Karnataka High Court
Nilawa W/O Shankar Kolaki vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
WP No. 65394 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 65394 OF 2012 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NILAWA W/O. SHANKAR KOLAKI,
AGE: 95 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NIPANI, BELGAUM.
2. GOURABAI W/O. SHIVBASAPPA AMATE,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NIPANI, BELGAUM.
3. APPASAHEB S/O. SHANKAR KOLAKI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. NIPANI, BELGAUM.
(SINCE DECEASED LRS)
3A. SMT. KANCHANA W/O. SHRISHAIL HALABHAVI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. H.NO.159, NEAR MAHALINGESHWAR TEMPLE,
FORT AREA, GOKAK.
3B. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SUJIT KARHADKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
YASHAVANT R/O UPADHYA BUILDING, NEAR BHANDARI SCHOOL,
NARAYANKAR
5TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
3C. SHRI MAHESH APPASAHEB KOLAKI,
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,(MEDICAL)
R/O. 2728, KINEKAR GALLI, NIPPANI,
CHIKODI, BELAGAVI.
3D. SMT. PREMA W/O. BASAVARAJ KOLAKI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AMBEGERI ONI, GOKAK.
4. ANNASAHEB S/O. SHANKAR KOLAKI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NIPANI, BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
WP No. 65394 of 2012
5. YASHODA W/O. BABU @ SIDALINGAPPA SADALGE,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
(SINCE DECEASED LRS)
5A. SHRI SHIDDALINGAPPA S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA SADALAGI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. H.NO.0045, GURUWAR PETH,
NEAR OLD DCC BANK, GOKAK.
5B. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. CHIDANANDA CHONALE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. H.NO.713, CHONALE PRINTING PRESS,
MAHAVEER CHOWK, ANKALE.
5C. SMT. GEETA W/O. VINAY MANIKERI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. H.NO.84/7, NEAR GOKAK FALLS, GOKAK.
5D. SHRI GAJANAN S/O. SHIDDALINGAPPA SADALAGI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.0045, GURUWAR PETH,
NEAR OLD DCC BANK, GOKAK.
6. SHANKUNTALA
W/O. GURUBASAPPA @ KARABASAPPA GUNAKI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BANHATTI.
7. BALASAHEB S/O. SHANKAR KOLAKI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. 1617,
KINEKAR GALLI, NIPANI, BELAGAVI-591237.
8. ANITA W/O. CHANNVEER GADAG,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KOLHAPUR.
9. MAHADEV S/O. SHANKAR KOLAKI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
WP No. 65394 of 2012
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES,
DHARWAD.
3. STATION OFFICER,
TOBACCO RESEARCH CENTRE,
MURAGOD ROAD, NIPPANI.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, NIPANI.
5. JAYESH S/O. SUBHASH SHAHA,
AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NIPPANI, BELGAUM.
6. HARSHAD S/O. SUBHASH SHAHA,
AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NIPPANI, BELGAUM.
7. JOSHNA W/O. SUBHASH SHAHA,
AGE: ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NIPPANI, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,R3 & R4;
SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. V.R. DATAR, ADV. FOR R5-R7;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R5-R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1-3 TO STOP THE
ILLEGAL TRANSFERS MADE WITH REGARD TO THE SAID LAND TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE RESPONDENTS IN HIS LETTER DATED 16/3/2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND REDELIVER THE LAND BEARING SURVEY
NO.128/3 OF NIPANI TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
WP No. 65394 of 2012
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed for seeking a mandamus
against respondents No.1 to 3 from illegally transferring the
land of the petitioner, which was acquired by the State and
consider the writ petition submitted by the petitioner as per the
letter dated 16.03.2011 at Annexure-G and restore the land
bearing survey No.128/3, situated at Nippani.
2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2
and 3 and learned counsel appearing for private respondents
No.5 to 7.
3) The subject matter of the petition land is
agricultural land bearing survey No.128/3, which was originally
owned by Sri.Shankar Basappa Kolaki, who is the husband of
the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners No.2 to 9.
4) The respondent No.1/State in order to set up a
Tobacco Research Centre at Nippani has acquired the
petitioners' land and the Assistant Commissioner passed an
award on 10.03.1972. The petitioners contention is that the
land was acquired by the State for the purpose of setting up of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
a Tobacco Research Centre in the year 1972. The petitioners
contend that the State having acquired the land, however,
failed to set up a Research Centre and the land which was
acquired was never utilized for the purpose for which it was
acquired.
5) The present petition is filed alleging that the land
acquired by the State is misused by the respondents and the
same is transferred to private individuals. Therefore, the
petitioners are seeking restitution of land on the ground that
the land acquired was never utilized for the purpose for which it
was acquired.
6) The respondent No.2-University/beneficiary,
however, contested this petition and seriously disputed the
allegation made by the petitioners that the respondent No.2
has illegally transferred the lands to the private respondents
No.5 to 7. While refuting the allegations, the respondent
No.2/University contended that as the University found
difficulty in establishing a Tobacco Research Centre in the land
acquired, they were compelled to look for an alternate land,
which was suitable and feasible to establish a Research Centre.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
The respondent No.2/University contended that with prior
permission from the State, it has exchanged the lands with
private respondents No.5 to 7. Reliance is placed on the
exchange deed which is produced at Annexure- R2D to R2G.
7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for the
other contesting private respondents.
8) On examining the material on record and also
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this
Court is of the considered view that the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Royal Orchid Hotels
Limited and another Vs G. Jayarama Reddy & Ors.1, is not
at all applicable to the present set of facts. In the present case
on hand, the respondent No.2/University has sought prior
permission from the State to exchange the acquired land with
respondents No.5 to 7, as the acquired land was found to be
not suitable for establishment of Research Centre. The
respondent No.1/State has accorded permission, which is
evident from Annexure-2C. Therefore, the allegations made by
the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has illegally
2011 AIR SCW 6081
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
transferred an acquired land is misconceived and cannot be
acceded to in view of the fact that the beneficiary has secured a
suitable land and in the process has exchanged the acquired
land with respondents No.5 to 7.
9) The core question that requires consideration at the
hands of this Court is as to whether the petitioner can maintain
a petition when the lands were acquired way back in the year
1972. The Hon'ble Apex Court in his latest Judgments rendered
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs
Manoharlal and Ors.,2 held that once the land is acquired and
award is passed, the land vests in the State free from all
encumbrances. The law in regard to issue relating to unutilized
land and claim of restoration of land to the owners is no longer
res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Government of Andrapradesh and another Vs Syed
Akbar3, has held that merely because the land has stood
unutilized that cannot be a ground to erstwhile owner to seek
restoration of land. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that once
compensation is paid, the land owner loses locus and he cannot
have any grievance on the ground that land acquired is not
2020 (9) SCC 129
AIR 2005 SC 492
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7211
utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has also held that the State neither has any
requisite power to re-convey the land to the person interested
nor can such person seek restoration on the ground whatsoever
unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect.
10) Petitioners had lost the land in the year 1972 by
accepting the compensation determined by the Authority.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no
indulgence is warranted in light of the discussions made supra.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands
dismissed.
11) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
