Karnataka High Court
Shivanand vs Rajendra Kumar Kathari on 4 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200207 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200108 OF 2025
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200122 OF 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200239 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200241 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200242 OF 2024
IN WA NO.200207/2024:
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH THE COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
KARNATAKA
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED, BIJAPUR,
K.C.NAGAR, SHOLAPUR ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BIJAPUR BY ITS CEO,
KIZHAKKE KOTTALA KRISHNAN UNNI
SURENDRANATHAN,
S/O K.KRISHNAN UNNI MENON,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O BIJAPUR - 586 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT,
GANDHI CHOWK,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL ADV. FOR R1;
BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202702/2015 DATED
07.12.2023, BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CCC NO.200108/2025:
BETWEEN:
BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BIJAPUR, K.C. NAGAR,
SHOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR,
BY ITS CEO
SIDDAPPA S/O DANAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: CEO OF DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR MEKKALAKI,
THE COMMISSIONER OF
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF DIRECTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.12.2023 IN WP.NO.202702 OF
2015 ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN CCC NO.200122/2025:
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O: M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR MEKKALAKI,
THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV FOR R2)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF DIRECTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.12.2023 IN WP.NO.204497 OF
2016 ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN WA NO.200239/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR, AT VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O AT M.G. ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.204497/2016 DATED
07.12.2023 BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WA NO.200241/2024:
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O: AT M.G. ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.204497/2016 DATED
07.12.2023 BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WA NO.200242/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR, AT VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED,BIJAPUR, K. C. NAGAR,
SHOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR,
BY ITS CEO,
KRISHNAN UNNI SURENDRANANTHAN,
S/O K. KRISHNAN UNNI MENON,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O BIJAPUR - 586 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202702/2015 DATED
07.12.2023, BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITIONS
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
30.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
The CCC No.200108/2025 and CCC No.200122/2025
are filed for non-compliance of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202702/2015 connected
with W.P.No.204497/2016 dated 07.12.2023 for civil
disobedience vide Annexure-A and the appeals i.e.,
W.A.No.200207/2024, W.A.No.200239/2024,
W.A.No.200241/2024 and W.A.No.200242/2024 are filed
by respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the very same order
questioning the order of possession in the event of no
acquisition proceedings are taken.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the
complainants before the learned Single Judge while
seeking the relief of writ of mandamus and for a direction
to the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings
in respect of the petitioners properties which are more
fully described in the said writ petitions that the petitioner
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
in W.P.No.204497/2016 was the owner in possession and
enjoyment of the property bearing CTS No.1126/1-C
(1126/C). The complainant/petitioner claims in the writ
petition that he had constructed three floor building
(ground + two second floors) by investing lakhs of rupees
and several business establishments wherein running the
same in the said building and also the building furnished
with modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so
as to provide proper and competitive services to the
customers.
3. The case of complainant/petitioner in W.P.
No.202702/2015, is that petitioner was a Co-operative
Society registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative
Societies Act, 1959, engaged in the business of banking
having long standing reputation and huge turnover. It was
catering to the financial and credit requirements of the
people of Bijapur and same was situated in the property
bearing CTS No.1738/1A/2. The petitioner has constructed
three floor building (Ground + two floors) by investing
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
huge crores of rupees. The building was furnished with
modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so as to
provide proper and competitive services to the customers.
4. In both the petitions, it is contended that
respondent No.4-Corporation with an intention to
implement the Master plan of the year 2006 to widen the
main road (Mahatma Gandhi road) to an extent of 100 feet
(30 meters), with high handedness demolished the land of
adjoining land owners and illegally threatened to demolish
the properties belonging to the petitioners. Hence, sought
for the relief of mandamus, directing the respondents not
to venture any illegal acts without due process of law.
After demolition, the possession has been taken for the
formation of road, which has been completed.
5. It is also contended that respondent No.4 had
issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to
express their willingness to accept the compensation of
Rs.6,56,766.80 to an extent of 251.89 square feet in
W.P.No.204497/2016 and Rs.41,46,512/- to an extent of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
330 square feet in WP No.202702/2015 of the properties
belonging to the petitioners which were required for
widening the road.
6. It is contended that petitioners cooperated with
respondent No.4 as the properties were required for
widening of the road and the same was for a public
purpose and agreed for the properties to be taken for
widening of the road, but they have agreed to the same
subject to the condition that suitable compensation would
be paid inconsonance with the market rate prevalent as on
the date of taking-up possession of the properties
belonging to the petitioners. Hence, the amount which was
offered by respondent No.4 was received under protest,
without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.
7. It is also contended that some adjoining owners
and land losers approached this Court in
W.P.No.200660/2016 connected with several other writ
petitions and the said petitions were disposed off and a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
compromise was arrived by the parties, awarding higher
compensation.
8. It is also contended by the petitioners' counsel
that in view of the other W.P.No.206277/2016 connected
with other writ petitions, which came to be disposed off on
11.07.2023, and sought for similar relief. The counsel
appearing for respondents in the writ petition i.e.,
respondent No.4-Corporation would contend that the order
passed in W.P.No.206277/2016 connected with other
petitions have been taken up in an appeal, which is
pending adjudication before the Division Bench would also
contend that the petitioners herein would not fall within
the same category of the land losers.
9. The learned Single Judge having taken note of
the contentions of the respective parties and also
considering the material on record that the properties
were similarly situated and the same were also for
widening of the road and also taken note of the fact that
without initiating any process of acquisition, the same was
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
done and hence the petitioners have to be compensated
on the basis of the norms set out by the respondents will
have to be decided by the respondents and also an
observation made that the same cannot be contrary to the
settled law in force.
10. Having considered the grounds which have
been urged in the petitions and considering the material
on record an observation has been made that admittedly
the properties of the petitioners are taken away, without
any acquisition proceedings and compensation though
paid, it was disputed by the petitioners. Hence, allowed
the petitions with the following observation :-
i) The writ petitions are allowed;
ii) Respondent No.2 is at liberty to acquire the
properties of the petitioners in terms of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 by issuing suitable necessary notification
within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, failing which,
respondent No.4 shall handover the possession of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the properties of the petitioners within a period of
60 days thereafter, if not already acquired;
iii) Irrespective of the option chosen, the State shall
make payment of damages towards the use of
properties from the time of possession that was
unauthorisedly taken to the date on which the
possession is handed over at Rs.15 per sq.ft. per
month being 0.5% on the value of the properties as
agreed to be paid under the compromise in
WP.No.207059/2014 and connected matters;
iv) As regards the damage cost to the petitioners in
lieu of the unlawful demolition and taking away the
properties of petitioners, the petitioners are at
liberty to file a petition claiming damages;
v) In the event of respondent No.2 choosing to acquire
the land, the acquisition shall be completed and
necessary compensation be paid to the petitioners
under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 by taking the value of the
land as on the date on which the notification is
issued, the notification shall be issued not later
than 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."
11. Now the counsel appearing for the
complainants in the contempt petitions while invoking
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
contempt jurisdiction has contended that in spite of
representations dated 15.10.2024, 16.02.2024 being
given as per Annexures-B and C, subsequent to passing of
order by learned Single Bench at Annexure-A, the
respondents have not complied with the same. Now it is
contended that in spite of representations are given and
also when the appropriate orders for issuance of
acquisitions proceedings is ordered respondents failed to
comply the same even after lapse of several months,
neither acquisition proceedings initiated nor properties are
returned to petitioners. Hence, invoked contempt
jurisdiction.
12. The appellants in writ appeals i.e., respondent
No.4 as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the above writ
appeals questioned the order of the learned Single Judge
order dated 07.12.2023 on the ground that the learned
Single Judge committed an error in passing such an order
and brought to the notice of this Court the prayer sought
in the writ petitions which is also set-out in the grounds of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the appeals would contend that in absence of a pleading
as well as a relief for possession of the properties, learned
Single Judge ought not to have directed the appellants to
handover the possession to respondent No.1 and
observation that Corporation as well as State Government
forcibly entered the property of respondent No.1, though
the respondent No.1 grievance is in regard to
determination of compensation and that observation is
erroneous and it calls for interference.
13. It also contended that if land is redelivered as
directed by the Court, it will affect the public
communication and compensation offered to respondent
No.1 was not accepted. Hence, it requires interference of
this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Both Corporation as well as respondent
Nos.1 to 3 have filed aforesaid appeals contending the
very same grounds.
14. The counsel appearing for respondents in
contempt petitions have filed counter affidavit before the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Court and contend that due to the then old and narrow
roads of Vijayapur City, the residents were facing lot of
hardship and inconvenience, which promoted the
concerned authorities to undertake the work of widening
the main existing roads and also contended in paragraph
No.4 of the affidavit that compensation was paid and also
produced the documents at Annexures-R1 to R4.
15. Additional affidavit of respondent No.2 also filed
before this Court along with three communications which
are dated 13.08.2025, 14.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 and so
also one more affidavit is filed by the Principal Secretary to
the Government, Revenue Department, dated 29.08.2025
regarding initiating a proper and legal acquisition as per
the provisions under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and copy of the letter dated
20.08.2025 vide Annexure-R1 and also letter of
communication by Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-
R2 and notification as per Annexure-R3.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
16. It is contended that in pursuance of the
notification, Deputy Commissioner passed an order on
26.08.2025, for initiating the acquisition proceedings as
per Annexure-R4 and also in the affidavit it is stated about
initiation of action against the erring officials relying upon
Annexures-R5 to R7.
17. The counsel appearing for the contempt
proceedings in his arguments would vehemently contend
that the compliance is only partial compliance and not the
compliance as ordered by the learned Single Judge in
entirety.
18. Having considered the compliance affidavit as
well as the grounds which have been urged in the
contempt petitions as well as the writ appeals, the points
that would arise for consideration of this Court are :
i) Whether the complainants have made-out a
ground to frame charges against
respondents/ accused ?
ii) Whether the appellants have made-out
grounds to set-aside the order of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
learned Single Judge passed in writ
petitions ?
iii) What order ?
Point Nos.1 and 2 :
19. Having considered the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and also the grounds which have
been urged in the contempt petitions, the grievance of the
complainants is that the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is disobeyed; contempt jurisdiction has to be
invoked.
20. This Court already extracted the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and having considered the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge in direction
No.(ii) of operative portion that respondent No.2 is at
liberty to acquire the properties of the petitioners in terms
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by
issuing suitable necessary notification within a period of
sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
order, failing which, the respondent No.4 shall handover
the possession of the properties of the petitioners within a
period of sixty (60) days thereafter, if not already
acquired.
21. Having considered the aforesaid direction, the
respondent No.2 has not issued necessary notification and
hence contempt proceedings is initiated and now the
material placed on record before this Court that the
Principal Secretary who appeared through video
conference had undertaken to issue the notification in the
previous date and in terms of the said undertaking, now
issued the notification on 26.08.2025. Hence, the second
direction was complied. However, with regard to complete
the process is concerned he submits that it is difficult to
complete the process within sixty days and sought further
time.
22. The main ground urged in the writ appeals is
also that the direction given by the learned Single Judge, if
the same is not complied within sixty days, respondent
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
No.4 shall hand over the possession of the properties of
the petitioners within a period of 60 days thereafter. The
Principal Secretary also would submit that if additional
time is granted, same could be complied, since they have
to follow the procedure. So also the counsel for the
complaints submits that they are ready to even take the
notice and no objections in view compliance of issuance of
notification.
23. However, keeping in mind the very proviso, we
felt that, it is appropriate to grant hundred (100) days
time instead of sixty (60) days and the Principal Secretary
also agreed for the same to do the same within time.
When such being the case, the question of respondent
No.4 handing over the possession of the properties of the
petitioners within a period of sixty (60) days thereafter
doesn't arise in view of notification and hence the relief
sought in the writ appeals also doesn't survive for
consideration and the same in the event of non-
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
compliance of direction No.(ii) of the learned Single Judge
order.
24. The very contention urged in the appeals that
there cannot be an order of handing over the possession
of the properties, since the same is used for widening of
the road. It is also not in dispute that the building was
demolished and the road was widened and complainants
also accepted the same.
25. Having considered the direction No.(iv) that as
regards the damage cost to the petitioners in lieu of the
unlawful demolition and taking away the properties of
petitioners, liberty was given to the petitioners to file the
petition claiming damages and hence, question of violation
of direction No.4 doesn't arise.
26. The direction No.(v) is also very clear that in
the event of respondent No.2 choosing to acquire the land,
acquisition shall be completed and necessary
compensation to be paid to the petitioners under the Right
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 by taking the
value of the land as on the date on which the notification
is issued, the notification shall be issued not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order. We have already pointed out that the same was
not complied and hence, contempt proceedings are
initiated.
27. Now notification is already issued and also in
detail discussed about the period of sixty (60) days, which
is extended to one hundred (100) days and hence,
continuing of contempt proceedings in respect of direction
Nos.(ii) and (iv) also doesn't arise.
28. Now the counsel appearing for the complainants
brought to notice of this Court the direction No.3 that
irrespective of the option chosen, the State shall make
payment of damages towards the use of properties from
the time of possession that was unauthorisedly taken to
the date on which the possession is handed at Rs.15/- per
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
square feet per month being 0.5% on the value of the
properties as agreed to be paid under the compromise in
W.P.No.207059/2024 and connected matters.
29. It is not in dispute that earlier compromise was
entered in W.P.No.207059/2024 and this Court also taken
note of earlier disposing off the petitions by the learned
Single Judge in connected matters with regard to the
similar questions involved in the matter as the relief is
sought in the writ petitions and it is also not in dispute
that an amount was deposited, particularly in
W.P.No.202702/2015 an amount of Rs.41,46,512/- and in
paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent
No.2 also reiterated the same i.e., to an extent of 330
square feet in W.P.No.202702/2015 of the properties
belonging to the petitioner.
30. When such deposit was made in 2015 and in
view of direction by the learned Single Judge, the fact that
the damages were caused towards the use of the
properties from the time of possession that was
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
unauthorisedly taken to the date on which the possession
was handed over is also not in dispute.
31. When such being the case, the amount which
was already deposited to the tune of Rs.41,46,512/- to be
adjusted in view of directions of the learned Single Judge
in direction No.(iii) and surplus amount could be adjusted
towards the award to be passed in view of the notification
issued by the respondents consequent upon the direction
Nos.2 and 4 of learned Single Judge.
32. When such material were also taken note of and
as observed in the writ petitions, question of continuing
the contempt proceedings doesn't arise in view of detailed
discussion made above and all the directions are made by
issuing notification as well as the adjustment as directed
above. Hence, we have given conscious application of
mind regarding contempt as well as writ appeals and in
view of compliance of the direction given by the learned
Single judge, question of framing of charges against the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
respondents doesn't arise. Therefore, contempt proceeding
has to be dropped.
33. So also the grounds which have been urged in
the writ appeals, particularly with regard to taking of
possession is concerned, already notification is issued in
view of the direction No.2 of the learned Single Judge, the
question of handing over the possession also doesn't arise
since the property which was used by taking the
possession though unauthorisedly, but for the public
purpose i.e., for widening the road and consequently writ
appeals are also does not survive for consideration since
the notification already issued and only remaining process
to be done is passing of award and hence question of
delivering the possession does not arise as undertaken by
the respondents.
34. With the above observations, the contempt
proceedings are dropped and writ appeals are disposed of
as the question of handing over the possession as
observed by the learned Single Judge doesn't arise in view
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
of subsequent developments of issuance of the
notification.
35. The respondents have placed on record the
action initiated against erring officials as directed. Hence,
directed to submit the report regarding the result of action
taken against the erring officials before this Court within
three months.
In view of disposal W.A.No.200207/2024,
W.A.No.200239/2024 and W.A.No.200241/2024,
I.A.No.2/2024 in the respective appeals do not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SN
CT:NI
