Sri. Papanna T Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO DISBURSE THE AWARD GRANTED TO THE FATHER OF PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND UNDER THE URBAN LAND

¶20

2 -

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:37588 WP No. 21972 of 2026

¶23

CNR: KAHC010491252026

¶24

CEILING ACT, 1976, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/10/2024 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND A1).

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent-authorities to disperse the award amount granted to the father of the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and to consider the representation dated 22.10.2024 produced as Annexure-A and A1 in this regard.

¶28

2. Petitioner claims to be son of one Sri.Thimma @ Dappatale Thimma @ Thimmegowda. The said Thimma stated to have owned and possessed lands in Sy.Nos.88/1, 88/2, 60/2, 84, 68/1, 68/3, 69, 64/2, 62/2, 84 and 100 in all measuring 32 acres 3 guntas. That the said lands were subject matter of proceedings under the

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37588 WP No. 21972 of 2026

¶32

CNR: KAHC010491252026

¶33

Act. Possession of excess land is stated to have been taken over by the State.

¶34

3. Petitioner along with his other brothers and nephews had approached this Court by filing writ petition in WP No. 45921/2002, questioning the proceedings initiated by the respondent-State which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, a writ appeal was filed in WA No. 8038/2003. The said writ appeal was also dismissed, confirming the order passed in the writ petition holding that, the possession of the land in dispute was indeed taken over by the State Government on 15.10.1996. Petitioner had carried the said order in Special Leave petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (civil) No.8517/2005, which also resulted in dismissal. A Review Petition was also filed in Review Petition No.569/2023 seeking review of the order passed in the writ appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Again, after dismissal of the Review Petition, the petitioner carried the matter to Hon'ble Apex Court, which also came to be dismissed, reserving liberty to the

¶35

4 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:37588 WP No. 21972 of 2026

¶38

CNR: KAHC010491252026

¶39

petitioner, to work out the remedy so far as non-payment of compensation is concerned.

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits it is in the light of the aforesaid liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner had made an application on 22.10.2024 as per Annexure A and A1 to respondent No.1, which has not been considered till date, hence the present writ petition.

¶41

5. Learned HCGP submits that given some time, the case of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶42

6. Heard and perused the records.

¶43

7. Records indicate that the petitioner is claiming his right as son of Thimma who was stated to be the erstwhile owner of the lands vested with the State in furtherance to the provisions of the Act. Petitioner, his brothers and nephews had earlier approached as noted above. Present petition is filed only by the petitioner.

¶44

8. The respondent-authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner and shall also hold an enquiry regarding the descendants/ family members of

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:37588 WP No. 21972 of 2026

¶46

5 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CNR: KAHC010491252026

¶49

original owner Thimma and shall thereafter pass the order on the representations so made, strictly accordance with law. Such orders shall be passed within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of

¶50

this order. Hence, the petition is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Papanna T v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Papanna T v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Radhamma W/O Omkarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. H K Srinath, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

R Chalimeswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tabrez Khan Vs Union of India

Smt. Bhayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mahabalesh K B Vs Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.