- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100079 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M.J. SHEETHA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND WORK, R/O. AKSHAYA, PLOT NO.547/A/1, 3RD CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002. 2. SHRI. M.G. JNANADEVA, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. AKSHAYA, PLOT NO. 547/A/1, 3RD CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002. ...PETITIONERS (By SMT. SURABHI RAVINDRA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER CITY Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI, CTS NO.4821/27A, RS NO.1005, NEAR SP OFFICE, SUBHASH NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REVENUE CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI, CTS NO.4821/27A, RS NO.1005, NEAR SP OFFICE, SUBHASH NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5; SRI. M.A. HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 21.01.2021 IN CCB/REV/MP/MISC22-2019-20, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ACQUIRE THE PORTION OF THE PETITION PROPERTY USED FOR ROAD WIDENING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PAY COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW OR GRANT AN ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL LAND IN BELAGAVI CITY. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent No.3 dated 21.01.2021 in CCB/REV/MP/Misc22-2019-20, produced as per Annexure-A; ii. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to acquire the portion of the petition property used for road widening in accordance with law and pay compensation as required under the law or grant an alternative commercial land in Belagavi City. iii. Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice. 2. The facts in brief are; 2.1. The petitioners claim that the properties in survey Nos. 275, 276-A, 276-B, 276-C and 277, totally measuring 2 acres 1 gunta, were converted for non-agricultural purposes on 21.05.1960 under the then Section 66 of the Bombay Revenue Act, 1879. The land in Survey No.277 was allotted CTS No.5384 and measured 599 5/9 square yards. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 2.2. The said owners leased the properties in favor of petitioner No.1 in the year 1986, however a lease deed was executed only on 10.03.1996. Subsequently, it is claimed that the owners sold the said properties in favor of the petitioners on 08.09.2000 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-. 2.3. A notification came to be issued by the Urban Development Department on 10.03.2006 under Section 13-E of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2004, by virtue of which an exemption was provided for open space and civic amenities on the sub-division of land. 2.4. Respondent No.5 thereafter issued an order on 01.09.2007, permitting petitioner No.1 for change of land use to commercial purposes to an extent of land measuring 5 guntas in CTS No.5384. Since the said property was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 mentioned as open space in the CDP prepared by the Belagavi Urban Development Authority (‘BUDA’ for short), the Respondent No.4- BUDA, also approved a single layout plan in respect of the aforesaid property, and thus, it is claimed that BUDA has recognized the right, title, and interest of the petitioners over the entire 599 5/9 square yards in CTS No.5384. 2.5. It is further claimed that, although the entire land had been sold, by oversight, only an extent of 233.78 square yards was mentioned in the sale deed as regards CTS No.5384. 2.6. Since there was a defect in the sale deed, the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.438/2009 for declaration and permanent injunction against the former owners as regards the entire land. The said suit ended in a compromise where petitioner No.1 was declared as the owner of the entire extent of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 599 5/9 square yards. It is in pursuance thereof that the name of the petitioners was entered into in the property card, as regards CTS No.5384. 2.7. Petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed on 30.09.2009, gifting the above property to petitioner No.2, his wife. At this stage it is claimed that respondent No.3, Commissioner, City Corporation, acquired a portion of the petitioners’ property to an extent of 2820 square feet for the purpose of road widening, without issuance of notice and without following due process of law. 2.8. In furtherance of the said acquisition, the property was bifurcated into CTS No.5384/1, measuring 233 7/9 square yards, and CTS No.5384/2, measuring 365 7/9 square yards. As regards CTS No.5384/2, the name of the Corporation was entered into, the same having - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 been acquired for the purpose of road widening. 2.9. Petitioner No.2 executed a sale deed on 24.02.2014 in respect of CTS No.5384/1, measuring 270 7/9 square yards, in favor of one Raju Ganapati Raikar and Shilpa Raju Raikar. The petitioners thereafter have been making several representations to the respondents for grant of an alternate site measuring 328 7/9 square yards or for payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired in CTS No.5384/2. However, no action was taken. 2.10. Hence, the petitioners filed WP No. 106592/2015 and WP No.107313/2015 for mandamus and this Court directed respondent No.3 Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the representation within 3 months. Respondent No. 1 had also issued directions to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 respondent No.3 to consider the representation, which were not so considered. 2.11. Hence, the petitioners filed contempt proceedings in CCC No.100193/2016 and CCC No.100200/2016, during the pendency of which respondent No.3 passed an order on 25.08.2016 that, since the petitioners had already relinquished a portion of the property, the question of payment of compensation or granting alternate land would not arise. 2.12. The petitioners challenged the order dated 25.08.2016 in WP Nos.106525-106526/2016. The writ petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had voluntarily given up their portion of the land in terms of a release deed dated 07.11.2007, as per sub- section (5) of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 2.13. This order was challenged by the petitioners in WA Nos.100226-100227/2019, where the writ appeal Court held that the release deed did not bear the signature of the petitioners, and as such, set aside the order passed in WP Nos.106525-106526/2017 and directed respondent No.3 to pass a speaking order within three months. 2.14. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioners to appear on 18.07.2020, the petitioners appeared and filed written arguments, respondent No. 3 passed an order on 21.01.2021 holding that the recitals in the sale deed dated 08.09.2000 clearly shows that petitioner No.1 had purchased CTS No.5384 only to an extent of 233.78 square yards and not the entire extent and dismissed the claim of the petitioners. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 2.15. Thereafter, the petitioners issued a notice on 07.06.2021, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, but no action has been taken by the respondent. 2.16. It is challenging the order dated 21.01.2021 denying the petitioners compensation, that the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Ms. Surubhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that ; 3.1. The Petitioners are the owners of the entire extent of land covered under CTS No. 5384, though the sale deed was for 233.78 square yards, in terms of the compromise entered into in O.S.No.438/2009, the owners have accepted the petitioners to be the owner of the entire extent of land. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 3.2. This aspect having been accepted by the BUDA, change of land use having been permitted for the entire extent of 599 5/9 square yards, and a single layout plan having been approved for the entire extent, the question of the Corporation claiming that the petitioners are the owners of only 233.78 square yards is not proper and correct. 3.3. She submits that a suit having been filed in O.S. No.438/2009 wherein it has been declared that the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the entire extent of land in CTS No.5384 measuring 599-5/9 square yards, the present impugned order could not have been passed. She reiterates that the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the enire CTS No.5384 measuring 559-5/9 square yards and , the same is now divided into CTS No.5384/1 and CTS No.5384/2. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 3.4. On the above basis she submits that the writ petition is to be allowed and reliefs sought for be granted. 4. Sri.Arvind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that, 4.1. What has been sold to the petitioner under sale deed dated 8.09.2000 is only 233.78 square yards. The sale deed only reflects that extent of land having been sold, the petitioners have misled BUDA in obtaining change of land use to the entire exent of 599- 5/9 square yards as regards which petitioner No.1 nor petitioner No.2 said to be owners thereof. The change of land use having applied for on 8.10.2007, granted on 21.02.2008. it is only when the aspects relating thereto were poined out, that a collusive suit in O.S. No.439/2009 and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 compromise is immediately entered into on 1.06.2009. 4.2. He submits that the conduct of the petitioners is completely malefide, the petitioners have wantonly misled all the concerned. He further submits that the petitioners are seeking to reserve the land to an extent of 599-5/9 square yards when it does not belong to them. Even as regards this, he submits that a relinquishment deed having been executed way back on 07.11.2007, the question of the petitioners claiming any right or interest would not arise. The petitioners have also sold the extent of land belonging to them and more, vide sale deed dated 24.02.2014 having conveyed an extent of 270-7/9 square yards in favour of Raju Ganapati Raikar and Shilpa Raju Raikar, when the petitioners have title over only 233.78 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 square yards. He thus submits that the petitioners are seeking to usurp the land which does not belong to them. The order passed by respondent No.3 is proper and correct, inasmuch as the petitioner having purchased only 233.78 square yards, the same has been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 21.01.2021 and holding that the petitioners will not be entitled for any compensation since that land measuring 233.78 has not been acquired or dealt with by the respondents No.3 or 4. 4.3. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 5. Sri.V.S.Kalsurmath, learned AGA submis that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have nothing to with it. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 6. Sri.M.A.Huliyal, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the change of land use which has been effected by respondent No.4 is in pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioners and no fault can be found therewith. He therefore submits that the present order which is impugned herein namely the order passed by respondent No.3, the matter is between the petitioner and respondent No.3. 7. Heard Smt.Surabhi Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, Aravind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 and Sri.M.A.Hulyal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused papers. 8. The short question that arises for consideration in the present matter is; “Whether the petitioners would be entitled for compensation as regards land - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 in CTS No.5384 over and above 233.78 square yards?” 9. It is not in dispute that what has been purchased by the petitioners under sale deed is only 233.78 square yards, when in fact the total extent of land in CTS No.5384 was 599-5/9 square yards. Thus it is clear that what the owners of the land sold to the petitioner No.1 was only 233.78 square yards and the sale deed has been executed in relation thereto. The schedule to the said sale deed reads as under: Schedule All that part and parcel of the open plot (without electricity, well and tap & drainage connection) admeasuring 233.78 Sq. yds. Situated at C.T.S. No. 5384, situated at Mahatma Phule Road, Shahapur, Belgaum, which is bounded as follows; On or towards East : Road On or towards West : Road On or towards South : Main Road On or towards North : Road 10. The reason why a sale was executed as regards 233.78 square yards is that the balance land was - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 earmarked for road widening and it is for that reason that the petitioners probably did not purchase the land earmarked for road widening. 11. Though the petitioners claim that the petitioner No.1 was in occupation of the entire land and the intention of the owners was to execute a sale deed in respect of the entire land, the fact remains that there is no sale deed executed for the entire land. The sale deed which has been executed is only as regards 233.78 square yards. That being the case, the petitioner No.1 had filed an application with respondent No.4 for change of land use of the entire extent of 599-5/9 square yards which was so granted. A single layout plan was also sanctioned by respondent No.4 in pursuance of which the petitioner relinquished an extent of area which was reserved for formation of a road. The petitioner having taken the benefit of the single layout plan sanction had later filed a suit in O.S. No.438/2009 which was - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 compromised immediately after filing on 1.06.2009 declaring that the petitioner No.1 was the owner of entire extent of 599-5/9 square yards. It is therefore clear that the suit was filed to achieve the purposes of the petitioners, the decree passed is not on merits but is a compromise decree, which the petitioners now want to make use of against the corporation, the corporation not being a party to the said suit needless to say would not be bound by such a collusive decee obtained by the petitioners to further the false cause of the petitioners. 12. Immediately thereafter, petitioner No.1 executed a gift deed on 13.09.2009 in favour of her husband- petitioner No.2 as regards to 599-5/9 square yards. and thereafter got the property bifurcated into CTS No.5384/1 and 5384/2 on 3.10.2013. CTS No.5384/1 measuring 233-7/9 square yards and CTS No.5384/2 measuring 365-7/9 yards. CTS No.5384/1 rightly measured 233-7/9 square yards which is purchased - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 by petitioner No.1 under the aforesaid sale deed dated 8.09.2000, the extent which had not been purchased but was subject matter of O.S. No.438/2009 was numbered as CTS No.5384/2. 13. Though the land in CTS No.5384/1 measured only 233-7/9 square yards, the petitioners executed a sale deed in respect of CTS No.5384/1 showing the same to measure 270-7/9 square yards. Thus, it is clear that the property purchased by petitioner No.1 was only 233.78 square yards. The same is however not subject matter of these proceedings, it is between the petitioners and their purchaser. 14. The change of land use was obtained as regards 599- 5/9 square yards. Subsequently, in a collusive suit, a compromise decree was passed declaring the petitioner to be owner of 599-5/9 square yards. The property was bifurcated into two and thereafter 270- 7/9 square yards sold by petitioner No.2. All these are in my considered opinion taking into account the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 dates of the transaction created to try and establish a right of the petitioner over the property when there is no such right. It is on that basis that the petitioner has claimed compensation for 328-7/9 square yards or for grant of alternate site which land was never purchased by the petitioner. This is also rejected in several litigations filed by the petitioner initially for mandamus, subsequently, when a direction had been issued and orders have been passed challenging the impugned order dated 21.01.2021. 15. In view of my categorical finding above that the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest over 328-7/9 square yards, the question of the petitioners claiming any compensation in relation thereto and or claiming for alternate site to be granted on account of the said land having been used for widening of the road would not at all arise. 16. In my considerable opinion, the above petition and even the earlier petitions leading up to the present petition are a clear and categorical abuse of the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5090 WP No. 100079 of 2022 process of law and court. The petitioners without any regard for the rule of law have sought to create documents, and have gone to the extent of creating a collusive compromise decree to try and unjustly benefit themselves, the same would have to be dealt with by this court with iron hand, so that such kind of actions are not repeated. The sequence of events clearly indicates the malafides on part of the petitioners. 17. In that view of the matter, the above petition stands dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the said amount is not paid within 30 days as indicated above, the KSLSA would be entitled to recover the cost as arrears of land revenue. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE List No.: 39 Sl No.: 1