Smt. Kasturewwa W/O. Shivaputrappa Kavali Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108280 OF 2015 (LA-HS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KASTUREWWA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA KAVALI SINCE DECEASED, PETITONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED.

¶8

SRI. IRANNA S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA KAVALI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALAGERI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶9

DANAMMA W/O. KUMAR GIDAGERI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANGOLLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI

¶11

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.04 10:30:37 +0530

¶12

MAHADEVI W/O. MALLIKARJUN GIDAGERI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANGOLLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KAVALAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶23

SMT. SAVITRI W/O. SHIVALINGA PAWALI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SURYEBAN, TQ: RAMDURG-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION DATED 20.07.1978 IN NO.LAQ(HS) SR6/78-79 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 OF SCHEDULE LAND AND NOTIFICATION DATED 17.02.1988 IN NO.LAQ.HS/SR.6/78-79 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B UNDER SECTION 3(3) AND 4(3) OF KARNATAKA ACQUISITION OF LAND OF GRANT OF HOUSE SITES ACT 1972, AND PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 02.01.1976, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have called in question the impugned acquisition notification dated 20.07.1978 (AnnexureA) and the subsequent notification dated 17.02.1988 , issued by respondent No.1 under Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 ( ‘the Act’, for short), in respect of land bearing R.S.No.114 , measuring 3 acres 22 guntas, situated at Kavalageri Village, Taluk and District Dharwad, and seeking further declaration that the said acquisition has lapsed in law, as well as assailing the consequential notice dated 03.08.2015 issued by respondent No.4 - Village Accountant directing the petitioners to vacate the land.

¶35

2. The brief facts of the case:

¶36

2.1. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the land in question and assert that they are in continuous possession and cultivation thereof.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

2.2. Initially, acquisition proceedings were initiated in

¶41

the year 1978 by issuing notification dated 20.07.1978 under Section 3(4) of the Act, for formation of house sites for houseless persons of the village.

¶42

2.3. The said notification was challenged before this

¶43

Court in W.P.No.12285/1978, wherein this Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification issued under Section 3(4) of the Act, reserving liberty to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed afresh from the stage at which the infirmity had occurred.

¶44

2.4. Thereafter, a fresh notification dated 17.02.1988

¶45

was issued under Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of the Act and published in the Karnataka Gazette, followed by an award dated 30.03.1994, which was intimated on 01.04.1994.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

2.5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, though the respondents contend that the possession was taken on 26.01.1989 and mutation entries were effected subsequently, actual physical possession of the land has never been taken and the petitioners have continued to remain in possession and cultivate the land, and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners till date, despite the award having been passed in the year 1994.

¶50

2.6. After conclusion of the civil proceedings between the parties, in O.S.No.258/2006, R.A. No.39/2007, and R.S.A. No.5377/2009, the Village Accountant issued the impugned notice dated 03.08.2015 directing the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of the land, which has led to filing of the present writ petition.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

3. Contention of the petitioners:

¶55

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings have never culminated in accordance with law, as neither actual possession has been taken nor compensation paid.

¶56

3.2. It is submitted that mere panchanama, mutation entries, or revenue records do not constitute lawful taking of possession.

¶57

3.3. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶58

Apex Court in the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority¹ ( Offshore Holdings) and Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others² (Bernard Francis) , it is contended that the acquisition proceedings, which have remained

¶59

1 (2011) 3 SCC 139

¶60

2 2025 SCC Online SC 20

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

unimplemented for decades, without divesting the landowner of possession and without payment of compensation, are liable to be held as lapsed .

¶64

3.4. It is further contended that, the land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, even after several decades, and that the continued retention of the notifications, coupled with non-utilisation of the land, is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶65

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents - State sought to justify the acquisition proceedings by relying upon the notifications, award, and mutation entries standing in the name of the local authority, contending that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants liable to be evicted. He places on record the mutation entry with

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

regard to taking of possession and the list of beneficiaries indicated under the Ashraya Scheme.

¶70

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶71

The record clearly establishes that physical possession of the land has never been taken from the petitioners. The reliance placed by the respondents on mutation entries and the list of beneficiaries, cannot, by themselves, constitute lawful taking of possession, particularly when the petitioners have demonstrated continuous possession and cultivation of the land. Equally significant is the admitted fact that no compensation has been paid to the petitioners even after more than two decades from the date of the award till date. The acquisition proceedings have thus remained dormant and unimplemented in substance for several decades.

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Offshore Holdings , has categorically held that acquisition is not completed by mere issuance of a notification or passing of an award, and that actual taking of possession or payment of compensation are essential to a valid acquisition. Where either of these requirements is absent, the acquisition cannot be sustained in law.

¶76

In the present case, the respondents have neither taken possession of the land nor paid compensation, nor has the land been utilised for the stated public purpose. Permitting such acquisition to subsist without payment of compensation or utilisation of the land would amount to arbitrary deprivation of property, thereby offending Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶77

Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the acquisition proceedings in question have lapsed and failed in law, and that all consequential

¶78

10 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1145 WP No. 108280 of 2015

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

actions founded thereon, including the impugned notice issued by the Village Accountant, are

¶81

unsustainable.

¶82

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶85

ii. The impugned Acquisition Notifications dated 20.07.1978 (Annexure-A) and dated 17.02.1988 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed .

¶86

iii. Consequently, the impugned notice issued dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.4 - the Village Accountant, Kavalageri, is also quashed .

¶87