Karnataka High Court
Shivappa S/O Sangappa Talikoti vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB
WA No. 100197 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100197 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA,
S/O SANGAPPA TALIKOTI
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRL.,
R/O. TAVARAGERA-583279
TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA AND:
MALAGALADINNI
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH REP. BY MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND
WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
NORTH REGION,
VIJAYAPURA-586101,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB
WA No. 100197 of 2024
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND
WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
KALBURGI CIRCLE-585101,
KALBURGI.
4. THE ZONEL FOREST OFFICER
REGIONAL ZONE,
KUSTAGI-583277,
DIST. KOPPAL.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND
WATER DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,
KOPPAL-583231,
DIST. KOPPAL.
6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND
WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
SUB-DIVISION, KUSTAGI-583277
DIST. KOPPAL.
7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF AGRICULTURE
KUSTAGI-583277,
TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
DATED 19-03-2024 IN WP NO.101788/2024 (GM-RES) & ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB
WA No. 100197 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by
rejection of his petition in W.P. No.101788/2024 vide order dated
19.03.2024, wherein the petitioner had sought for the following
reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to
determine the damages, taking into cosndieration of the
value of Shreegandha as well as Hebbevu plantation of its
harvesting age as 15 years as per the correspondence Dtd:
29/09/2023 in No:s¸ÀPÁ¤.EA/¸À¤ÃCACE/G«PÀÄ/vÁ.±Á-
2/2023-24/17 vide Annexure-J.
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.4
and 7 for assessing the damages and also value of the
plantation lilke Hebbevu and Shreeganda trees at the age
of harvesting i.e., at the harvesting age of 15 years as per
the correspondence Dtd: 29/09/2023 in
No.¸ÀPÁ¤.EA/¸À¤ÃCACE/G«PÀÄ/vÁ.±Á-2/2023-24/272 vide
Annexure-H."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB
2. Heard Sri. Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. V.S.Kalalsurmath, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The learned Single Judge, on going through the writ
petition papers and the material placed on record, at paragraphs
6 and 7 of the impugned order, has observed as follows:
"6. However, perusal of Annexure-E, first response or
representation of petitioner immediately after alleged
incident would reveal that petitioner had complained only of
erosion of topsoil and relief sought was for replenishment of
top soil. There is no damage to plantation mentioned in
representation. Though, there is subsequent correspondent
and panchanama about steps for assessment of damages.
Same are apparently at inconclusive stage. Photographs
produced by petitioner at Annexures-D and D1, would not
indicate substantial damage.
7. In any case, whether damage was caused only due
to failure of respondent-authorities to maintain feeder canal,
where it was due to water running from feeder canal into
lands or vice-versa or whether extensive damage sustained
as contended by petitioner, would be highly disputed
questions of fact requiring evidence and writ petition for said
purposes would not be appropriate."
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the opinion
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB
that the prayer sought in the writ petition needs recording of
evidence since the same involves questions of fact and this
Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not normally
go into the questions of fact. The prayer for damages needs
recording of evidence and determination of damages based on
the evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned
Single Judge observing that the writ petition involved highly
disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, has rightly rejected
the writ petition which would not require any interference in this
appeal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits. However, it is open for the appellant to avail any other
remedy available in law.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMS, CT:VP
