Dismissed¶31

Sri Mudalagiriyappa v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025WP/35252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (R. Nataraj J., 05.12.2025), WP No. 35252 of 2025 (LB-RES): Landowner sought mandamus against Chief Executive Engineer (R3) to deposit Rs.9,79,555/- enhanced compensation awarded by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Madhugiri in L.A.C No.2/2013 (order dated 05.02.2025) after R4 failed to deposit despite directions. Held: enforcement of enhanced award lies through execution, not writ of mandamus; petition dismissed with liberty to file execution petition. Statutes: Articles 226, 227, Constitution of India. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an execution petition to execute the award in accordance with law. ¶31

Sri Mudalagiriyappa Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51443 WP No. 35252 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35252 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUDALAGIRIYAPPA S/O. LATE THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEELIHALLI MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK - 522132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING VEEDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU. 572101.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ MADHUGIRI- 572 132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADUGIRI-572 132. TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SPOORTHY Y, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:51443 WP No. 35252 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO DEPOSIT RS.9,79,555/- WHICH IS AN ENHANCED COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT MADHUGIRI IN LAC NO. 2/2013 ANNEXURE-A ON HIS FILE FORTHWITH AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to deposit a sum of Rs.9,79,555/- which is the enhanced compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Madhugiri in LAC No.2/2013.

¶26

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of 23 guntas of land situate at Neelihalli villge, Madhugiri Taluk which was acquired for the purpose of road widening. The compensation was determined and the same was paid to the petitioner. However, the petitioner sought reference for enhancement of compensation, which was registered as L.A.C No.2/2013. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation by Rs.9,79,555/- vide its order dated 05.02.2025 and directed respondent No.4 to deposit the said amount. The respondent No.1 thereafter directed respondent No.2 to deposit the said

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51443 WP No. 35252 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

amount and report compliance. However, respondent No.4 has not taken any steps to deposit the amount. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to deposit the amount.

¶30

If the compensation awarded to the petitioner was enhanced, it was open for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the said award. He cannot seek for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to deposit the enhanced amount.

¶31

4. Hence the petition is dismissed . However liberty is

¶32

reserved to the petitioner to file an execution petition to execute the award in accordance with law.

¶33

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶34

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Mudalagiriyappa v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mudalagiriyappa v. the Principal Secretary

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

M Mukambika Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suman v Vs the Commissioner

M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt P Radhamma W/O Sri K Gopal Vs Smt B Nachetiram Ammal

Smt Mani T Vs Assistant Commissioner

Mr Rajendra Krishna Vs the Commissioner