Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108288 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BASAPPA AKHANDAPPA HADAPAD SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,

¶8

SRI. RAMANNA S/O. BASAPPA HADAPAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. SHANKRAPPA S/O. BALAPPA HADAPAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. CHIKKAHODLUR, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. M. SIDDARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K.P BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶14

GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 14:52:05 +0530

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER FOR UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

THE GENERAL MANAGER REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT THE ADDL. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT, DATED 28.04.2014 BEARING NO. ºÉ«¨sÀÆ¸Áé/£Áå¥Àæ:qÀ§Æèöå¦:£ÀA:8368783688-83689-83690/2013/162 (ANNEXURE-K) AS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND ETC.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned endorsement dated 28.04.2014 issued by the respondent–Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkot, whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired pot kharab land has been rejected.

¶28

2. The brief facts of the case are;

¶29

2.1. The petitioners are the owners of lands bearing

¶30

Survey Nos. 178/1 and 178/2 , each measuring 1 acre 20 guntas , including pot kharab land, situated at Chikkaholdur Village, Bagalkot Taluk and District.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

2.2. The said lands came to be acquired for the purpose of the Upper Krishna Project, and an award was passed on 04.12.1997.

¶34

2.3. While compensation has been paid in respect of the cultivable portion of the land, compensation in respect of the pot kharab portion has been denied by issuing the impugned endorsement.

¶35

2.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the pot kharab land in question falls under Rule 21(2)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (‘the KLR Rules’, for short), and therefore continues to vest with the landowner and is compensable upon acquisition. It is further contended that the respondent authority has failed to record any finding as to whether the land falls under Rule 21(2)(a) or Rule 21(2)(b) of the KLR Rules, and has mechanically denied compensation on the ground that the land was not assessed prior to the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence it is contended that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 21 of the KLR Rules and is opposed to the settled position of law.

¶41

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned endorsement contending that compensation is not payable in respect of pot kharab land and that the endorsement has been issued in accordance with law.

¶42

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

¶43

A perusal of the impugned endorsement discloses that the respondent authority has not recorded any categorical finding as to whether the pot kharab land acquired falls under Rule 21(2)(a) or Rule 21(2)(b) of the KLR Rules.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

This Court, in Smt. Seetawwa Patil Vs. The Special

¶48

Land Acquisition Officer and Another¹ , has clearly held that pot kharab lands falling under Rule 21(2)(a) of KLR Rules are not Government lands and belong to the landowner, and that such lands are compensable upon acquisition.

¶49

The Pot Kharab lands are classified into two categories under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which reads thus:

¶50

“ 21. Classification.—

¶51

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶52

(2) During the process of classification land included as unarable shall be treated as ‘Pot Kharab’. Pot Kharab lands may be classified as follows.—

¶53

(a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder;

¶54

(b) That which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it

¶55

1 W.P.No.30360 of 2008 disposed of on 07.08.2009

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

is occupied by a road or recognized footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for village potteries.

¶59

The distinction between lands falling under Rule 21(2)(a) and Rule 21(2)(b) is fundamental, inasmuch as lands falling under Rule 21(2)(a) continue to remain the property of the landowner and are compensable upon acquisition, whereas the lands falling under Rule 21(2)(b) vest in the Government.

¶60

In the absence of any determination regarding the classification of the pot kharab land, the respondent authority could not have rejected the claim of the petitioners for compensation. Failure to examine this jurisdictional fact renders the impugned endorsement arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The matter, therefore, requires reconsideration by the respondent authority to determine, after due verification of the

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

revenue records and other relevant material, whether the acquired pot kharab lands fall under Category 2(a) or Category 2(b) of Rule 21 of the KLR Rules, after due verification of the revenue records and relevant material.

¶64

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶67

ii. The impugned endorsement/order dated 28.04.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 –

¶68

Special Land Acquisition Officer is hereby set aside .

¶69

iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1– Special Land Acquisition Officer for fresh consideration.

¶70

iv. The respondent authority shall determine, after due verification of the revenue records and relevant

¶71

8 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1022 WP No. 108288 of 2014

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

material, whether the acquired pot kharab land in Survey Nos.178/1 and 178/2, situated at Chikkaholdur Village, falls under Category ‘2(a)’ or Category ‘2(b)’ of Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶75

v. If the land is found to fall under Category ‘2(a)’, the respondent authority shall pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation in accordance with law.

¶76

vi. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶77

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶78

gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha W/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Divya W/O Nitay Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitay S/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Renavva W/O Lakshman Madar Vs Kadampur Gram Panchayat

Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao Vs Union of India