- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1714 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI RAVINDRA M S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPAT TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571107 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KABINI RESORVIOR PROJECT, MUDA COMPLEX, NEAR ANDOLANA CIRCLE, I BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU-570022. 3. CAUVERY NEEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, SURFACE WATER DATA BUILDING ANAND RAO CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI-571201. VIDE ORDER DATED:17.11.2023 in O.S. No.96/2022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1, R2 & R4 SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20/08/2024 DISMISSING WP NO.13628/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.13628/2023 (LA-RES), whereby the said petition was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 dismissed. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning the endorsements dated 20.05.2023 and 07.06.2023. The appellant had also prayed for a direction that compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum be disbursed on account of acquisition of the lands in question. 2. The appellant was unrepresented on the date of the hearing, that is, on 20.08.2024. The learned Single Judge had also noted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition as the subject lands were acquired in the year 1971. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on account of delay. The appellant had also filed an application for 'being spoken to', which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 23.08.2024. 3. The operative part of the said order dated 23.08.2024 reads as under: The case of the petitioner is that the lands of his grandfather was acquired way-back in the year 1971 but compensation has not been granted. It is admitted that possession of the land was taken immediately thereafter. It is further submitted that his grandfather died somewhere in the year 1997 and he had not chosen to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is not able to explain the inordinate delay in challenging the acquisition. The writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.2024, on the ground of delay and laches. No reason is made out by the petitioner to recall the said order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 4. It is the appellant's case that his grandfather owned certain lands located at Heroor Village, Sutikoppa Hobli, Kushalnagar Taluk, Kodagu District (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), the details of which are set out below: 1. Sy.No.66/3 measuring 15 cents (Irrigated), 2. Sy.No.68/13 measuring 78 cents (Irrigated), 3. Sy.No.68/16 measuring 2 acres 79 cents (Irrigated), 4. Sy.No.68/19 measuring 86 cents (Irrigated), 5. Sy.No.68/26 measuring 1 acre 20 cents (Irrigated) 6. Sy.No.68/30 measuring 65 cents (Coffee Estate), 7. Sy.No.68/46 measuring 1 acre 14 cents (Irrigated) 8. Sy.No.68/49 measuring 56 cents (Irrigated) 9. Sy.No.68/59 measuring 2 acres 25 cents (Khushki) 10. Sy.No.68/60 measuring 63 cents (Khushki) 11. Sy.No.75/2 measuring 61 cents (Khushki) 12. A House property measuring 2000 Sq.Ft. in the Estate. 5. The said lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the Act). A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 06.04.1971 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.09.1971. 6. It is the appellant's case that although the possession of the said lands was taken over, no compensation was paid. The appellant, accordingly, claims that he is entitled to receive compensation as one of the legal heirs of his grandfather [ Shri Sundar]. He has set out his family tree in the petition, which is reproduced below: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 FAMILY TREE SUNDAR (DECEASED) DEVIKA (Deceased)1st Wife Parvathi (Deceased) 2nd wife Vasu (70 years) Ramachandra Jayanth Lalitha Lakshmi ( Deceased ) @Jayamma 65 years 58 years Unmarried (Deceased) Parameshwara (Deceased) 7. The appellant claims that he was not aware of the fact that his grandfather had not received the compensation for the acquired land till recently (in the year 2022). He states that he became aware of the same when he was searching for documents in the Revenue Department for filing a civil suit against his relatives. He had enquired from the elders in the family and filed a suit for his share in compensation amount against the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabini Reservoir Project [respondent No.2] and Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District Savitha 45 years Usha 43 years Asha Kumari 40 years Ravindra M 47 years - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 [respondent No.4]. However, in those proceedings, the Court required him to mention the amount of compensation awarded and on further enquiries, he found that the compensation amount had not been received by his grandfather. 8. The appellant had made a representation, which was rejected. Respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement dated 20.05.2023 stating that late B.Sundar [the appellant's grandfather] had received the compensation. Receipts of the same were also forwarded. However, the appellant claimed that, on verification he found that the xerox receipt showed a different survey number and not the survey numbers mentioned in the notifications. He also alleged that the signatures of the payee were not that of his grandfather. 9. It is not necessary to examine the question whether the appellant has any right or interest for receiving the compensation as the appellant's petition was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, the subject lands were acquired in the year 1971. The possession of the said lands were also taken over at the material time. The appellant was not born when the said lands were acquired. The grandfather of the appellant, who was the original owner, had not instituted any actions or proceedings for seeking compensation. He expired in the year 1997. In - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 the given circumstances, this Court is unable to fault the decision of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by the appellant is hopelessly barred by limitation considering that he claims his rights through his grandfather. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contented that the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation as in terms of Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC, an appeal is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution, if the appellant does not appear when it is called for hearing. On the strength of the said provision, he contended that the petition could not have been dismissed on the grounds of delay. It is apparent that Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC is not applicable as the impugned order was not passed in a first appeal against an original order. The impugned order was passed in a writ petition in exercise of the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We may also note that the present appeal has also been filed after a delay of 61 days. 12. We find that the present appeal is an unjustifiable imposition on judicial time. We, accordingly, dismiss the same with costs quantified at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42087-DB WA No. 1714 of 2024 Rs.25,000/-. The same will be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from date. 13. Pending applications, if any, is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30