[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Somappa Gurupadappa Malgi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.100360 OF 2024 (L - RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SOMAPPA
GURUPADAPPA MALGI,
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHANKARIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANT
VISHAL
NINGAPPA (BY SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
AND:
PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.03.10 10:29:46
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
+0530
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
HANGAL, TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
5. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA KALANGI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
6. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BENAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICUTLURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
7. BANGAREPPA
S/O. ANDANEPPA BIDARAGADDI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
8. MALLAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA SHIVAOOR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. KALVEKALLAPUR,
SHANKRIKOPPA,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
UPPAR TUNGA PROJECT DIVISION,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
RANEBENNUR,
TAL: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581110.
10. NAGARAJ
SHIVABASAPPA MALGI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
11. SOMAPPA GURUPADAPPA MALGI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
12. CHANNABASAPPA
VIRUPAKSHAPPA HURAKADLI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
13. VEERAPPA ADOPTED
S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA HURAKADLI,
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
14. MALLAPPA
SANGAPPA MALGI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
15. BENAKALINGAPPA
SOMAPPA MALGI
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIUCLTURE,
R/O. SHANKRIKOPPA,
TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8;
SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
NOTICE TO R10 TO R15 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.106232/2018 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
WA No. 100360 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
1. This intra-Court Appeal is filed against the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2024 passed in Writ
Petition No.106232 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by
the petitioners came to be dismissed.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioners sought
declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated as per
Annexure-B have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short "the Act,
2013") and also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2017
passed by the respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner,
Haveri, produced at Annexure-C.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that no steps have
been taken by the authorities to pay compensation to them in
respect of the land allegedly acquired. Though a draft award
was prepared, the respondents failed to pass a final award in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
HC-KAR
accordance with law and consequently failed to disburse the
compensation to the appellant. It is further contended that
the appellant has been in continuous and peaceful possession
of the land since the year 1972 and that the respondents have
never taken actual possession of the land.
4. The Assistant Commissioner attempted to correct
the revenue records and delete the names of the petitioners
after lapse of 43 years without issuing any notice or providing
an opportunity of hearing. It is therefore contended that the
alleged acquisition has lapsed since the possession of the
acquired land has not been taken and compensation has not
been paid. In support of their contention, the petitioners
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in Indoor Development Authority Vs. Manohar
Lal and others1.
5. Before the Writ Court, the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4
placed on record the preliminary and final notifications, the
1 2020 (8) SCC 129
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
HC-KAR
award passed, and the details regarding payment of
compensation and taking of physical possession of the
property. The Writ Court, considering the said documents and
observing that the issuance of preliminary and final
notifications, passing of award and payment of compensation
were not disputed by the petitioners, and dismissed the writ
petition by the impugned order.
6. Heard Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, the learned counsel
for the appellant; Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri
Aravind D. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.5 to 8; and Sri K.S. Patil, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.9, and perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends
that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no
steps were taken by the authorities to pay compensation to
the appellant in respect of the land allegedly acquired.
Though a draft award was prepared, the respondents failed to
pass a final award in accordance with law and consequently
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
HC-KAR
failed to disburse compensation to the appellant. It is further
contended that the appellant has been in continuous and
peaceful possession of the land from the year 1972 till date
and that the respondents have never taken actual physical
possession of the land. After a lapse of nearly 43 years, the
Assistant Commissioner attempted to correct the revenue
records and delete the name of the appellant without issuing
any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. It is
therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case
while dismissing the writ petition. It is also contended that
the respondents have not utilized the land for the purpose for
which it was allegedly acquired and the appellant continue to
remain in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate, relying upon the documents produced before the
Writ Court, contends that the land has been acquired,
notifications have been issued, the award has been passed
and compensation has been paid. These documents were
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
HC-KAR
placed before the Writ Court and, upon considering them, the
Writ Court has rightly held that the acquisition has not been
lapsed and has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and perused the material placed on record.
10. It is the case of the petitioners before the Writ
Court that the acquisition proceedings initiated against them
have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has
produced before the writ Court the preliminary notification
dated 28.10.1972, the final notification dated 08.01.1974 and
the receipt for showing that possession of the property was
taken on 16.11.1976. The said documents disclose that the
compensation payable to the landowners has already been
paid under due acknowledgment. The Writ Court has
observed that there was absolutely no explanation from the
petitioners with regard to these documents produced by the
learned Additional Government Advocate and relied upon by
the respondents. The documents placed on record by the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3572-DB
HC-KAR
respondents indicate that the possession of the acquired land
has been taken and compensation has been paid. Considering
the said aspects and relying upon the decision in Indoor
Development Authority (supra), the Writ Court held that the
acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.
11. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we are not
persuaded to take a different view from the one taken by the
learned Single Judge. No grounds are made out to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
