Dismissed

Thimmanna S/O. Venkappa Hanagandi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026WP/102329/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging land acquisition for limestone mining, contending the fresh Section 6(1) declaration was barred by limitation and that the award was passed after repeal of the 1894 Act. The Court held Padmausundara Rao distinguishable since the earlier declaration was quashed only on urgency grounds and compliance followed. Petitions dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thimmanna S/O. Venkappa Hanagandi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 103316 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

¶6

C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102329 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

¶7

IN WP No. 103316/2014: BETWEEN:

¶8

THIMMANNA S/O. VENKAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 74 YEARS,

¶9

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, GOKAK TALUKA, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

SHIDDAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 70 YEARS,

¶11

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, GOKAK TALUKA, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.18 10:31:20 +0530

¶14

GOURWWA W/O. SHIDDAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, GOKAK TALUKA, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

SUBHAS S/O. GIREPPA KIWADI

¶16

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, GOKAK TALUKA, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶17

&PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶27

&RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 09.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN BHUSWA:VIVAHI.GO:200/2010-11, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶30

IN WP NO. 102329/2014:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

THIMMANNA S/O. VENKAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶33

SHIDDAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS R/O. YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM.

¶34

SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. SHIDDAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶35

SUBHAS S/O. GIREPPA KIWADI

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶39

...PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SMT. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDNG, BANGALORE.

¶43

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM.

¶44

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 16.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KUMSHA:BHUSWA:VIVAHI:4125, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE DECLARATION DATED 08.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT IN NO.KO.I.80:BHUSWAL 2012, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶48

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORAL ORDER

¶54

The point that arises for consideration is;

¶55

Whether the petitioners have made out any legal ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, culminating in the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award dated 09.01.2014, so as to warrant interference?

¶56

These writ petitions are filed calling in question

¶57

the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of their land situated at Yadawad village, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District, seeking quashing of the preliminary notification dated 16.11.2010, and the final declaration dated 08.07.2013 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 8 Act9 ) and in WP No. 103316/2014, the award dated 09.01.2014, contending that the proceedings are vitiated on the ground of limitation, violation of principles of natural justice, lack of

¶58

jurisdiction and on the premise that the award has been passed after the repeal of the Act.

¶59

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

3. Brief facts ;

¶62

The lands belonging to the petitioners were proposed

¶63

to be acquired for the purpose of limestone mining. A preliminary notification dated 16.11.2010 was issued, followed by the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Aggrieved by the invocation of urgency, the petitioner approached this Court in the earlier writ petitions.

¶64

This Court by order dated 05.06.2012, quashed

¶65

the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act only on the ground that the urgency clause was unjustified and directed that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act be treated as a normal preliminary notification, reserving liberty to the landowners to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. Pursuant thereto objections were filed by the petitioners. A detailed enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted, the acquiring body submitted its remarks and a report was forwarded to the

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶67

the

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Government. Thereafter,

¶70

Government approved and issued a fresh declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 08.07.2013, which was published in official gazette, in newspapers and by village publication. Subsequently, notices under Section 9 and 12(2) of the Act were issued and an award came to be passed on 09.01.2014.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the declaration dated 08.07.2013 is barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. It is contended that no proper opportunity of hearing was

¶72

granted and the objections were not considered, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the acquisition is a colorable exercise of power and not for a genuine public purpose. It is stated that the award dated 09.01.2014 is without jurisdiction, as it has been passed after the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which stood repealed by 2013 Act. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Padmausundara

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Rao (Dead) and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and

¶76

Others¹ (Padmausundara Rao) .

¶77

Per contra , the counsel appearing for the

¶78

respondents would contend that after the earlier order of this Court, a full-fledged inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted and objections were duly considered. The declaration dated 08.07.2013 was issued within the permissible period, reckoning time, from the date of receipt of this Court's order. It is submitted that the acquisition is for public purpose and acquiring body is a Government undertaking. The award was passed in accordance with law and no vested right of the petitioner is infringed. The judgment relied in Padmausundara Rao 's case is inapplicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.

¶79

This Court has carefully considered the

¶80

contentions urged and perused the materials on record.

¶81

1 Civil Appeal No.2058/2002 D.D.13.03.2002

¶82

8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

The core question before the Court is whether,

¶85

after declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed by a Court, a fresh and an extended period of limitation becomes available to the State to issue another

¶86

declaration. The earlier declaration was quashed only on the ground of improper invocation of urgency clause and not on the merits of the acquisition. Pursuant to the liberty

¶87

granted, objections were invited, heard and a detailed report under Section 5A of the Act was submitted and considered by the Government. The declaration dated 08.07.2013 was duly published in gazette, newspapers and by village publication and personal notices were served. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Padmausundara Rao 9s case authoritatively examined the

¶88

scope and limitation prescribed under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. The Apex Court laid down that

¶89

statutory timelines under Section 6 are inflexible and reinforcing that the principle that legislative intent must be gathered strictly from the words of the statute, it is held

¶90

9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

that the time limit prescribed in the first proviso to Section

¶93

6(1) of the Act is mandatory and peremptory. It was further held that once a declaration under Section 6 is passed, no fresh or extended period of limitation becomes available to the State and the period cannot be reckoned from the date of the Court's order. The Court clarified that the Courts cannot supply a cascus omesis or legislative by interpretation, as statutory timelines must be strictly adhered. The reliance placed by the petitioners on Padmausundara Rao 's case is distinguishable and on facts of the present case. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was held to be barred by limitation simpliciter in

¶94

Padmausundara Rao 9s case, with no intervening judicial directions requiring fresh statutory compliance. In the present case, the earlier declaration was quashed on the ground of improper invocation of urgency and not on

¶95

limitation or on merits. Unlike Padmausundara Rao 's case, the present declaration dated 08.07.2013 was issued after the compliance with this Court's earlier order,

¶96

10 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

pursuant to a full-fledged enquiry under Section 5A of the

¶100

Act consideration of objection and approval by the Government. The declaration impugned herein was issued with a permissible statutory framework, after excluding the period consumed in litigation and statutory compliance and therefore does not suffer from the vice of limitation that was decisive in Padmausundara Rao 9s case. The Padmausundara Rao 9s case dealt exclusively with inflexibility of limitation under Section 6(1) of the Act and does not lay down that every subsequent declaration following a Court order is per se void .

¶101

The Apex Court itself cautioned that precedents must be applied having regard to the factual context and expressly held that the judgment would operate prospectively and the matters which have progressed substantially should not be unsettled as aspect that further weakens the petitioner's reliance. Accordingly, this Court

¶102

holds that the judgment in Padmausundara Rao 9s case does not advance the case of the petitioner and is clearly

¶103

11 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC-D:388 WP No. 103316 of 2014 C/W WP No. 102329 of 2014

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

distinguishable. The statutory violation found in that case

¶107

is absent in the present acquisition proceedings. The petitioners have failed to establish any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the acquisition proceedings and accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following;

¶108

ORDER

¶109

i) The writ petition is dismissed as

¶110

devoid of merits .

¶111

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶112

PJ/Ct:VH

¶113

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69