Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4038 (KAR)

DATTATRAYA DATTU S/O GOPAL SARMALKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/102225/2024 · 2025-02-10

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2599 WP No. 102225 of 2024 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.102225 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: DATTATRAYA @ DATTU S/O. GOPAL SARMALKAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. BADGUND, SUPA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581365. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-244713. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KARWAR SUB-DIVISION, KARWAR-581301. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KALI-RIVER HYDRO PROJECT, DANDELI, UTTAR KANNADA, DANDELI-581325. 5. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, K.P.C., SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:23:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2599 WP No. 102225 of 2024 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, AMBIKANAGAR, DANDELI-581363. 7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, GANESHGUDI, JOIDA, GANESHGUDI-581365. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 TO CONSIDER THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DT. 4/12/2023 BEARING NO.BHU SWA/VIVA-10/2023-24/E 42974 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D; TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 12/2/2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.6 and 7 to consider the endorsement made by Respondent no.3 dt. 4/12/2023 bearing No.Bhu Swa/Viva-10/2023- 24/e 42974 produced vide Annexure-D; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2599 WP No. 102225 of 2024 b) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents to consider the representation produced vide Annexure-E dated 12/2/2024. c) To pass any other order, direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.12/B had been acquired for the purpose of establishing the Kali river hydro project in the year 1987 and compensation in regard thereto had been paid by respondent No.5 to the petitioner’s father. The petitioner is before this Court now alleging that the land of the petitioner has not been used and is continued to be in possession of the petitioner. As such, a representation having been submitted by the petitioner for restoration of the said land on the petitioner, returning the compensation amount vide representation dated 12.02.2024 at Annexure-E, has not been considered. It is in that background that the aforesaid reliefs sought for. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7 submits that the land of the petitioner forms part of the backwater of the river and acts as a buffer when the water in the dam reaches close to its capacity. The powerhouse having been established, generators have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2599 WP No. 102225 of 2024 been made operational, if the dam reaches its capacity, then the land of the petitioner would also be submerged, there is no question of return of the land to the petitioner as claimed for. The petitioner having received the compensation long ago, the land being required for the beneficiary, it cannot be handed over. 4. In view of the said submission, there would be no vested right in favour of the petitioner for grant of mandamus as sought for. 5. In that view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51