- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 202802 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. POOJYA DR SHARANABASVAPPA APPA AGE. 89 YEARS, OCC. 8TH PEETHADHIPATI OF SHANABASAVESHWAR SAMSTHANA TRUSTEE OF POOJYA DR SHANABASVAPPA APPA FAMILY TRUST OF SHARANABASAVESHWAR SAMSTHANA PRESIDENT SHARANABASVESHWAR VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA CHANCELLOR, SHARANABASVA UNIVERSITY R/O SHARANA NAGAR KALABURAGI. 2. CHI. DODDAPPA APPA S/O POOJYA DR. SHARANABASVAPPA APPA, AGE. 11 YEARS, OCC. 9TH PEETHADHIPATI OF SHARANABASAVAPPA APPA FAMILY TRUST OF SHARANABASAVESHWAR SAMSTHANA, R/O SHARANA NAGAR, KALABURAGI REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN DR. MATOSHREE DAKSHAYINI W/O POOJYA DR. SHARANABASVAPPA APPA R/O SHARANA NAGAR KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL AND SRI. A.M. NAGARAL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI – 585 102. 4. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA TIWARI, AAG A/W SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3 SRI. KRUPA SAGAR, PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT IS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THE EXTENT OF TOWARDS JATRA MAIDAN 1/2 8.60 7.60 32.68 SQ M OR 352 SQ FT IN CTS NO. 1432 (CORPORATION NO. 10-500) SITUATED AT SHARANA NAGAR, KALABURAGI, UNDER TH PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AND ACCORDINGLY PAY THE MONETARY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER TO WHICH HE IS LEGALLY ENTITLE TO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.03.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “ (a) Issue a writ, in a nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, directing the respondent to acquire the property in question to the extent of “Towards Jatra Maidan ½ x 8.60 x7.60 = 32.68 sq.m or 352 sq.ft in CTS No. 1432 (Corporation No.10-500) situated at Sharana Nagar, Kalaburagi, Under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and accordingly pay the monetary compensation to the petitioner to which he is legally entitled to in the interest of justice. (b) Such other writ or order as direction as deemed fit as circumstances of the case including and order for costs.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AAG for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the subject land is part - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 and parcel of CTS No.1432 and Corporation No.10-500 popularly known as “Yatra Maidan / Jatra Maidan” measuring about 41593 – 4 sq.mtrs. It is contended that the petitioners instituted two suits in O.S.No.476/1985 and O.S.No.462/1985 against respondent No.4 – Corporation for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the aforesaid CTS No.1432 as well as the adjacent land in CTS No.1431 which was decreed in favour of the petitioners – plaintiffs vide judgments and decrees dated 08.10.1991 upholding the title and possession of the petitioners – plaintiffs over the said land and the said judgments and decrees have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the 4th respondent – Corporation. Further, one more suit in O.S.No.137/2012 was filed by one Subhash s/o Laxman Rao Benakanahalli against the petitioners herein in relation to one site measuring 50 x 40 in CTS No.1432 for permanent injunction and other reliefs which was dismissed by the trial court upholding the title and possession of the petitioners over the subject land. The said Subhash filed an appeal in R.A.No.1/2020 which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022. In addition thereto, the petitioners instituted a suit in O.S.No.327/2009 against Prakash, brother of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 aforesaid Subhash for ejectment and other reliefs in relation to portion of CTS No.1432 measuring 72 feet x 42 feet, which was decreed in favour of the petitioners against the said Prakash by the Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2024 and the appeal in R.A.No.76/2014 filed by the said Prakash was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2023 and confirmed by this Court in RSA No.200162/2023 dated 16.06.2023, thereby also upholding the title and possession of the petitioners over CTS No.1432. It is contended that the revenue records, survey records and khata also establish the title and possession of the petitioners over CTS No.1432 and the respondents took over and utilized a portion of the said CTS No.1432 for the purpose of road widening without due process of law and without initiating acquisition proceedings against the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State have filed their Statement of Objections disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that the subject land bearing CTS No.1432 was a Grama Thana / Gaon Thana property as per the land records - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 within village/Panchayath limits and as such, the petitioners do not have any right over the same. It is contended that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.203336/2015 against the respondents herein in respect of portion of CTS No.1432 measuring about 27,000/- Sq.Ft. on the ground that the same had been taken over and utilized by the respondents. In the said petition, the respondents filed a memo contending that they had not utilised any portion of the said land and not initiated acquisition proceedings. The said memo of the respondents was accepted and the petition was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to initiate such legal proceedings, in accordance with law. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Division Bench, which disposed of the appeal without prejudice to the remedies available to the petitioners. It is also contended that as per the communication and survey reports dated 30.01.2012 and 23.04.2012 respectively, the subject land bearing CTS No.1432 was shown as Grama Thana / Gaon Thana and the petitioners cannot have any claim over the same. It is therefore contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 5. Respondent No.4 – Corporation also filed its Statement of Objections contending that the subject property bearing CTS No.1432 was Grama Thana /Gaon Thana and placed reliance upon the aforesaid communication and report and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as per the revenue records, survey records, khatha etc., produced by the petitioners, the name of the petitioners is reflected and made out in the said documents, which establish the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the subject land bearing CTS No.1432. It is an undisputed fact that in all the earlier court proceedings, the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners have been upheld by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court as well as this Court; in fact, O.S.Nos.476/2025 and 462/1985 filed by the petitioners against respondent No.4 – Corporation was undisputedly decreed in favour of the petitioners against respondent No.4 upholding the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the subject land. Further, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 disputes between the petitioners and Subhash and Prakash, both sons of Lakshman Rao Benakanahalli culminated in judgments and decrees passed in the previous rounds of litigation in O.S.No.137/2012, R.A.No.1/2020, O.S.No.327/2009, R.A.No.76/2014 and RSA No.200162/2023 in favour of the petitioners, thereby upholding the right of the petitioners over the subject land. In the case of Prakash Vs. Poojya Sri. Dr. Sharanabasappa Appa - RSA No.200162/2023 dated 16.06.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “ 1. This second appeal is by the defendant being aggrieved by the decree of ejectment passed against him by the Trial Court which has in turn been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 2. The Peethadipathi of Sri. Sharanabasaweshwar Samsthan, instituted the suit seeking for a decree to eject the defendant from portion of the open space bearing CTS No.1432 known as “Jatra Maidan” measuring 72’ x 42’, which was demarcated in red colour and the sketch annexed to the plaint. 3. It was contended that the plaintiff was the owner of open space bearing CTS No.1432 measuring 41593.4 sq. mtrs and the ownership was also acknowledged by the authorities by entering the name of plaintiff in CTS records. It was stated that the Jatra of Sri.Sharanabasaweshwar Sadu Maharaj was held in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 month of March or April every year and during the Jatra season several persons would apply to erect their stalls in the maidan and accordingly they would be allotted space in the maidan by the plaintiff. It was stated that after the Jatra season was over, the allottees of the space used to take away their materials and would vacate the space allotted to them and it was also stated that they would take temporary electrical connections for their stalls during the said period through the electrical contractor approved by the plaintiff and the defendant was one such allottee. 4. It was stated that the defendant had taken the suit premises on license basis for three months for a licensee fee of Rs.12,000/- and had paid Rs.8,000/- on 14.04.2008 for which a receipt had also been issued. It was stated that the said license period expired on 30.06.2008 but yet the defendant had not vacated the suit space and he avoided handing over the same on one pretext or the other. 5. It was stated that in view of the intransigent attitude of the defendant, a legal notice was issued and yet the defendant did not hand over the possession and gave an untenable reply. It was stated that the defendant did not in fact claim any right over the suit open space in his reply and he had no right to deny the title of plaintiff. It was stated that since the right of plaintiff was denied the suit was being filed seeking for ejectment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 6. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the written statement. In the written statement, the defendant denied all the averments in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff had no title and the suit for possession was not maintainable without seeking for relief of declaration. The only contention advanced by the defendant was that he and his family members were in possession of the suit property for more than 50 years in their own right and therefore the suit was barred by limitation. 7. The Trial Court on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the suit property was in fact the property which belonged to plaintiff and the CTS record produced at Ex. P.35 indicated that ownership of the property was that of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the defendant himself lodged a police complaint vide Ex.P-33, in which he admitted that he was a licensee and had paid a license fee of Rs.12,000/- and the Committee of the temple had disconnected his electricity connection and this complaint by itself established that he was only a licensee. 8. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the official of the Survey Department had also stated that in the revenue records the plaintiff’s name had been entered as the owner. The Trial Court also held that the defendant had not established on what basis he was in possession and there was also no plea that the suit property belonged to the Corporation and therefore his - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 assertion that the property belonged to the Corporation could not be accepted. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the possession to the plaintiff within two months. The Trial Court also directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.34,000/- to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the premises. The Trial Court also held that a separate enquiry be held for determining the mesne profits. 9. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant, during the course of cross-examination had admitted that there was no entry in the records indicating that the suit property was either the property of the Government or that of the Corporation, the plea of the defendant was untenable. It also noticed that the defendant admitted in his cross-examination that in the complaint at Ex.P33 lodged by the defendant, he had not stated that the disputed property belonged to the Corporation or the Government. 10. It also took note of the fact that the defendant admitted in his cross-examination that he did not claim title over the suit property and that the suit property was a part of the Jatra Maidan and during the city survey conducted in the year 1976-77, the classification of lands as a Government or Corporation or private had been made by the authorities and insofar as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 the CTS records, the name of plaintiff had been entered in respect of the suit property. 11. The Appellate Court also took note of the fact that DW.5, the witness examined on behalf of defendant also admitted that permission was granted by the plaintiff in the Jatra Maidan for erection of stalls and he stated that he was not aware as to whether in the year 2008 similar permission had been granted to the defendant. 12. The Appellate Court taking note of the above evidence and also taking into consideration the fact that the defendant did not put forth the plea that he was the owner and did not state in what capacity he was in possession of the suit property and his prayer to dismiss the suit could not be entertained. 13. The Appellate Court observed that Exs.P9 to 12 proved that the suit property was not the property of the city Corporation and it was the part of Jatra Maidan, which belonged to the plaintiff and the Trial Court was therefore justified in decreeing the suit and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the decree of ejectment passed by the Trial Court. 14. Being aggrieved by these concurrent judgments, the present second appeal has been preferred. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff was not at all the owner of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 suit property and that the suit property actually belonged to the Corporation. He submitted that since the plaintiff was not the owner of the property, both the Courts had seriously erred in granting a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Learned counsel also contended that when the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff, the Trial court would not have entertained the suit for possession as there was no prayer for declaration of title. He submitted that the denial of title by the defendant amounted to a cloud being cast on the title of the plaintiff and it was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to have sought for a declaration. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned decrees could not be sustained. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the judgments of the Courts below and contended that there was no infirmity in the reasoning of both the Courts. He submitted that both the Courts had recorded a clear finding of fact that the defendant had no right to be in possession and the records clearly indicated that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and therefore, the decrees passed by the Courts could not be found fault with. 18. He also submitted that merely because the defendant denied the title that did not require the plaintiff to seek for a declaration and in fact, the very decision relied upon by the defendant indicated that if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without an - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 apparent title merely denied the plaintiff’s title, that would not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it would not be necessary for the plaintiff to seek for declaration and therefore, the entire argument of the counsel for the appellant was misconceived. 19. As already stated above, the averments in the plaint were that the suit property i.e, CTS.No.1432 belonged to the plaintiff and a portion of it had been permitted to be occupied during Jatra season by the defendant by collecting a licence fee. However, the assertion that the plaintiff possessed title was denied and, in this appeal, it is strenuously contended that the property in question belonged to the Corporation and therefore, the Courts below could not have decreed the suit. 20. As noticed by both the Courts, in the CTS records, the name of the plaintiff has been entered as the owner of the suit property bearing CTS No.1432, of which a portion is the suit property. Admittedly, the defendant does not set up title in himself and merely claims that his family was in possession for more than 50 years. In the absence of any legal right put forth by the defendant to be in possession, the defendant cannot contend that he is entitled to be in possession and deny the right of the owner of the property to seek for a possession. 21. As noticed by the Appellate Court as well as by the Trial Court, the complaint lodged by the defendant - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 complaining of an attempt to dispossess him contains the following statement which reads as follows: ”ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ಶರಣಬಸ ೇಶರ ಶರಣಬಸ ೇಶರ ಶರಣಬಸ ೇಶರ ಶರಣಬಸ ೇಶರ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಎದುರುಗೆ ಎದುರುಗೆ ಎದುರುಗೆ ಎದುರುಗೆ ಬಯಲು ಬಯಲು ಬಯಲು ಬಯಲು ಾಗದ ಾಗದ ಾಗದ ಾಗದ ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಪಾಶ ಪಾಶ ಪಾಶ ಪಾಶ ಕನ ಕನ ಕನ ಕನ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಅಂಗಯನು" ಅಂಗಯನು" ಅಂಗಯನು" ಅಂಗಯನು" ಕ#ೆದ ಕ#ೆದ ಕ#ೆದ ಕ#ೆದ ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ವಷ(ಗ)ಂದ ವಷ(ಗ)ಂದ ವಷ(ಗ)ಂದ ವಷ(ಗ)ಂದ ತಗನ ತಗನ ತಗನ ತಗನ ಪತದ ಪತದ ಪತದ ಪತದ +ೆ, +ೆ, +ೆ, +ೆ, ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಾ-ೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಾ-ೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಾ-ೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಾ-ೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ. ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಸದ0 ಸದ0 ಸದ0 ಸದ0 ಾ1ೆ1ೆ ಾ1ೆ1ೆ ಾ1ೆ1ೆ ಾ1ೆ1ೆ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು 3ಸ4 3ಸ4 3ಸ4 3ಸ4 ಸಲು ಾ5 ಸಲು ಾ5 ಸಲು ಾ5 ಸಲು ಾ5 6ಾ1ೆ1ೆ 6ಾ1ೆ1ೆ 6ಾ1ೆ1ೆ 6ಾ1ೆ1ೆ 12,000/- ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ. ೊಡು8/ದು9 ೊಡು8/ದು9 ೊಡು8/ದು9 ೊಡು8/ದು9 ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು 8ಂಗಳ 8ಂಗಳ 8ಂಗಳ 8ಂಗಳ <ಂ=ೆ <ಂ=ೆ <ಂ=ೆ <ಂ=ೆ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಗುಯ ಕ>?ಯವರು ಕ>?ಯವರು ಕ>?ಯವರು ಕ>?ಯವರು @ದುA @ದುA @ದುA @ದುAB B B B ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಕತ1ೊ)ಸದು9 ಕತ1ೊ)ಸದು9 ಕತ1ೊ)ಸದು9 ಕತ1ೊ)ಸದು9 ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಪCನ ಪCನ ಪCನ ಪCನ @ದುAB @ದುAB @ದುAB @ದುAB ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಸಂಪಕ( ಪೆದುೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಪೆದುೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಪೆದುೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ ಪೆದುೊಂರು.ೆ/ೕೆ.” 22. As could be seen from the said statement, the defendant admits that he had erected a tin shed for the purpose of running his sugarcane juice stall and he was paying a sum of Rs.12,000/- every season. He has also categorically admitted that a month ago the Committee of the Temple had got the electricity disconnected and he had got the same restored. This averment clearly indicates that the defendant admitted that he was a licensee under the plaintiff, and he had got the electricity disconnected. This averment coupled with the fact that the defendant did not choose to put forth any plea in his written statement as to who was the owner of the property, clearly and conclusively indicates that the plaintiff had inducted the defendant into the premises as a licencee and was therefore, entitled to seek for recovery of possession. 23. As far as the averment that the plaintiff did not have title and the property belonged to the Corporation. It is to be noticed here that the plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.462/1985 against the Corporation seeking for an injunction in respect of the erection of a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 compound wall in its property bearing CTS.No.1432. The judgment rendered in the said suit is produced as Ex. P- 9. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that the Corporation did not deny the fact that the CTS records reflected the name of the plaintiff. More importantly, it admitted that the father of the plaintiff had applied to the Town Planning Authority for issuing a commencement certificate to construct the compound wall around the property bearing CTS No.1432 and the Town Planning Authority after making enquiry had in fact overruled the objections raised by the Wakf Committee and had approved the plan submitted by the plaintiff’s father and had issued the commencement certificate. 24. It was also stated that the plaintiff’s father had filed an application before the Corporation seeking for permission and permission had also been granted on 22.10.1983. In my view, this defence of the Corporation in O.S.No.462/1985 clearly indicates that the Corporation did not dispute the ownership of the plaintiff over CTS No.1432 and it had in fact admitted that it had granted permission to the plaintiff’s father to erect a compound wall enclosing CTS No.1432. 25. It may also be pertinent to state here that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.462/1985 was also decreed holding that the Corporation could not have issued a notice to stop further construction on the ground that the period stipulated in the permission had expired. In fact, the Trial Court restrained the Corporation from demolishing the compound wall already constructed in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 CTS No.1432 and from causing any interference in the further construction of the compound wall as per the plan approved by the Town Planning Authority. This judgment, therefore, clearly indicates that the title of the plaintiff was never in doubt vis-à-vis the Corporation and the argument of the appellant’s counsel would not hold water. 26. It may also be pertinent to state here that the plaintiff had in fact filed another suit in O.S.No.476/1985 against the Corporation seeking for a decree of injunction to restrain the Corporation from constructing latrines upon any portion of plaintiff’s property CTS.Nos.1431 and 1432 and also the adjoining space situate at Brahmapura, Kalaburagi, and the space lying towards North of plaintiff’s building bearing No.10- 653. In this suit, the plaintiff contended that he was the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.25, CTS No.1431 and open space bearing CTS No.1432 apart from the building bearing municipal No.10-653. In the judgment which is produced as Ex.P10, it is recorded by the Trial Court as follows: “In response to the service of summons, the defendant appeared before the Court through its learned counsel submitted the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC stating that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the land Sy.No.25, bearing CTS No.1431 and open site bearing CTS No.1432 and building bearing municipal number 10-653 all situated at Brahmpur Gulbarga is not disputed.” 27. As could be seen from the above, in the suit which had been filed against the Corporation, the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 Corporation itself admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.25, CTS No.1431 and also more importantly the open space bearing CTS No.1432, which was the entire extent of land out of which the suit property formed only a portion. 28. In the light of this clear admission of the plaintiff’s title by the Corporation, the entire argument of the defendant that CTS No.1432 was the property of the Corporation will have to necessary fail having regard to the fact that the suit property forms a portion of CTS No.1432. In fact, the argument that the suit property belonged to the Corporation will have to be rejected in its entirety and it will have to be held that the suit property was indeed the property of the plaintiff. 29. The arguments that by virtue of the denial of the title of the plaintiff by the defendant a cloud over the plaintiff’s title had been raised and this therefore required a declaratory decree to be sought for by the plaintiff cannot also be accepted. 30. As noticed above, the defendant did not set up a title in himself in his written statement and it was only during the course of his evidence that an attempt was made to put-forth the case that the Corporation owned the suit property. 31. As already held above, the Corporation itself admitted that CTS bearing No.1432 in its entirety belonged to the plaintiff. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Apex Court in the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others, has clearly held that it would not be necessary for the plaintiff to seek for a declaration, if the defendant did not disclose his right or title which raised a serious doubt about the plaintiff’s title there is no need for the plaintiff to seek for declaration. The Apex Court paragraph No.17(d) of its judgment has stated that the persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim over the property in question and it was incumbent upon the Courts to use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title was unnecessary. 32. In my view, since the defendant did not set up a title in himself and the Corporation to whom attributed a title conceded the title of the plaintiff, there was absolutely no need for the plaintiff to seek for declaration. This attempt by the defendant to set up title in the Corporation is a clear attempt to expand the scope of the litigation and thereby continue in possession. It is therefore clear that the defendant is a person who is raising an unethical plea only to prolong his possession by any means possible, I am therefore of the view that there is absolutely no merit in this second appeal and at any rate there is absolutely no question of law, much less the substantial question of law arising for consideration in - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 33. I am also of the view that having regard to the manner in which the appellant has attempted to deliberately raise unethical pleas to protract his possession, it would be appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/-.” 8. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid documents, facts and circumstances are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the subject land bearing CTS No.1432 has been recognised, confirmed and upheld and consequently, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners cannot claim any right over the subject land cannot be accepted; as stated earlier, petitioners obtained a decree against respondent No.4 as long back as in 1991 in O.S.Nos.462/1985 and 476/1985, thereby indicating that respondent No.4 was estopped from disputing the title and possession of the petitioners over the subject land. 9. Insofar as the contention of respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State is concerned, it is relevant to state that undisputedly in relation to another portion of CTS No.1432, the learned Single - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 Judge of this Court in W.P.No.203336/2015 recorded the specific submission of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they had not acquired the subject land; the said finding was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.200031/2016 dated 10.06.2016 (Poojya Dr. Sharanabasavappa Appa Vs. The State of Karnataka and others) as under: “Heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri S.P. Shankar appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant, at length. 2. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition stand disposed of recording the statement on behalf of the State that the complaint of the petitioner as to land measuring 27,000 square feet in Survey No. CTS 1432 at Brahmapur, Kalburagi City is incorrect though the land was initially notified under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further proceedings were dropped in respect of the land and it was never acquired. However, the learned Senior Advocate Shri S.P. Shankar would submit that this statement made on behalf of the State was incorrect and the learned Single Judge ought not to have acted upon it, for, in fact, the above said land has been utilised for widening of a road and this glaring circumstance cannot be ignored; and he would submit that when such is the case, the petitioner is entitled to the consequent benefits of compensation and other statutory - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 benefits, though the petitioner may not be in a position to resist the acquisition of the land. The learned Senior Advocate is at great pains to assert that this is indeed the position by drawing our attention to more than one document which are produced along with the appeal and would insist that the matter requires closer look and seeks that the matter be remanded to the learned single judge for a further consideration. 3. Given the categorical statement made on behalf of the State that the land in question has never been acquired and when there is no dispute that further proceedings pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was never resorted to, it would appear that the land never vested in the State, and therefore in the eye of law, has not been acquired. If, indeed, the land has been utilised, it would be illegal on the part of the State to have occupied the land of the appellant, and therefore, the appellant is not precluded from taking recourse to the process of law in seeking appropriate remedies. The state would be precluded from claiming that such a challenge or any proceedings instituted would be a bar in terms of provisions of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1984.Consequently, the appellant is left to his remedies before the appropriate court of law. The present appeal, therefore, is disposed of without prejudice to any such remedy that may be available to the appellant.” 10. The aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench clearly establishes that in the light of the specific - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 stance/stand on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they had not acquired any portion of CTS No.1432, the writ appeal was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners herein to avail remedies, in accordance with law, by holding that if the land had indeed be utilised it would be illegal on the part of the State to have occupied the land of the petitioners, who were not precluded from taking recourse to the process of law seeking appropriate remedies. It follows therefrom that the petitioners would be entitled to prefer the present petition seeking appropriate directions in relation to a portion of the subject land bearing CTS No.1432 and consequently, the contention of the State cannot be accepted. 11. Insofar as reliance placed on the communication and report of the year 2012 is concerned, in the light of the aforesaid material on record and previous rounds of litigation between the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.4 and other persons, all of which cumulatively not only establish that the petitioners are the owners in possession and enjoyment of CTS No.1432, but also that portion of the said land, which is the subject matter had been utilised and used by the respondents without following due process of law and without taking recourse to - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 acquisition proceedings, no reliance can be placed on the said documents by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in support of their claim. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, having regard to the fact that the subject land had been taken over and utilised by the respondents from the petitioners without initiating acquisition proceedings or following due process of law, thereby violating and infringing the valuable constitutional rights guaranteed in favour of the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including the judgment in the cases of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. MIDC and others – AIR 2013 SC 565 and Kolkota Municipal Corporation Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah – (2024) 5 SCR 831, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be disposed of by directing the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation in favour of the petitioners within a stipulated timeframe by issuing appropriate directions in this regard. 13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed; - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3898 WP No. 202802 of 2024 (ii) The respondents are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land bearing CTS No.1432 (Corporation No.10-500) to the extent of “Towards Jatra Maidan ½ x 8.60 x 7.60 = 32.68 sq.m. or 352 sq. ft.”, situated at Sharana Nagar, Kalaburagi, under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and accordingly, pay compensation and damages in terms of the aforesaid decision in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Respondents are also directed to pay damages in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.