Sri Hanumantha Rao Gaikwad Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. RAMACHANDRA RAO GAIKWAD, S/O. PANDURANGA GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT: SRI GULLAMMA TEMPLE BEEDHI, RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶15

SRI. DAULATH RAO GAIKWAD S/O. PANDURANGA GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT: SRI GULLAMMA TEMPLE BEEDHI, RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. RATNABAI PAWAR, D/O. PANDURANGA GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT: SRI GULLAMMA TEMPLE BEEDHI, RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI,

¶20

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶21

SMT. JIJABAI KADAM D/O. PANDURANGA GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT:

¶22

SRI GULLAMMA TEMPLE BEEDHI, RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶23

&APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. BHARAT S RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶28

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OPP: MCGANN HOSPITAL, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶29

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH,

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶34

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶35

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, CHENNAGIRI ROAD, RANGAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. (NO DIRECT RELIEF IS CLAIMED AGAINST R3 TO R6)

¶36

&RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, R2, R3 AND R5, R6)

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:20.02.2025 IN W.P.NO.18492/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶46

This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the unsuccessful petitioners, challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.18492/2024, whereby the writ Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶47

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

¶48

It is the case of the petitioners that land in Sy.No.214/21A1 measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas and land in Sy.No.214/1/B measuring 11 guntas situated at Bhadravathi, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga District are belonging to their father and the same has been purchased by him under the Sale Deed for valuable consideration.

¶49

During the year 2005-2006, the petitioners

¶50

gained knowledge that the Government offices and Courts

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

are functioning in the buildings that have been constructed on the land belonged to his family i.e., in the aforesaid survey numbers. On further investigation, the petitioners learnt that the said lands were purportedly acquired and compensation said to have been paid to the father of the appellants in the year 1943. However, in the Gazette notification vide Annexure-E dated 16.03.1948, the name of the father of the appellants, i.e., Panduranga Gaikwad is shown as Kathedar. In the year 2015, the petitioners approached this Court in WP.No.47624/2025 seeking a direction to the respondent-authority to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the aforesaid property and to pay compensation, in terms of the representation dated 05.01.2015.

¶54

The writ Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-authorities to consider the representation vide order dated 16.06.2017 in a time bound manner. Thereafter, the respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued a response stating that the land

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

acquisition proceedings were initiated long ago during the year 1945-1946 and the compensation has been paid to the father of the petitioners. This made the petitioners to approach this Court in WP.No.8839/2021 seeking for

¶58

similar relief as sought in the earlier writ petition. The primary ground on which the writ petition laid before this Court was that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner had not given detailed reasoning in response to the representation earlier given by the petitioners.

¶59

The writ Court vide order dated 02.06.2023 directed respondent No.3-Assistant commissioner therein to consider the representation afresh by giving detailed reasoning and remanded matter to Assistant Commissioner keeping open all the contentions. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter in LAQ(2)/CR/140/2017-18 and passed an order dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure-C) holding that the land claimed by the petitioners have been acquired and the compensation has been paid to the father of the

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

petitioners in LAC.65/42-43 and LAC.66/42-43 by way of

¶63

cash and compensation in respect of land in Survey No.214/2A to the extent of 14 guntas was paid to the Town Municipality Council in the year 1948 in LAC No.118-

¶64

1948-49. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner in appeal which was turned down by the Deputy Commissioner on 13.06.2024 for want of jurisdiction. Assailing these orders, the petitioners are before the writ Court.

¶65

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶66

appearing for the petitioners before the writ Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶67

VIDYADEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND

¶68

OTHERS in Civil Appeal Nos.60-61/2020, stressing on paragraph No.10.2, contending that the respondentauthorities has expropriated the property belonged to the petitioners without acquisition and without paying the compensation and further argued that no acceptable

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

document is furnished to the petitioners with regard to the process of acquisition which is stated to have taken place between the years 1942-1946 and payment of compensation having been made in the year 1948.

¶73

Further, it was argued that unless and until such documents are furnished to the petitioners, the petitioners could not be satisfied with regard to the acquisition stated to have taken place back in the year 1945-46. It was argued that the respondent-authority be called upon to furnish said documents and in the event if those documents are not available, presumption has to be drawn that the land of the petitioners has been utilised without acquisition warranting payment in accordance with law.

¶74

The contentions of the petitioners before the writ Court has been resisted by the learned Additional Government Advocate by contending that the respondentAssistant Commissioner has indeed provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. Besides had also obtained records from all the concerned departments and after a

¶75

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

thorough enquiry, had concluded that the acquisition of

¶78

the properties being claimed by the petitioners had taken place between in 1942-43 and the compensation was paid in the year 1948. There is no plausible explanation offered

¶79

as to the claim of the petitioners regarding the knowledge about the respondent-authorities utilised the property in the year 2005-2006. Therefore, it is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone and sought to dismiss the petition.

¶80

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 which is the Zilla Panchayat, Shivamogga, drew the attention of the writ Court to page number 6 of the order passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and argued that the Bhadravathi Court building is in existence on the property being claimed by the petitioners from the year since 1952 and other Government buildings were constructed on the said property in 1965-66 and have been functioning since then. He also submits that private hospital by name Nirmala Hospital has been constructed in

¶81

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

the year 1954 upon the land being sold by the Municipality. He also points out that the RespondentAssistant Commissioner has found from the plaque on the wall of the police station that the said building was constructed on 11.12.1983 and inaugurated by the then Deputy General and Inspector General of Police and thus, he submits that the properties have been fully and completely utilised by the Government for various purposes referred to above between the year 1952 to 1990. No objections have been raised by the petitioners or their forefathers. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶84

The writ Court having heard the rival submissions and considering the entire material on record, found that the order passed by the respondent- Assistant Commissioner was based on the records which he has obtained from various concerned authorities, considering the fact that since the year 1966-67 onwards there has been full fledged functioning of offices belonging to the

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Revenue Department, Magistrate Court and Court Complex etc.

¶89

On the query by the Court, the learned counsel

¶90

appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the existence of these buildings ever since the dates mentioned in the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The

¶91

writ Court has observed that the writ petition raises a serious doubt regarding the knowledge now innocently pleaded by the petitioners that they notice for the first

¶92

time in 2005 of the Government offices and Court buildings are functioning on the land stated supra. Further, observed that it cannot be expected persons like petitioners not knowing about these buildings coming into existence and functioning for over 75 years and further

¶93

the writ Court observed that now the demand by the petitioners regarding furnishing of documents by the respondent-authorities in respect of the proceedings is unreasonable and unrealistic and opined that given the

¶94

fact that the land has been openly used by the

¶95

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

respondent-State for the public purposes, merely because,

¶98

the name of the father of the petitioners are reflected in the Gazette notification at Annexure-E in the column of kathedar, same does not give any right to the petitioners seeking respondents to open the otherwise concluded acquisition proceedings.

¶99

It is opined that it is not the case of the respondent- authorities that they are utilizing the property without process of acquisition. Roving enquiry as sought

¶100

for by the petitioners to the details of the acquisition proceedings cannot be undertaken at the whims and fancies of the petitioners who have come to this Court after lapse of more than 75 years, that too, pleading innocence and ignorance and cannot be permitted.

¶101

In the light of these factual aspect, the writ

¶102

Court found that the order passed by the respondentAssistant Commissioner does not require any interference

¶103

13 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

and accordingly, dismissed the petition. It is this order

¶107

passed by the writ Court is called in this appeal.

¶108

Sri. Bharat Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and heard.

¶109

Sri. Bharat Rao, again reiterated the very same contentions urged before the learned Single Judge and relied on the judgment of VIDYADEVI stated supra, to contend that the properties without acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation are being utilized by the Government offices, Courts and in these circumstances the petitioners who noticed this for the first

¶110

time in the year 2005-2006 are entitled for the compensation. He further submits that, now the buildings

¶111

are constructed way back in the year 1952 and functioning, the petitioners may not be entitled for the land, but definitely entitled for compensation under the

¶112

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since no compensation has been paid and sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the writ Court and allow the writ petition.

¶115

In contrast, Sri. Sudev Hegde submits that the writ Court having considered the entire records and satisfied that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner passed order impugned in the writ petition on the records which he has obtained from the concerned authorities and the fact that the buildings are functioning since 1952, opined that no case has been made out by petitioners which warrants interference in the order of the Assistant commissioner and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court and the same be dismissed with the exemplary costs.

¶116

The learned Single Judge has considered the entire materials and come to a right conclusion while

¶117

15 -

¶118

NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

subscribing his reasons in paragraph Nos.11 to 15 which

¶121

reads as under:

¶122

"11. That the aforesaid information and the details found in the order passed by the Respondent - Assistant Commissioner are based on the records which he has obtained from the concerned authorities. Clearly from the year 1966-67 onwards there has been full fledged functioning of Offices belonging to Revenue Department, Magistrate Court and Court Complex etc.

¶123

12. Interestingly on a query by this Court learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the existence of these buildings ever since the dates mentioned in the order of Assistant Commissioner. If that be so, innocent pleading being urged by the petitioners of they not being aware of utilization of the land until year 2005 -2006 raises a serious doubt about the bonafides of the petitioners. It cannot be expected persons like petitioners not knowing about these buildings coming into existence and functioning for over 75 years. Perhaps first of the buildings was constructed even before the birth of the first petitioner as his age is shown as 67 years in the cause title of this petition which is of the year 2024. Whereas the first of the buildings apparently has been put up in the year 1952.

¶124

13. Details found at para 13 extracted hereinabove would indicate compensation has been paid/ received by the father of the petitioners in LAC No.65/42-43 and LAC 66/42- 43. Demand with vehemence by the counsel for petitioners for a direction to the respondent- authorities to furnish the documents regarding the said proceedings apart from being unreasonable is unrealistic. Given the fact that the land has been openly used by the respondent - State for the public purposes, merely because, the name of father of the petitioners is reflected in the Gazette notification at Annexure-E in the column of kathedar, same does not give any right for the petitioners to re-open and otherwise concluded acquisition proceedings. Nonetheless, name of the

¶125

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:15548-DB WA No. 1349 of 2025

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

occupant mentioned therein is of the Municipality of Bhadravathi who is one of the parties in the acquisition proceeding in LAC No.118-119/1948- 49 as found at page 13 of the order passed by the respondent - Assistant Commissioner.

¶128

14. It is not the case of respondent- authorities that they are utilising the property without process of acquisition. Roving enquiry as sought for by the petitioners to the details of the acquisition proceedings cannot be undertaken at the whims and fancies of the petitioners who have come to this Court after lapse of more than 75 years, that too pleading innocent and ignorance.

¶129

15. In the light of aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and the detail order passed by the respondent - Assistant Commissioner found at Annexure-C, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Petition lacks merit apart from being liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. Petition is accordingly dismissed."

¶130

We find no infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court which warrants interference at the hands of this Court. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed .

¶131

Though the conduct of petitioners in laying a claim for compensation after 77 years with an innocent pleading of knowledge in 2005-2006 warrants exemplary cost for wasting the valuable judicial as well as public time, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the

¶132