial action as per law on interest so that the petitioners are farmers and get the justice in the interest of equity.

¶36

b. Issue appropriate order, writ or direction to the respondents No.1 2 and 3 to compensate the crop losses of Sugar cane due to fire and negligency of tractor driver of Mylar Sugar factory tractor bearing No.KA31 T 2833 with two Trolleys 1) No.KA 24 TRS 694 2) MH 13 AJ 4395 had touch the low lying of IP and HT powerline and estimated loss of Rs.10.00lakhs by the Respondent 1, 2 and 3. Further give Direction to Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to compensate the loss of sugar cane due to negligency and pray for compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

¶37

c. Pass such other orders of relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶38

The petitioners are said to have suffered on account

¶39

of the negligent driving on the part of the driver of respondent

¶40

No.2–Sugar Factory, the tractor driver having come in contact with the IP and HD low-lying power lines over the sugarcane

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16058 WP No. 116065 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

crop. Therefore, the entire blame in the petition is attributed to the 2^nd respondent.

¶45

Merely because a representation is given to the State, the 1^st respondent and the 3^rd respondent, the petition would not become maintainable unless the State is required to answer the claim.

¶46

The petitioner seeks to project an incidental liability on the part of the State, which is impermissible in the case at hand.

¶47

Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail all remedies available in law, the petition stands disposed of.

¶48

In the event the petitioners avail any such remedy, respondent No.2 shall not be permitted to raise the plea of limitation, as the petition was pending before this Court for the last six years, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be available to the petitioner.

¶49

Ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶51

AC CT:ANB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satheesh Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mathad Gurubasavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar Vs State Bank of India

M/S. Vistanest Ventures LLP Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri Lingappa S/O Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr.K. Vijayakumar S/O K B Elisha, Vs State of Karnataka