Sri Bhimasethu Munivrunda Matha Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI BHIMASETHU MUNIVRUNDA MATHA BHIMANAKATTE MULUBAVILU VILLAGE DOORVASAPURAM POST THIRATHHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577432 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIWAN/GPA HOLDER SRI. SAGAR BHAT S/O HARISH KUMAR P S AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT 25/1 RAGHUNANDANA NEAR BHIMANAKATTE RAGHAVENDARA SWAMY MATHA VENKATAGIRIYAPPA LAYOUT DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560097.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KESHAV M DATAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMKENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO.505, 5^TH FLOOR

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:34755 WP No. 354 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MS BUILDING BENGALURU - 560011. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION BALARAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA -577201.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577432.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 BEARING NO. LRF/CR/27/2024 (436106) PASSED BYTHE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION , REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:34755 WP No. 354 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior

¶32

Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Keshav M. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶33

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Endorsement dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶35

for the parties, this Court has perused the order passed in W.P. No.17115 of 2024, disposed of on

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:34755 WP No. 354 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

18.07.2024 (Annexure-L), in the earlier round of litigation. In the said proceedings, this Court considered the registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.1936 executed in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-intitle and observed that the land belonging to the petitioner had been under the tenancy of cultivating tenants and had subsequently vested in the Government under the provisions of the relevant land reforms legislation. Consequently, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled to receive adequate compensation.

¶40

While arriving at the said conclusion, this Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 . Despite the specific observations and directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34755 WP No. 354 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

petition, as to granted of compensation to the petitioner, respondent No.2, without proper

¶44

application of mind and without considering the petitioner's entitlement, has issued the impugned Endorsement dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure-A). The impugned endorsement is a stereotyped order and demonstrates complete non-consideration of the

¶45

findings and directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.17115 of 2024.

¶46

In the circumstances, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Endorsement dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure-A) is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:34755 WP No. 354 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

ii. The Endorsement dated 08.09.2025

¶53

(Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to determine and disburse the compensation payable to the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

iii. It is made clear that this is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking payment of legitimate compensation in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi (supra). If the respondent-authorities fail to determine and pay the compensation in accordance with the applicable law and the directions contained in

¶55