Dismissed¶59

The State of Karnataka v. Yallubai Ramachandra Power

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026WA/100318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976; Section 10(6); taking of possession; competent officer; dispossession in manner known to law; no third-party rights created; delay in approaching Court not of much consequence; repeal of ULCRA; quashing of possession; mandamus to delete Government name from revenue records and restore lawful owners; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Division Bench; WA No. 100318 of 2021 (LA-UDA); Belagavi; State of Karnataka; writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving the Single Judge's order intact; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were held not to survive and were disposed of. ¶59

The State of Karnataka Vs Yallubai Ramachandra Power — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving the Single Judge's order intact; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were held not to survive and were disposed of.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether possession of the respondents' lands was validly taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by a competent officer in the manner contemplated under the Act. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the possession of the respondents' land was not taken by a competent officer and the respondents have not been dispossessed in the manner known to law.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Taking of possession of the land not done as contemplated under the provisions of the Act has to be considered as illegal.

¶52

Key takeaways

No third-party rights have been created in respect of the land, and the allegation of delay on the part of the respondents in approaching the Court to challenge the action of the Government is not of much consequence.ratio¶53
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 itself stands repealed at present.obiter¶58
This Court is in concurrence with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (M.I. Arun and B. Muralidhara Pai, JJ.; oral judgment per M.I. Arun, J.), High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, dismissed Writ Appeal No. 100318 of 2021 (LA-UDA) filed by the State of Karnataka under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P. No.103654/2017, whereby taking of possession of the respondents' lands under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Annexure-B) was quashed and mandamus was issued to delete the Government's name from the revenue records and restore the lawful owners' names within three months. Held: possession was not taken by a competent officer and the respondents were not dispossessed in the manner known to law; taking of possession otherwise than as contemplated under the Act is illegal; no third-party rights having been created, the delay in approaching the Court is not of much consequence; the Act itself now stands repealed. The Court expressed concurrence with the learned Single Judge; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100318 OF 2021 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶11

THE TAHASILDAR, BELAGAVI.

¶12

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA)

¶16

AND:

¶17

YALLUBAI RAMCHANDRA POWER, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

¶18

SHIVAJI S/O IRAPPA POWER, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶19

NAGESH S/O RAMCHANDRA POWER, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶20

MARUTI S/O RAMCHANDRA POWER, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

4A. MANISHA W/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

¶25

4B. NIKITA D/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

¶26

4C. ROHIT S/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶27

4D. REKHA D/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,

¶28

ALL ARE R/O. KALMESHWAR GALLI, KANGRAL B.K., TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶29

SHANKAR IRAPPA POWER, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶30

ALL ARE R/O. KALMESHWAR GALLI, KANGRAL B.K., TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶31

… RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4(A TO D);

¶33

SRI VADIRAJ PADAKANDLA AND SMT. POOJA, ADVOCATES FOR R1, R3 AND R5; R4-DECEASED)

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED IN W.P. NO.103654/2017 AND ETC.

¶35

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

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

¶42

Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.103654/2017 (LA-UDA), the present writ appeal is filed by the State. The lands of the respondents herein have been taken possession by the State under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). On the ground that a possession was not taken by the competent officer as contemplated under the Act and that no third party rights have been so far created, the respondents herein preferred Writ Petition No.103654/2017. Accepting the contention of the

¶43

respondents herein, the writ petition was allowed and the following order was passed:

¶44

“ORDER

¶45

a. The writ petition is allowed .

¶46

b. Taking of possession under Section 10(6) of the Act as per Annexure-B is quashed.

¶47

c. Writ of mandamus is issued to the 3^rd respondent to delete the name of Government in the revenue records

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

pertaining to petition lands and accordingly restore the names of lawful owners.

¶51

d. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶52

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. The learned Principal Government Advocate though contends that the impugned order is erroneous, he is unable to dispute the fact that the possession of the land of the respondents herein was not taken by a competent officer and the respondents have not been dispossessed in the manner known to law. It is also not in dispute that no third-party rights have been created so far and that the land continues to stand in the name of the Government. As taking possession of the land has not been done as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, the same has

¶53

to be considered as illegal. Further, no third-party rights have been created in respect of the land's concern, and the allegation of delay on the part of respondents herein in approaching this Court to challenge the action of the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Government is not of much consequence. Further, the

¶58

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 itself is repealed presently.

¶59