Nareappa Since Dead by His Lrs Ramesh Nayaka Vs State of Karnataka

RAMESH NAYAKA S/O LATE NAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MAREPALLI MAJARA KOTHURU VILLAGE, TALAGAVARA POST, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA-563128.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

MANJANNA

¶14

E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.13 12:21:06 +0530

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

KIADB

¶20

REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, ‘EAST WING’, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, SHANTI GRUHA, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, ARAMANE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶25

SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHINTAMANI-563125.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BENGALURU/VIBHUSWAAA-2/956/2023-24 DATED 28.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 27.04.2023 PASSED IN THE JOINT MEETING HELD BY THE RESPONDENTS AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CAV ORDER

¶35

The petitioner has called in question the

¶36

endorsement dated 28.06.2023 and the resolution dated 27.04.2023, whereby the compensation for mango trees

¶37

on the acquired lands has been denied and has sought a consequential direction to award compensation by treating the trees as aged six years.

¶38

Brief facts:

¶39

The land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.76P26 of Marepalli Village, Kaivara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District belonging to the petitioner, was acquired for the industrial purposes under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short). A preliminary notification was issued in the year 2019, followed by a statutory Joint Measurement Survey (JMC) conducted

¶40

contemporaneously. Final notification under Section 28 (4) was issued on 21.06.2020, an award was passed, and land

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

compensation was paid, possession was taken and the land vested in the State and was thereafter, handed over to the acquiring authority.

¶45

Heard Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioner, Sri Harish A.S., learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Sri B.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶47

Contention of the petitioners:

¶48

The petitioner contends that the joint inspection and malki valuation conducted in the year 2022 assessed 444 mango trees as aged about six years, fixing compensation at ` 24,083.98/- per tree. It is urged that

¶49

the respondents arbitrarily resiled from the said assessment, relied upon the satellite imagery, denied compensation without affording a hearing, and discriminated against the petitioner while extending compensation to similarly situated landowners. An application has also been filed seeking the appointment of

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

a Commissioner to physically inspect the land and assess

¶54

the trees.

¶55

Contention of the respondents:

¶56

The respondents contend that the writ petition

¶57

is not maintainable and is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the statutory JMC conducted in 2019 does not record the existence of any mango trees. The petitioner, despite filing objections under Section 28 sub-clause (2) of the KIAD Act, did not raise any claim regarding trees at the relevant stage. The subsequent inspection relied upon by

¶58

the petitioner is asserted to be a post-acquisition administrative inspection, which cannot override statutory records. Reliance is placed on the Government Circular dated 29.02.2022, which restricts payment of compensation for trees only to those recorded in the JMC. It is further contended that the issue raised involves disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶63

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶64

The entitlement to compensation for trees in

¶65

land acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act is governed by the statutory Joint Measurement Survey (JMC) conducted contemporaneously with the preliminary notification. Such survey forms the foundational record for the determination of compensable assets. In the present case, the statutory JMC conducted in the year 2019 does

¶66

not record the existence of any mango trees on the petitioner's land. The JMC report is produced by the respondent at Annexure-R2. The petitioner though served with notice and having filed objections under Section 28 (2), did not raise any grievance or claim in respect of mango trees at the relevant statutory stage. This omission is material and militates against the belated claim now sought to be advanced.

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

It is clarified that the inspection relied upon by

¶71

the plaintiff in the year 2022 was an administrative Joint inspection conducted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with respondent No.4 (Horticulture Department) and not a

¶72

statutory joint measurement survey or a Court appointed inspection, and having been conducted after the preliminary notification and vesting of the land, the said inspection cannot override the statutory Joint Measurement Certificate of the year 2019, nor confer any right to compensation.

¶73

The reliance placed on the malki valuation prepared pursuant to such post acquisition inspection is, therefore, misplaced. Compensation cannot be determined on the subsequent inspections conducted after vesting of land. The Government Circular dated 29.09.2022, which is binding on the authorities, expressly restricts payment of compensation for trees and plantations to those verified and recorded in the JMC, and the petitioner's claim does not satisfy this requirement.

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner is misconceived. Appointment of a Commissioner at this stage would amount to permitting the petitioner to collect evidence and reopen a concluded factual determination, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. Compensation is required to be determined in accordance with the statutory mandate with reference to the status of the land as on the date when the preliminary notification was issued and not on the basis of the present physical existence.

¶78

The plea of discrimination based on alleged payment to other landowners cannot be accepted, as each acquisition and valuation depends on its own statutory records and parity cannot be claimed dehors the petitioner’s own JMC. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact relating to the existence and age of trees, which cannot be adjudicated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:8593 WP No. 34796 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

The petitioner has failed to establish any

¶83

illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned endorsement dated 28.06.2023 or the resolution dated 27.04.2023 and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i. The writ petition is dismissed .

¶86

ii. The application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner is also dismissed . However, in light of the circular issued by the Government if the petitioner is entitled for any claim, it is open for the petitioner to make necessary representation.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶89

MBM Ct:RM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Nareappa Since Dead by His Lrs Ramesh Nayaka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nareappa Since Dead by His Lrs Ramesh Nayaka v. State of Karnataka

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

Hanumanthe Gowda K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Tabasum Sajjad Vs Mr H Diwakar Shetty

Smt.S.v.Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr G v Palaksha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar