- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4848 WP No. 565 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. K.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE H.B.KALAPPA 2. SRI. B.K. POONACHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O. LATE H.B.KALAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MALOORU VILLAGE NAKOOR SHIRNAGALA POST SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI SOMWARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4848 WP No. 565 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION MADIKERI-571 201 4. THE THASILDAR MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21/08/2023, ISSUED BY THE R4, TAHASILDAR, MADE IN REF. NO.TAMATA/JAGA/50/23-24 COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNX-A AND A1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners are assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.4 evidenced at Annexure-A and A.1, wherein respondent No.4 - Tahasildar has declined to entertain the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking alternate land on the ground that the petitioners - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4848 WP No. 565 of 2025 are displaced persons. Assailing the said endorsement, the captioned writ petition is filed and consequent mandamus is also sought against respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09.06.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. Upon careful consideration of the facts and legal position, this Court finds that the petitioners had already availed themselves of the legal recourse available under the Land Acquisition Act. They had challenged the adequacy of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by seeking a reference, and subsequently, they pursued an appeal before this Court in MFA No.967/2016. This demonstrates that the petitioners exercised the statutory remedies provided under the law to contest the compensation awarded for the acquisition of their lands. Once such recourse has been exhausted, they cannot now seek a writ of mandamus from this Court to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4848 WP No. 565 of 2025 compel the State to provide an alternate land in lieu of the acquired property, especially when the acquisition took place as far back as the year 1971. 4. Furthermore, the State is under no legal obligation to allot an alternate land to the petitioners in the absence of any specific statutory provision or governmental policy mandating such relief. The acquisition of the petitioners’ land was carried out in accordance with the prevailing legal framework, and compensation was determined through the due process of law. If the petitioners were dissatisfied with the compensation, their remedy lay in pursuing further legal avenues, as permitted by law, rather than seeking alternate land through a writ petition. The representation submitted by the petitioners appears to be an afterthought, lacking any legal basis or enforceable right. Accepting such a plea at this stage would set an untenable precedent, as it would open the floodgates for similar claims long after land acquisitions have been concluded and compensation awarded. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4848 WP No. 565 of 2025 5. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have not placed on record any scheme or policy document indicating that, at the time of acquisition, the Government had undertaken to provide alternate land in cases where compensation was found inadequate. The mere fact that the acquired lands were compensated at a lower rate does not, by itself, create a vested right in favor of the petitioners to seek alternate land decades later. In the absence of any legal provision or governmental policy supporting such a claim, this Court finds no reason to intervene. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit, and this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30