Kishanrao S/O. Ramarao Deshpande Vs the City Muncipality

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:479 WP No. 104452 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104452 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KISHANRAO S/O. RAMARAO DESHPANDE AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O. GANGAVATHI NEAR, RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MATH, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE CITY MUNCIPALITY GANGAVATHI TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GANGAVATHI.

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶13

GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI

¶14

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.24 11:27:18 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29-05-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G WITHIN A STIPULATED PERIOD; ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT ARE DEEMED PROPER AND NECESSARY BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ALONG WITH EXEMPLARY COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:479 WP No. 104452 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-G).

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite clear and specific direction of this Court in W.P.No.65542/2012, preferred by the petitioner, directing the respondent to consider petitioner’s representation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order dated 03.02.2021, respondent No.1 has failed to comply the same. On account of such inaction, the petitioner was constrained to submit a fresh representation dated 29.05.2025 once again requesting the authorities to acquire his land and pay compensation in accordance with law.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC-D:479 WP No. 104452 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The operative portion of the order dated 03.02.2021

¶30

passed by this Court in W.P.No.65542/2012, reads as

¶31

under:

¶32

“The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-D dated 16.8.2011 in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.”

¶33

Respondent No.1 is a statutory authority, and he is bound to comply the order passed by this Court. Despite a specific judicial direction requiring consideration of the petitioner’s representation within stipulated time, respondent No.1 has failed to act, thereby compelling the petitioner to once again invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶34

Having regard to the continued noncompliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, and consideration the fact that initiation of further proceedings would not

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:479 WP No. 104452 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

immediately redress the grievance of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of the justice would be met by a issuing a fresh direction along with imposition of cost.

¶39

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court pass the following order:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶42

ii. Mandamus is issued, respondent No.1 is directed to consider petitioner’s representations dated 16.08.2011 and 29.05.2025 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶43

iii. Cost of ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) is imposed on respondent No.1, payable within two weeks from today, and an acknowledgment of payment shall be filed before the Registry.

¶44

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶45

gab/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Kishanrao S/O. Ramarao Deshpande v. the City Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishanrao S/O. Ramarao Deshpande v. the City Muncipality

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

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O.Budanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Basamma W/O Hirebalappa Uppar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. M N Balanaikar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hind Metals Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial

Yamanappa S/O. Basappa Muttagi, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Pramod S/O Manohar Patil Vs the Additional Commissioner of