Karnataka High Court
G. Ramalinganagouda S/O Sakragoud ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
WP No. 102992 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 102992 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. G. RAMALINGANAGOUDA S/O. SAKRAGOUD ORVAI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
1(a) VEERABHADRAGOUDA S/O. SHARABANAGOUDA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. KURUBARA SANNA SIDDAPPA S/O. BASAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
2(a) AMRESHAPPA S/O. SANNA SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. M. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA S/O. SHARANAGOUD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
3(a) RUDRAGOUDA S/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. BATRAHALLI SANNA BASANNA S/O. HONNURAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
4(a) HANNARAPPA S/O. B. SANNABASANNA,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AGE: 60 YEAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
5. P. ALLASAB
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5(a) MOULASAB S/O. P. ALLASAB,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5(b) S. CHANDASAB S/O. BABASAB,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. KORI DODDAPPA S/O BASANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
WP No. 102992 of 2024
6(a) KORI SHEKARAPPA S/O. KORI DODDAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. KUTRAMMA W/O. LATE VIRUPASKSHAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
7(a) KORI SADAKSHARI S/O. LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. N. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
8(a) N. PONPAPATHY S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. G. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. SHARABANA GOUD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
9(a) RUDRAGOUDA S/O. G. MALLIKARJUNA GOUD,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. G. AYYANAGOUD S/O. SHIVANAGOUD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
10(a) G. JAGADEESHA GOUDA S/O. AYYANA GOUD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
11. G. MAHADEVA GOUD S/O. ESHWARA GOUDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
11(a) G. VEERABHADRA GOUDA S/O. G. MAHADEVA GOUD
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. G. VEERABHADRA GOUDA S/O. MAHADEVANA GOUD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
12(a) R. SHARABASAVANA GOUDA
S/O. G. VERABHADRAGOUDA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. ORAVAI VILLAGE,
TAL: BALLARI, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
WP No. 102992 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT ,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ORAVAI,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
5. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
ORAVAI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
ORAVAI VILLAGE, DIST: BALLARI.
6. THE SECRETARY,
ORAVAI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
ORAVAI VILLAGE, DIST: BALLARI.
7. CHIEF ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION NO.1,
TUNGABHADRA RIVER DIVISION,
MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 6/01/2024, 4/08/2017,
16/10/2017, 8/01/2019 AND 18/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-F,G,H,J AND K, AND REDELIVER THE
ACQUIRED LANDS ABOVE MENTIONED SITUATED AT ORAVAI
VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, TO THE PETITIONERS
WHICH HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHIFTING THE
ORAVAI VILLAGE (SEEPAGE AFFECTED).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
WP No. 102992 of 2024
ORDER
Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1
to 4.
2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking
mandamus against the respondents to consider the
representations submitted by the petitioners wherein a
request is made by the petitioners to restore the land
acquired in 1984 alleging that there is inaction on the part
of the respondents in not examining the representations.
3. Facts leading to the case are; petitioners claim
that they are residents of Oravai village in Ballari taluk.
Petitioners are basically farmers. It is contended that
petitioners' lands were acquired by the respondent-
authorities with an intention to shift the residents of
Oravai village, who were badly affected on account of
seepage. Now, the representations are submitted by the
petitioners alleging that they being the farmers are totally
dependent on the agricultural income. Petitioners'
grievance is that the compensation paid by the State is not
adequate and therefore, the petitioners by way of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
representations are seeking restoration of the lands
acquired by the State in 1984.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP and perused the material on record.
5. The law in regard to the issue relating to
unutilized land and the claim of restoration of the land by
the owners is no more res-integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. Syed
Akbar reported in AIR 2005 SC 492 has held that
merely because the land has stood unutilized that, cannot
be a ground to erstwhile owner to seek restoration of the
land. The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and
Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has also held that,
once the land is acquired, it vests with the State, free from
all encumbrances. The Apex Court further held that once
the compensation is paid, the land owner loses locus and
he cannot have any grievance and therefore, cannot seek
restoration of the land acquired.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7362
6. In the light of the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra,
petitioners have no legal right to seek restoration of the
lands already acquired on the ground that compensation
paid by the State was inadequate. Correspondingly, the
respondent-State has no legal obligation to consider the
representations. The doctrine of mandamus is primarily
based on a principle that the citizen seeking mandamus at
the hands of a constitutional court has to demonstrate his
legal right and corresponding obligation on the part of the
respondent-State and the State instrumentalities. In the
present case on hand, both requisite conditions are found
missing. Therefore, this court is of the view that no
indulgence is warranted.
7. For the forging reasons, the writ petition being
devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
