Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramarao Alias Ajit vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
WP No. 108198 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 108198 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMARAO @ AJIT,
S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. SUJIT S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELAGAVI,
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
BASANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. SATTIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
GIRIJA A ...PETITIONERS
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2025.02.21
16:17:42 +0530
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
& RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF HON'BLE
COURT DATED 3/11/2015)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
WP No. 108198 of 2015
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORK, PORT & INLAND
WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION OFFICE, KILLA, BELAGAVI.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION,
BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 18.02.2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY
DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND PASS
THE AWARD ACCORDINGLY; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO MAKE
THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AS DETERMINED ABOVE
WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the representation dated
18.02.2015, vide Annexure-G by determining the
market value of the property and pass the award
accordingly;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus to make the payment of
compensation as determined above without further
loss of time, and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
c) Such other writ or order as deemed fit in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts in brief are;
2.1. The petitioners contend that the land in
R.S.No.106A, 107, 187 and other lands were
re-granted in favour of the petitioner's great-
grandfather by an order dated 16-10-1953
under the provision of the Watan Abolition Act.
It is contended that three survey numbers
were assigned a single block number in Block
No.225, totally measuring 51 acres 36 guntas.
2.2. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated
25-06-1961, had indicated that the land had
been acquired, and in that background, the
petitioners represented by a Power of Attorney
Holder, had submitted a representation to the
respondent No.4 on 7-12-2023, requesting for
a copy of the award. The endorsement had
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
been issued on 17-01-2014 that no records
were available.
2.3. The petitioners caused a legal notice on
10-02-2014 for payment of suitable
compensation. The same not having been
considered, a writ petition WP
No.104965/2014 had been filed. When this
Court rejected the contention that a legal
notice cannot be considered to be a
representation, subsequent thereto a
representation having been filed and not
considered, the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. The submission of Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath,
Learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the land
having been utilized by the Assistant Commissioner
in the year 1961 without acquisition and without
compensation, a mandamus is required to be issued
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
to the respondents to consider the representation of
the petitioners for awarding of compensation.
4. Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA would submit
that;
4.1. Once earlier another writ petition had been
filed by the very same petitioners represented
by the very same GPA holder in
W.P.No.107954/2015, which came to be
disposed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
on 03.11.2015. The said writ petition filed was
as regards the very same survey numbers in
R.S.No. 106A, 107 and 187, where again the
petitioners had contended that the land had
been re-granted on 16.10.1953 and the usage
of the land without acquisition was not
permissible.
4.2. This Court, taking into consideration the
submission of the learned AGA and the
endorsement issued therein rejecting the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
claim, held that the acquisition had occurred in
the year 1859-60 and as such, the claim being
hopelessly barred by delay and laches, could
not be considered.
4.3. A writ appeal having been filed, the Division
Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated
14-07-2016, in Writ Appeal No.100002/2016,
dismissed the appeal and held that the land
having been utilized in the year 1859-60,
there is an inordinate delay of more than 150
years in raising the dispute, and as such, he
submits that the present petition has been
filed again for the land covered under the very
same survey numbers, this claim is also
required to be rejected on account of delay
and laches.
5. In reply, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned
counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the
lands subject matter of that petition was different
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
from the present petition. The earlier round of
litigation was in respect of Block No.225/4, whereas
the present dispute is as regards Block No.225.
6. Heard Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath,
learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the
papers.
7. A perusal of para 2 of the petition indicates that the
three survey numbers in R.S.No.106A, 107 and 187
were assigned a single block number in Block
No.225. The details of when they were assigned
such block number has not been furnished. The
regrant is however stated to be made in in the year
1953. The earlier litigation was in relation to Block
No.225/4, which had been filed seeking for
compensation as regards the land utilized in the year
1859-60. In the present litigation, the claim is that
the land has been acquired on 25-06-1961 as per the
order of the Assistant Commissioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
8. Thus, the earlier litigation was a 150 year old claim.
The present litigation, even if accepted on face value,
is more than 50 years old. Comparatively speaking,
the delay in the present petition is lesser. The fact
remains, there is delay of more than 50 years. The
manner in which both the above petitions have been
filed by a power of attorney holder also does not
inspire any confidence.
9. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that both sets
of litigations are completely speculative in nature and
are an abuse of the process of court. The petitioners'
earlier claim having been rejected for the very same
survey numbers, though Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.
Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that it is for a different portion, the fact
remains that the present petition is also as regards
the very same survey numbers in R.S.No.106A 107
and 187, which were consolidated and assigned
Block No.225. Such speculative litigation cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356
permitted before this Court, which in my considered
opinion would also amount to an abuse of the
process of court filed by a power of attorney, the
validity of which has not been gone into.
10. In that view of the matter, the petition, of course
being barred by delay and laches, is also an abuse of
the process of court and speculative litigation, is
dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- favouring
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which can
be collected by the Assistant Commissioner, which is
directed to be paid within a period of 30 days from
today, i.e. on or before 19.03.2025, failing which,
respondent No.4 is permitted to initiate necessary
proceedings for recovery of the cost by way of arears
of land revenue and remitting the same to the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
gab/CT-MCK
