Karnataka High Court
Shri. Somappa Gurupadappa Malgi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.100360 OF 2024 (L - RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SOMAPPA
GURUPADAPPA MALGI,
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHANKARIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANT
VISHAL
NINGAPPA (BY SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
AND:
PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.03.10 10:29:46
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
+0530
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
HANGAL, TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
5. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA KALANGI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
6. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BENAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICUTLURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
7. BANGAREPPA
S/O. ANDANEPPA BIDARAGADDI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
8. MALLAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA SHIVAOOR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
UPPAR TUNGA PROJECT DIVISION,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
RANEBENNUR,
TAL: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581110.
10. NAGARAJ
SHIVABASAPPA MALGI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
11. SOMAPPA GURUPADAPPA MALGI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
12. CHANNABASAPPA
VIRUPAKSHAPPA HURAKADLI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
13. VEERAPPA ADOPTED
S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA HURAKADLI,
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
14. MALLAPPA
SANGAPPA MALGI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
15. BENAKALINGAPPA
SOMAPPA MALGI
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8;
SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
NOTICE TO R10 TO R15 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.106232/2018 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
1. This intra-Court Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.106232 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioners sought declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per Annexure-B have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short "the Act, 2013") and also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri, produced at Annexure-C.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that no steps have been taken by the authorities to pay compensation to them in respect of the land allegedly acquired. Though a draft award was prepared, the respondents failed to pass a final award in -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB WA No. 100360 of 2024 HC-KAR accordance with law and consequently failed to disburse the compensation to the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the land since the year 1972 and that the respondents have never taken actual possession of the land.
4. The Assistant Commissioner attempted to correct the revenue records and delete the names of the petitioners after lapse of 43 years without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. It is therefore contended that the alleged acquisition has lapsed since the possession of the acquired land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. In support of their contention, the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Indoor Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others1.
5. Before the Writ Court, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 placed on record the preliminary and final notifications, the 1 2020 (8) SCC 129 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB WA No. 100360 of 2024 HC-KAR award passed, and the details regarding payment of compensation and taking of physical possession of the property. The Writ Court, considering the said documents and observing that the issuance of preliminary and final notifications, passing of award and payment of compensation were not disputed by the petitioners, and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.
6. Heard Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, the learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8; and Sri K.S. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.9, and perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no steps were taken by the authorities to pay compensation to the appellant in respect of the land allegedly acquired. Though a draft award was prepared, the respondents failed to pass a final award in accordance with law and consequently -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB WA No. 100360 of 2024 HC-KAR failed to disburse compensation to the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the land from the year 1972 till date and that the respondents have never taken actual physical possession of the land. After a lapse of nearly 43 years, the Assistant Commissioner attempted to correct the revenue records and delete the name of the appellant without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case while dismissing the writ petition. It is also contended that the respondents have not utilized the land for the purpose for which it was allegedly acquired and the appellant continue to remain in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the documents produced before the Writ Court, contends that the land has been acquired, notifications have been issued, the award has been passed and compensation has been paid. These documents were -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB WA No. 100360 of 2024 HC-KAR placed before the Writ Court and, upon considering them, the Writ Court has rightly held that the acquisition has not been lapsed and has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
10. It is the case of the petitioners before the Writ Court that the acquisition proceedings initiated against them have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has produced before the writ Court the preliminary notification dated 28.10.1972, the final notification dated 08.01.1974 and the receipt for showing that possession of the property was taken on 16.11.1976. The said documents disclose that the compensation payable to the landowners has already been paid under due acknowledgment. The Writ Court has observed that there was absolutely no explanation from the petitioners with regard to these documents produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate and relied upon by the respondents. The documents placed on record by the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB WA No. 100360 of 2024 HC-KAR respondents indicate that the possession of the acquired land has been taken and compensation has been paid. Considering the said aspects and relying upon the decision in Indoor Development Authority (supra), the Writ Court held that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.
11. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we are not persuaded to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE VNP / CT: VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1