Karnataka High Court

Sri C B Narasimhaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB
                                                      WA No. 191 of 2025
                                                  C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025

                HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                        PRESENT
                     THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                           WRIT APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
                                          C/W
                         CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2025


               IN W.A. No. 191/2025

               BETWEEN:

               1.     TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                      BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                      BELAGUMBA ROAD
                      TUMAKUR - 572 102
                                                          ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by      AND:
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court     1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka          BY ITS SECRETARY
                      DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
                      & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                      VIDHANA SOUDHA
                      BANGALORE - 560 001

               2.     TUMKUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                      TUMKUR - 572 101
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB
                                        WA No. 191 of 2025
                                    C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025

 HC-KAR



3.   C.B. NARASIMHAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     S/O. CHIKKARANGAIAH
     RESIDING AT SJR LADIES HOSTEL
     AMARAJYOTHINAGAR
     KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105
     NOW RESIDING AT NEAR
     RAVINDRA TOYOTA SHOWROOM
     MELEKOTE, TUMKUR - 572 102
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
 SRI T. GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 IN W.P. No.
8003/2020   AND    DISMISS   THE    WRIT   PETITION   No.
8003/2020 & ETC.


IN CCC NO. 134/2025

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI C.B. NARASIMHAIAH
     S/O SRI CHIKKARANGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
     R/AT SJR LADIES HOSTEL
     AMARAJYOTHI NAGAR
     KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 105
     NOW R/AT NEAR RAVEENDRA
     TOYOTO SHOW ROOM
     MELEKOTE, TUMAKURU - 572 102
                                           ...COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI T. GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE)
                             -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB
                                       WA No. 191 of 2025
                                   C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025

 HC-KAR




AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001
                            ...PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
2.   SRI NATARAJU
     THE COMMISSIONER OF
     THE TUMAKURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     BELAGUMBA ROAD
     TUMAKURU - 572 102
                                            ...ACCUSED

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
 SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.2)


    THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 AND ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FINAL
ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. NO.40/2024 (LB-RES) C/W
W.P. 8003/2020 (LB-RES) DATED 08.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C
& ETC.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                                   -4-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB
                                             WA No. 191 of 2025
                                         C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025

 HC-KAR




                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the application -I.A.No.1/2025,

the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a

judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in WP.No.40/2024 (LB-RES) clubbed with

WP.No.8003/2020 (LB-RES). The respondent had filed the

said petitions, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.11.2023

and an endorsement dated 11.02.2020.

3. The respondent (writ petitioner) was allotted a property

bearing Site No.1425 in Melekote, Veerasagara residential

layout, Tumakuru (subject property). The said allotment was

made as the petitioner's property was utilized for construction

of a railway over bridge at Upparahalli, Tumakuru City. The

said allotment was in addition to payment of compensation for

utilization of his land.

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

4. The price of the allotted land was fixed at Rs.300/- per

sq. ft. The record indicates that the allotment was for an area of

2955 sq.ft. for an aggregate value of Rs.5,17,016/-.

Subsequently, a lease-cum-sale deed was executed. However,

the said lease-cum-sale deed was in respect of an area

measuring 265.90 sq.mtrs., which was less than 2955 sq.ft.

The writ petitioner had thereafter raised the construction on the

allotted site (Site No.1425).

5. The controversy essentially arises in view of the

appellant's assertion that the writ petitioner has now

encroached upon the adjoining plot (Site No.1425A) to the

extent of 1124 sq.ft. Since the construction had been raised on

it, a proposal was mooted to sell the additional land (which was

allegedly encroached upon by the writ petitioner) to the writ

petitioner. A communication dated 11.02.2020 was addressed

by the appellant to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development

Department, Government of Karnataka, to the effect that the

said encroached land be allotted to the writ petitioner at the rate

of Rs.1,580/- per square feet. The said communication dated

11.02.2020, was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

6. While the writ petitions were pending, the appellant had

also issued another notice dated 28.11.2023 for removal of the

encroachment. This was also brought to the notice of the Court

during the course of the writ petition. It was the writ petitioner's

contention that the additional land was required to be allotted to

him at the same rate as the original land, that is, at the rate of

about Rs. 300/- per sq.ft.

7. The learned Single Judge did not accept the writ

petitioner's contention that the additional land to the extent of

1124 sq.ft. (104.45 sq.mtrs.) was required to be allotted at the

same rate as Site No.1425. Accordingly, the writ petitioner's

challenge to the communication dated 11.02.2020 was

rejected. Consequently, the learned Single Judge by way of the

impugned order dated 08.04.2024 permitted the writ petitioner

to pay the price of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft. for the additional area

within a period of three months. And, further restrained the

appellant from taking any coercive measures during the said

period.

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

8. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the said order,

assailed the same by filing an appeal being WA.No.866/2024

(LB-RES). The writ petitioner was not successful and the said

appeal was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

by an order dated 20.09.2024. The decision of the learned

Single Judge was upheld as this Court found that there was no

ground to interfere with the said order.

9. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the appellant filed a

review petition being RP.No.476/2024, seeking review of the

impugned order. It is the appellant's contention that the

communication dated 11.02.2020 was an internal

communication between the appellant and the Government of

Karnataka proposing to allot the additional land at the rate of

Rs. 1,580/- per square foot. However, that proposal was not

accepted as the adjoining site (Site No.1425A) part of which is

allegedly encroached upon by the writ petitioner, is required to

be sold through auction and the same could not be allotted

otherwise. Since the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner

(WA.No.866/2024-LB-RES) was disposed of, the learned

Single Judge also disposed of the review petition. In the

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has filed the present

appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

value of the land in the vicinity is significantly higher and the

properties have been sold in auction at the rate of

approximately Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. He also submits that the

guidance value of the land is about Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. and

therefore the writ petitioner would have no right to acquire the

additional land at the rate of Rs.1580/- per sq.ft. He also

submits that the copy of the said communication dated

11.02.2020 was not addressed to the writ petitioner. The same

was an internal communication between the appellant and the

State Government of Karnataka. Since the Government has

rejected the proposal for allotment of additional 1124 sq.ft. of

land at the rate of Rs.1,580/- to the writ petitioner; the directions

issued by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.

11. We have carefully examined the controversy in the

present appeal. There is considerable merit in the contention

that the writ petitioner is not vested with any right to acquire the

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

additional land at the rate of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft. on the basis of

the communication dated 11.02.2020. The writ petitioner was

allotted land measuring 2955 sq. ft. and does not have any right

to insist on allotment of a larger area.

12. It is also relevant to note that it is the writ petitioner's

contention that the order dated 11.02.2020 is unsustainable.

The writ petitioner had prayed for the said communication

(assuming the same to be an order) to be set aside. The

learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not drawn our

attention to any document which would create any right with the

writ petitioner to be allocated additional land at the

aforementioned rate of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft.

13. We may also note that the writ petitioner has contended

that the order dated 30.10.2010 (allotment order) cannot be

disputed and the writ petitioner is entitled to 2955 (two

thousand nine hundred and fifty-five sq.ft. of land). The said

order indicates that in terms of the decision dated 26.06.2009

of the appellant, plots were allocated to 8 (eight) persons,

including the writ petitioner at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq.ft. The

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

said order also indicates that a total area of 2955 sq.ft. was

allotted to the writ petitioner. Concededly, the writ petitioner

would be entitled to an area of 2955 sq.ft. in terms of the

Allotment Letter. Thus, the writ petitioner's grievance to the

extent that a lesser area of 265.90 sq.mtrs. has been conveyed

to writ petitioner is justified. The learned counsel appearing for

the appellant also does not dispute that the writ petitioner would

be entitled to an additional area to the extent of 93 sq.ft.

14. In order to encourage the parties to resolve the

controversy, this Court had passed the following order on

25.11.2025 in the present writ appeal.

"1. It is contented on behalf of respondent No.3 that he was allotted a site measuring 2955 sq.ft. for an amount of Rs.5,17,016/-. However, the lease-cum-sale deed executed is for an area of 265.90 sq.mtrs. which is less than 2955 sq.ft. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even if the benefit of the difference is granted to respondent No.3, the respondent is required to pay the market value on the balance land which has been encroached upon by the respondent. He submits that since the respondent

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB

HC-KAR

has already raised a construction on the said portion, a quietus can be put to the dispute if the respondent agrees to pay the guidance value which is in the vicinity of Rs.3,000/- per sq. ft. for the balance area. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks time to take instructions in this regard. 4. List on 27.11.2025".

15. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is not agreeable to pay

the guidance value (which is approximately Rs.3,000/- per

sq.ft.) for the additional land allegedly encroached upon by the

writ petitioner. He submits that he has no objection for the

appellant to take over any additional land, which is found to be

encroached upon, i.e., the land in excess of 2955 sq.ft.

16. In aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is set

aside. The appellant is bound down to the statement to the

effect that the writ petitioner would be entitled to additional 93

sq.ft. of land in terms of the allotment letter dated 30.10.2010. It

is directed that a supplementary sale deed to the extent of 93