- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 108685 OF 2019 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. LOKANATH PANDU DURGEKAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SEA BIRD COLONY, CHITTAKULA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. SMT.RAMESHWARI W/O RAMADAS GIRAP AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JANATA PLOT, CHITTAKULA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. GANAPATI HADU KHOBREKAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JANATA PLOT, CHITTAKULA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. SANJAY SURESH KHOBREKAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MALDHARWADA, CHITTAKULA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 5. SMT.SUNITA W/O SATISH CHANDEKAR AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NACHAKANBAG, MAJALI, POST: MAJALI, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 6. SRINATH SURESH KHOBREKAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: MALDHARWADA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, RPTD BY ITS GPA HOLDER, SATEESH SURESH KHOBREKAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: MALDHARWADA, POST: SADASHIVGAD, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KARWAR SUB-DIVISION, KARWAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 5. THE TAHASILDAR KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR., AGA R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DECLARE THT THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 4.2.1993, VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R4 AND 6(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 6.9.93 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY R1 IN RESPECT OF PART OF LAND BEARING SV.NO.233 SITUATED AT CHITTAKULA VILLAGE, SAVANTWADA HOBLI, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA MAY KINDLY BE LAPSED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the Respondents to declare that the 4(1) Notification dated 4.2.1993 vide Annexure-A issued by R4 and 6(1) Notification dated: 6.9.1993 vide Annexure-B issued by the R1 in respect of part of land bearing Sy.No.233 situated at Chittakula Village, Savantwada Hobli, Tq: Karwar, Dist: Uttara Kannada may kindly be lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in so far as Petitioners are concerned, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the land in question from the wife of the original owner. Subsequent to such purchase, the names of the petitioners were entered into in the revenue records. When the petitioners applied for converting the land for non-agricultural purposes, in the year 2013, conversion order was also issued. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities, without issuing any notice, caused the deletion of the name of the petitioners from the revenue records. The petitioners filed an appeal in terms of subsection (2) of Section 136 of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that the land had been acquired by issuance of preliminary notification under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 04.02.1993, followed by a final notification under subsection (1) of Section 6 on 6.9.1993. It is challenging the said acquisition notifications, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The submission of Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value having purchased the land after verification of the title documents standing in the name of their vendors. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners’ names also having been entered into the revenue records, and conversion also having been granted, the petitioners were enjoying land as a true and lawful owners thereof and in that background, the revenue entries made in the name of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 petitioners could not have been unilaterally deleted on the basis of an alleged acquisition and hence he submits that the reliefs sought for are required to be granted. 4. It is not in dispute that the preliminary notification with respect to subject lands were issued on 4.2.1993 and final notification came to be issued on 6.9.1993. Though the revenue records still continued to be in the name of the original owner, and on the expiry of the original owner came to be mutated in the name of his wife who sold the property in question to the petitioners on 31.08.2012, the fact remains that the acquisition was completed as far back as on 6.9.1993 and the award was passed on 13.1.1995 and that being so, the petitioners have purchased the land which was already acquired and any action taken pursuant thereto would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. If at all the petitioners have any - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2600 WP No. 108685 of 2019 grievance, the same can only be against the vendor. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate any such grievance against the vendor , if permitted under law, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66