1 Reserved on : 21.02.2025 Pronounced on : 22.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.103936 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . PRABHAKAR SUBHAS ATHAVALE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. S-01, 2ND FLOOR MARVEL DEW FLOWER APARTMENT BHAGYA LAXMI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS KALIDAS NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR HUBBALLI, DHARWAD – 580 031. 2 . EMMANUVEL SUBHAS ATHAVALE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. S-01, 2ND FLOOR MARVEL DEW FLOWER APARTMENT BHAGYA LAXMI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS KALIDAS NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR HUBBALLI, DHARWAD – 580 031. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMITKUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, 5/AB DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE REGIONAL/DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI – 590 002. 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C.COMPOUND DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 001. 4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D.C.COMPOUND DHARWAD – 580 001. 5 . THE TAHASILDAR HUBBALLI NAGARA SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI MARG HUBBALLI TALUK DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 020. 6 . THE HUBBALLI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY RESIDING AT APSARA CINEMA TALKIES COEN ROAD, HUBBALLI DHARWAD – 580 020. 7 . KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION TOLANAKA , DHARWAD – 580 004. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANGADHAR J. M., AAG A/W., SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; 3 SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13/04/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO. ADESHA SANKYA. L.G.L/C.R-39/2021-2022. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 13-04-2022, by which the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is rejected and seek a direction to the respondents to return the land in Sy.No.607 measuring 15 acres and 38 guntas to the petitioners by restoring the revenue entries in their names. 2. Heard Sri Amitkumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned 4 Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 5, Sri G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri Raviraj C.Patil, leaned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioners’ grandfather one Pandurang Athavale was an ex-serviceman retired from military. He is said to have served Indian Army as Hawaldar. The Government of India recognizing the service towards the nation conferred the grand-father of the petitioners with the Second World War medal in the year 1946. Recognizing the service of the grandfather of the petitioners, the then Bombay Government answering an application of the grandfather of the petitioners addressed the Mysore Diwan, who on considering the service of the grandfather of the petitioners to the country, directed grant of 15 acres and 38 guntas in Sy No.84, new Sy.No.607 of Topalgatti, Unakal Village, Hubballi Taluk. This is said to have been granted under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The allotment in pursuance of the grant order is made on 5 29-08-1952. It appears that revenue records were mutated in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners and those record of rights are appended to the petition. 4. Mr. Pandurang Athavale dies on 04-02-1958 leaving behind his wife who submits an application for transfer of revenue records in Sy.No.607 to her name. It appears that the said survey number was re-granted in favour of the wife of the grandfather of the petitioners. It appears that Hakku Patrikey Grama Namune depicted the name of the grandmother of the petitioners Smt. Yashodhabhai Athavale. 5. When things stood thus, the 5th respondent, in terms of an order dated 29-03-1966, is said to have mutated the adjacent land in Sy.No.609 in favour of the 6th respondent for the purpose of construction of a cancer hospital. It is further averred in the petition that despite the said purpose of taking over Sy.No.609, the adjacent land by the 6th respondent, the adjacent land being in possession of the grandmother of the petitioners, she continued to be in possession and occupation of the land. It appears, 6 respondents 3 and 5, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar, Dharwad District are said to have acquired the land in the year 1969 without following due process of law and have mutated the name of the 6th respondent in the revenue records. The grandmother of the petitioners who is said to have submitted several representations against the acquisition sought compensation for the land that is said to have been acquired for the purpose of construction of hospital. One of the representations so submitted on 27-02-1980 is also appended to the petition. 6. It appears, that the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner acting on the representation, directed the 5th respondent/ Tahsildar to submit a report in terms of his direction dated 11.03.1987. In compliance with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the 5th respondent issues orders to the concerned surveyor to survey Sy.No.607 of Unakal Village which is said to be measuring 15 acres and 38 guntas. The Surveyor submits his report and the report is said to have been placed before the Deputy Commissioner, but no communication went to the grandmother of the petitioners. It is then, a representation comes to be submitted on 16-11-1987 with 7 regard to the status of the survey and status of the land or compensation as claimed. The 5th respondent/Tahsildar then on 24-08-1989 communicates to the petitioners’ family that Sy.No.607 was acquired long ago for the purpose of construction of 6th respondent’s hospital. The petitioners’ family then represent again on the score that the 6th respondent’s hospital did not come up in Sy.No.607, but it was constructed at a different place and, therefore seeks the land or compensation, as the case would be. 7. 6th respondent who was the beneficiary of the said acquisition, which was for the purpose of construction of hospital files Writ Petition No.4972 of 1990 challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner cancelling the grant of land in favour of the 6th respondent/Hubballi Cooperative Hospital Society. This event had taken place when communications between the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar were in progress. The cancellation of grant was on the ground that sufficient opportunity was not given to file objections and without hearing the mutation entry was changed in the name of Government. A learned single Judge of this Court, in terms of his order dated 17-02-1995, quashed the order 8 of the Divisional Commissioner and mutation entries in favour of Government and directed the Divisional Commissioner to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 8. The 6th respondent files another writ petition in W.P.No.5199 of 1997 impugning Notification dated 23-01-1997 by which the area in which the hospital had to come up was declared as a slum. A learned single Judge of this Court, in terms of his order dated 26-02-2001, held that since the notification issued by the Divisional Commissioner on 23-01-1997 had since been withdrawn, the said area is no more a slum area. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner was directed to render an opportunity of hearing to the 6th respondent and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The petitioners’ father then on 31-03-2001 submits a representation for grant of compensation, for the reason that the land of the petitioners was taken over by the respondents without any notification. The representation was answered communicating that no compensation can be paid. It appears that subsequent to the communication the word “Sarakara” is inserted into the mutation entry of Sy.No.607. Now come the petitioners 9 into the picture. They submitted several representations to the Ministry of Defence and all rungs of Government of Karnataka. 9. It appears that the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka directs the concerned authorities to look into the grievance of the 1st petitioner concerning the subject land. After series of representations by the petitioners for grant of compensation, the 5th respondent is said to have drawn a report and submitted to the 4th respondent that mutation No.1102 belongs to the family of the petitioners. The said report is appended to the petition. The 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner after verifying the documents is said to have submitted a report to the 3rd respondent admitting mutation entries being in the name of the family of the petitioners. Again, communications galore between the rungs of the Government. The 3rd respondent then by a detailed communication on 17-02-2022 seeks a direction regarding representations made by these petitioners seeking compensation relating to the land bearing Sy.No.607. The communication results in an endorsement that the claim of the petitioners for compensation is under consideration. The 1st respondent then is 10 said to have addressed a communication to the 3rd respondent on 25-04-2022 with regard to the grievance of the petitioners. No action is taken upon those representations. 10. The petitioners approach this Court in Writ Petition No.103669 of 2022. This Court directs consideration of the representation of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In terms of the order dated 21-02-2023 passed in Writ Petition No.103669 of 2022 an order is communicated now to these petitioners which is dated 13-04-2022 on the score that order had already been passed observing that no compensation or any land can be granted to the petitioners, since it was contrary to law. It is this that forms the subject matter of the present petition. 11. The learned senior counsel Sri Amitkumar Deshpande appearing for the petitioners would take this Court through all the documents that are appended to the petition to demonstrate that the State has admitted that the land was granted in favour of the mother of the petitioners in the year 1958. The learned senior 11 counsel would submit that in terms of Annexure-R6 which is appended to the statement of objections, the name of the grandmother of the petitioners is found in the document named Hakku Patrikey which was in terms of a Hosa Sharthu that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. According to the learned senior counsel this would be enough circumstance to direct compensation to be paid to the petitioners, in the teeth of the said admission of grant and the condition of non-alienation clause. He would submit that the delay in seeking compensation for a land that is acquired without due process of law, cannot be projected to deny the right of land losers. He would seek to place reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH1 and in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH2. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently refute the submissions again taking this court through the documents appended to the petition. It is his submission that the land was not granted to the grandmother of the petitioners. It 1 (2020) 2 SCC 569 2 (2024) 10 SCC 533 12 was given on ‘lavani’ basis. The land has been acquired in terms of law way back in the year 1960. Whether the hospital is constructed there or not, the petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation on and from 1965-66. All the revenue records would disclose that the land had been regranted in the year 1959-60 to 1964-65 on ek saal lavani basis. 13. Thereafter, the revenue records have been changed and shown in the name of the Secretary, Cooperative Hospital Society, Hubballi and column No.11 of the said mutation entry would have a condition of non-alienation upon the Society and not upon the family of the petitioners. The grandmother of the petitioners being granted the land on ek saal lavani basis, albeit for a period of 6 years, cannot claim that it was a grant under the Bombay Revenue Code. He would further submit that the revenue records from 1987-88 to 1999-2000 disclose the name of “Sarkar” in the mutation entry. This has been there throughout and writ petitions are preferred by the Hubballi Cooperative Society and not by the petitioners. He would submit that as on today, in Sy.No.607 measuring 15 acres and 38 guntas, houses and sheds are 13 constructed and about 1400 families are residing there for the last 30 years. The petitioners’ grandfather was never the owner of the land and re-grant was made in favour of their grandmother on ek saal lavani basis. Family of the petitioners were never in possession of the land right from 1965-66, as ek saal lavani was not continued thereafter. In all, he would seek dismissal of the writ petition. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 15. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. The claim of the petitioners is that their grandfather was granted land for his service in the World War-II. The grant is in Sy.No.607 as described hereinabove. The strength on which the petitioners are claiming compensation is a proceeding dated 29-08-1952, which reads as follows: “9057-15,000-11.51-42 R.L.S.8 k. G.R.R.D.No. 5376, Dated:2-6-11 ೋಂದ ಾೆಾರಾಗಚುಇಸುವ ಮನುಷರು ಾೊಡತಕ! ಕಬು#ಾ$ಯ ನಮೂೆಯು 14 ಕಬು#ಾಯತು ದ. ಾಮ#ೇಾರ ಇವ&'ೆ ಾನು (ಾಂಡುರಂಗ )ಶ+ಾಥ ಅಠವ#ೆ /ಾಈನ ೌ2ೆ ವ3ಣಕಲ6 ಾಲೂಕು 7#ೆ6 8ಾರ9ಾಡ ಈ ಕಬು#ಾ$:ಯ ;ೕಂದ 8ಾರ9ಾಡ 7#ೆ6ಯ ಹುಬ=>? ಾಲೂAೊಳCನ ೋಪಲಗEF 'ಾGಮೊಳCನ 84 ಸ9ೆH ನಂಬರೊಳCನ ಭೂJಯ (ಅಥ9ಾ ಇದರ6 ೆಳ'ೆ ವKHದ ಮೆಾ&ನ ಅಥ9ಾ Lೇೆ Mಾವ ಪGಾರ)Nತು ಅದರ, ಾೆಯನುO +ೕಕ&ಸುೆPೕೆ. ಮತುP ನನO Qೆಸರು ಸರಾ& ದ¥sÀÛರದ6 ಸದ& ಭೂ«Äಯ ಾೆಾರೆಂದು ಾಖಲು ಾಡLೇಕಂತ ಅ7H ಾಡುೆPೕೆ :- &. ಸಂ। ನಂಬರು ಯಕೆ ಆಾರ $ ಜJೕನು ಆQಾರ 8ಾನ LೆUೆಯೆ! ಅಂಾ 84 15-38 ------ ¸À£Àß 1952-53 ಸದ& ಜJೕನನುO ಸV 1879ೇ ಇಸ)ಯ ಮುಂಬ$ಯ ಭೂJಯ ಮಹಸೂನ ಾಯೇಯ ಮತುPಅದರ ಅನ+ಯ ಅಮನ6ರುವ ಾನೂನುಗಳ ಠಾವ3'ೊಳಪ ನನ'ೆ ಸV 1952 ೇ ಇಸವ$ 1ೇ :ಂಗಳ ಎXGY ಾ&ೕZ[ಂದ [ರಂತರ9ಾC ೊEFಉತPೆ; ಮತುP ಸದ& ಜJೕ[ಯ LಾಬತುP ಆMಾ ಾಲದ6 ಾಯೆಗನು/ಾರ9ಾC ೊಡLೇಾದಂಥ ಭೂJಯ ಮಹಸೂಲನುO ೊಡುವದೆ! ಾನು ಒX^ೊಳ_?ೆPೕೆ. ಅಥ9ಾ ಸದ& ಭೂJ'ೆ ಇದN ಮಹಸೂನ ಾ`ಯನುO aಾಲೂ ಇಡುವದು ಸರಾರೆ! Mಾವಾದರೂ 9ೇUೆಯ6 bೕಗ ಾಣದNೆ, ಅದರ ;ೕ#ೆ ಸರಾರದ ಹುಕುJನನ+ಯ ಾಯೇcಯ &ೕ:$ಂದ ಕೂಸಲ^ಟF ಮಹಸೂಲನುO ೊಡುವ3ದೆ! ಾನು ಒX^ೊಳ_?ೆPೕೆ ಅಥ9ಾ Lೇೆ Mಾವ ಪGಾರ)Nತು ಅದನುO ಬೆಯLೇಕು. ಮುಾ!ಮು ಹುಬ=>? ಾ&ೕಖು 29 :ಂಗಳ_ 8 ಸV 1952 ೇ ಇಸ) #ೇಖಕ- ಸe ಈ ಕಬು#ಾಯ:'ೆ (ಅ7H ಇರುವ3ದ&ಂದ)ೋEH `ೕ ಾಘ ಾೆ (eಂದು/ಾgನದ ಸರಾರದ 2ಾeೕರಾLೆ ನಂಬರು 4650-10-9-1909 ೇದರ ಆEHಕY C -24) ಮತುP ಇದNೆ! /ಾFಂಪ ಡೂEಜ ಸುಾN eಂದು/ಾgನದ ಸರಾರದ 2ಾeೕರಾನು ನಂಬರ: 3606-06-7-1919 ೇ ಆEHಕY A-9 ಮತುP ಠಾವ3 ನಂಬರು - 5022-17-8 ರ ಪGಾರ ಾಘ ಾೆ.” 15 The proceedings depict no transfer of ownership in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners. It is granted for a purpose. It was a lease. The grand father of the petitioners dies in the year 1950. The revenue entries are no doubt made in the name of the grandmother, as could be gathered from record of rights of the year 1964-65. From the year 1964-65 springs the 6th respondent, as the land is said to have been acquired for the purpose of cancer hospital. The construction does not come about. At that point in time, the grandmother submits a representation. The representation reads as follows: “Unkal, Dated: 27-02-1980 To, The District Collector, D H A R U A R. Sir, Sub: Humble request for consideration of my land. ---- I Smt. Yashodhabai Pandurang Athavale, Residing at Unkal Village, Taluk: Hubli, District: Dharwar, State: Karnataka, wish to bring to your kind notice the following matter. My husband late Pandrung Vishwanath Athavale Ex.Serviceman No.89526 servicing in Secunderabad, serveing in E.M.E. as Hawaldar died in 1958. In 1952 my husband was given land at Topalgatti Hubli Taluk Survey No.84(old) by Bombay Government. 16 In 1963, I was advised by the Mamledar not to cultivate the land as it was to be acquired for construction of the cancer hospital. However, the cancer hospital was constructed at a different place but the land was neither returned to me for cultivation nor was any compensation given to me for the land. I, therefore, request you to kindly go into the matter and help me as I am widow. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (YESHODABAI P.ATHAVALE).” The representation captures the fact that in the year 1963 the grandmother was advised by the Mamledar not to cultivate the land as it was acquired for the purpose of construction of a cancer hospital. The representation results in the following communication on 11-03-1987: “ತಹcೕಲಾರ ಹುಬ=>? ಇವರ ಕaೇ&$ಂಾ £ÀA. LNACR/117/85- 86 ºÀħâ½î - 11-3-1987 ಾಲೂಾ ಸ9ೆHಯರ cGೕ ಅಗಮ[ ಇವ&'ೆ, /cGೕಮ: ಯiೆjೕಾLಾ$ ೋಂ (ಾಂಡುರಂಗ ಅಠವ#ೆ /ಾ: ಉಣಕಲ6 ಇವರ ಾಗkೆ ಅನ+ಯ ಉಣಕಲ6 'ಾGಮದ &.ಸ.ನಂ. 607, PÉëತG: 15 ಎ - 38 ಗು. (ೈA mೇತGದ ಬ'ೆn ಭೂ ಾಖ#ೆಗಳ ಸQಾಯಕ [ೇHಶಕರು 8ಾರ9ಾಡ ಇವ&ಂಾ Eಪ^kೆ ಪoೆದು ಸದರ mೇತGದ pಜK ಾ X.. cೕಟ ಲUÀÛ ವರ ಾಡLೇಕು )qೇಶ 7#ಾ6rಾ&ಗಳ ಆೇಶದ ;ೕೆ'ೆ ಈ ಕGಮವನುO 2 ವಸಗಳ6 ೆ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ವರ ಾಡLೇಕು. 17 ಪG: -¸À»- ತಹೕಾರ ಹುಬ=>? ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ ಾe: ಅನ+ಯ ರ9ಾೆ.” The communication remains a communication till 24-08-1989, on which day, the Tahsildar communicates to the grandmother of the petitioners that the application/representation has been rejected. Here ends the communication between the wings of the State and the grandmother of the petitioners. 16. It appears that during the pendency of communications between the grandmother of the petitioners and wings of the State, the Divisional Commissioner cancels the allotment in favour of the 6th respondent in Sy.No.607. This is challenged by the 6th respondent in Writ Petition No.4972 of 1990. The writ petition comes to be allowed on the ground that the cancellation has not preceded with a notice to the allottee. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “……. Therefore the statement of the petitioner that after the petitioner sent Annexure-H there was no communication from the office of the Divisional Commissioner to the petitioner has to be accepted. This shows that the Divisional 18 Commissioner has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file the objections to the show cause notice issued by him. In the circumstances the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner Annexure-J is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure-J is quashed. Consequently, the mutation entry made in pursuance of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner – Annexure-J is also liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to issue notice to the petitioner, hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders according to law. In view of this it is not necessary to consider the other contentions of the petitioner.” After hearing the 6th respondent, an order is passed by the Divisional Commissioner declining the claim. Again the 6th respondent was before this Court in Writ Petition No.5199 of 1997 which comes to be disposed of by the following order: “…. …. …. 6. To-day Government Advocate has filed the memo to the effect that respondent No.1 – Divisional commissioner has got withdrawn the preliminary notification that is Annexure-G and, has filed a gazette copy thereof. In this view of the matter so far as noted, granting of first relief is concerned, the same has become infructuous and petitioner’s grievance has been sufficed to certain extent in the sense that notification Annexure ‘G’ has been withdrawn. Now, it is for the Divisional Commissioner to comply with the orders of this Court dated 17-02-1995; passed in Writ Petition No.4972 of 1990, the Divisional Commissioner will decide the matter keeping in view the norms of rules of justice or principles of natural justice after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard before passing any order of 19 cancellation of grant and a reasoned order shall be passed. As the matter has to be reconsidered by the Divisional Commissioner there appears no need to pass any order on application for impleadment. The application for impleadment is hereby rejected the writ petition is allowed. Let the direction be issued to the respondent – Divisional Commissioner ignoring notification Annexure-G dated 10-01-1997 as it, has been withdrawn, consider the petitioner’s grievance vide Annexure-E and letter dated 29-04-1977 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a reasoned order, in the light of this order and order dated 17-02-1995 of this Court in W.P.4972 of 1990, as well. The parties are to bear their own costs of this petition.” The writ petition comes to be disposed of on a memo filed by the Government Advocate to the effect that the Divisional Commissioner had withdrawn the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition comes to be disposed of, as above. 17. After all these proceedings, the petitioners submit representations for grant of compensation. On 14-09-2021, it is the averment that the petitioners right was recognized by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, that an entry of the petitioners’ grandmother was found in the Hakku Patrikey. Despite all this comes the impugned order dated 13-04-2022. The order reads as follows: 20 “£ÀA. J¯ïfJ¯ï/¹Dgï-39/2021-2022 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-04-2022 )ಷಯ: ಾVಯ ಉಚಾMಾಲಯ, 8ಾರ9ಾಡ `ೕಠ 8ಾರ9ಾಡ ಇವರ6 cGೕ ಪGsಾಕರ ಸುsಾಶ ಅಠವ#ೆ ಇವರು ಾಖದ &t XEಶV ನಂ:103669/2022 ರ ಕು&ತು ಉ#ೆ6ೕಖ 1 ಾನ ಉಚಾMಾಲಯ, 8ಾರ9ಾಡ Xೕಠ 8ಾರ9ಾಡ &t XEಶV ನಂ:103669/2022 -ಆೇಶ ಾಂಕ:21-02-2023 2 ಸರಾರದ ಪತG ಸಂ ೆ: ಆu. 27 ಎY.7. 2022 ಾಂಕ:06-04-2023 3 ಈ ಾMಾHಲಯದ ಸಮ ಸಂ ೆ ಪತG ಾಂಕ:08-06-2022 4 ಸರಾರದ ಪತG ಸಂ ೆ: ಆu. 27 ಎY.7. 2022 ಾಂಕ:07-11-2022 5 ಈ ಾMಾHಲಯದ eಂಬರಹ ಾಂಕ:08-12-2022 ;ೕ#ಾ!Kದ )ಷಯೆ! ಸಂಬಂrದಂೆ ಉ#ೆ6ೕಖ (2) ಸರಾರದ ಪತGದ6 cGೕ ಪG¨sÀÄಸುsಾv ಅಥ9ಾ#ೆ ಇವರು ತಮw ಮನ)ಯ6 ಹುಬ=>? ಾಲೂ6ಕು ಉಣಕY 'ಾGಮ ೋಪಲಕEFಯ ಸ.ನಂ.84 (Qೊಸ ನ.ನಂ:607) ರ6 15ಎ-38ಗು ಜJೕ[ನ ಪ&Qಾರ [ೕಡುವಂೆ ಾನ GZÀÑ ಾMಾಲಯ, 8ಾರ9ಾಡ Xೕಠ ಇ6 &t ಸಂ ೆ: 103669/2022 ನುO ಾಖದುN, ಸದ& ಪGಕರಣPÉÌ ಸಂಬಂrದಂೆ ಾನ ಾMಾಲಯವ3 ಾಂಕ:21-02-2023 ರಂದು [ೕರುವ ಆೇಶದಂೆ ಆಗvÀå ಕGಮ ೈ'ೊಳ_?ವಂೆ Qಾಗೂ ಅ7Hಾರರು ಸಾHರೆ! ಸ6ರುವ ಮನ) ಾಂಕ:14-06-2022 ೇದನುO ಪ&cೕ ಮೂರು :ಂಗUೆxಳ'ಾC ಸೂಕP ಆೇಶ Qೊರಸುವಂೆ ಾನ ಾMಾಲಯಂದ ಆೇczÀÄÝ ಇರುತPೆ ಾನ ಾMಾಲಯದ ಆೇಶದಂೆ ಸದ& ಮನ)ಯ ಕು&ತು [ಯಾನು/ಾರ ಪ&cೕ°¹ ಕೂಡ#ೇ ಅಗತ ಕGಮ ೈ'ೊಳ_?ವಂೆ [ೇHcದುN ಇರುತPೆ. ಪG/ಾPXತ ಜJೕ[ನ ಪಹKಯ6 ಸರಾರ ಅಂಾ ಾಖರುತPೆ ಸದ& 2ಾಗದ°è ಈ'ಾಗ#ೇ /ಾವHಜ[ಕರು ಸುಾರು 30 ವಷHಗ>ಂದ 9ಾಸದ ಮೆ, ಗುಸಲು [JHೊಂqÀÄ 9ಾಸು:Pರುವ3ದ&ಂದ, ಸದ& 2ಾಗವನುO ೊಳaೆ ಪGೇಶ9ೆಂದು yೂೕzಸುವ ಕು&ತು ಪGಕರt ಪ&cೕಲೆಯ6ರುತPೆ. ಪGಕರಣದ6ರುವ ಡ.ಸ.ನಂ:1102 ರ ಪ&cೕಲೆ$ಂದ ಹುಲು6'ಾವಲು ಜJೕನನO cGೕಮ: ಯiೆjೕ8ಾLಾ$ ೋಂ (ಾಂಡುರಂಗ ಅಠವ#ೆ ಇವ&'ೆ ೊಟF ಬ'ೆn ಕಂಡು ಬರುಾPದರೂ, ಆೇಶದ ಪG: ಲಭ)ರುವ3ಲ6, ಅಲ6ೆ ಪG/ಾPXತ ಜJೕನು ಭೂ/ಾ+rೕನಪಸೊಂದುN ಕಂಡುಬರುವ3ಲ6. ಅದುದ&ಂದ ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ ಪ&Qಾರ [ೕಡುವ ಪGiೆOGದ|)ಸುವ3ಲ6. ಪGಸುPತ ಪಹK ಪ:Gೆಯ6 ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ CAvÁ ಾಖರುವ3ದ&ಂದ ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ Mಾವ3ೇ ಪ&Qಾರ [ೕಡಲು [ಯªÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ಉ#ೆ6ೕಖ(3) ರನ+ಯ ಸರಾರೆ! ಪತG ಬೆದುN ಇರುತPೆ. 21 ಉ#ೆ6ೕಖ(4) ರ ಸಾHರದ ಪತGದನ+ಯ ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ ಸೂಕP eಂಬರಹ [ೕಡುವAvÉ ಸೂ}ರುವ eೆO#ೆಯ6, ಪG/ಾPXತ ಜJೕ[ನ6 /ಾವHಜ[ಕರು ಸುಾರು 30 ವಷHಗ>ಂದ 9ಾ¸ÀzÀ ಮೆ ಗುಸಲು [JHೊಂಡು 9ಾಸು:Pರುವ3ದ&ಂದ Qಾಗೂ ಪGಸುPತ ಪಹK ಪ:Gೆಯ6' ಸರಾರ CAvÁ ಾಖರುವ3ದ&ಂದ, ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ ಜJೕನು ಅಥ9ಾ ಜJೕ[ನ ಬದ#ಾC ಪ&Qಾರ ಧನವನುO [ೕಡ®Ä [ಯಮಗಳ6 ಅವಾಶ)ರುಲ69ೆಂದು ಅ7HಯನುO )#ೇ'ೆ ತರ#ಾCೆ ಅಂಾ ಉ#ೆ6ೕಖ(5) ರನOAiÀÄ ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ eಂಬರಹ [ೕದುN ಇರುತPೆ. ಾನ ಉಚ ಾMಾಲಯ 8ಾರ9ಾಡ Xೕಠ ಇವರ6 ಾಖ#ಾದ &t XEಶ£ï ನಂ:103669/2022 ರ6 ಾಂಕ:21-02-2023 ರಂದು Qೊರದ ಆೇಶದಂೆ, ಅ7Hಾರರು ಾಂಕ:14-06-2022 ರಂದು ಸ6ದ ಮನ)ಯನುO ಪ&cೕ Qಾಗೂ ಕಡತದ6 ಲಭ)ದN ಾಖ#ೆಗಳ ;ೕಂದ ಪG/ಾPXತ ಜJೕ[ನ ಪಹKಯ6 ಸರಾರ ಅಂಾ ಾಖರುತPೆ. ಸದ& 2ಾಗದ6 ಈ'ಾಗ#ೇ /ಾವHಜ[ಕರು ಸುಾರು 30 ವಷHಗ>ಂದ 9ಾಸದ ಮೆ, ಗುಸಲು [JHೊಂಡು 9ಾಸು:Pರುವ3ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರುತPೆ Qಾಗೂ ಸದ& 2ಾಗವನುO ೊಳaೆ ಪGೇಶ9ೆಂದು yೂೕzಸುವ ಕು&ತು ಪGಕರಣ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ°èರುವ3ದ&ಂದ, ಅ7Hಾರ&'ೆ Mಾವ3ೇ ಪ&Qಾರ [ೕಡಲು [ಯಮಗಳ6 ಅವಾಶ)ಲ6ೆ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ಅ7Hಾರರ ಅ7HಯನುO )#ೇ'ೆ ತರುವ3ದು ಸೂಕP 9ೆಂದು sಾ) ಈ ೆಳCನಂೆ ಆೇಶ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಪG/ಾPವೆಯ6ನ ಪG/ಾPವೆಯ6ನ ಪG/ಾPವೆಯ6ನ ಪG/ಾPವೆಯ6ನ ಅಂಶಗಳನುO ಅಂಶಗಳನುO ಅಂಶಗಳನುO ಅಂಶಗಳನುO ಅನುಲ• ಅನುಲ• ಅನುಲ• ಅನುಲ•, cGೕ cGೕ cGೕ cGೕ ಪGsಾಕರ ಪGsಾಕರ ಪGsಾಕರ ಪGsಾಕರ ಸುsಾv ಸುsಾv ಸುsಾv ಸುsಾv ಅಥ9ಾ#ೆ ಅಥ9ಾ#ೆ ಅಥ9ಾ#ೆ ಅಥ9ಾ#ೆ ಇವರು ಇವರು ಇವರು ಇವರು ಹುಬ=>? ಹುಬ=>? ಹುಬ=>? ಹುಬ=>? ಾಲೂ6ಕು ಾಲೂ6ಕು ಾಲೂ6ಕು ಾಲೂ6ಕು ಉಣಕY ಉಣಕY ಉಣಕY ಉಣಕY 'ಾGಮ 'ಾGಮ 'ಾGಮ 'ಾGಮ ೋಪಲಕEFಯ6 ೋಪಲಕEFಯ6 ೋಪಲಕEFಯ6 ೋಪಲಕEFಯ6 ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.84 (Qೊಸ Qೊಸ Qೊಸ Qೊಸ ನನನನ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ:607) ರ6 ರ6 ರ6 ರ6 15ಎಎಎಎ-38ಗು ಗು ಗು ಗು ಜJೕ[ನ ಜJೕ[ನ ಜJೕ[ನ ಜJೕ[ನ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àjòð¹, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ d«ÄãÀÄ CxÀªÁ d«Ää£À §zÀ¯ÁV ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀವನುO ವನುO ವನುO ವನುO [ೕಡಲು [ೕಡಲು [ೕಡಲು [ೕಡಲು [ಯಮಗಳ [ಯಮಗಳ [ಯಮಗಳ [ಯಮಗಳ°è ಅವಾಶ)ಲ6ೆ ಅವಾಶ)ಲ6ೆ ಅವಾಶ)ಲ6ೆ ಅವಾಶ)ಲ6ೆ ಇರುವ3ದ&ಂದ ಇರುವ3ದ&ಂದ ಇರುವ3ದ&ಂದ ಇರುವ3ದ&ಂದ ಅ7HಯನುO ಅ7HಯನುO ಅ7HಯನುO ಅ7HಯನುO )#ೆ'ೆ )#ೆ'ೆ )#ೆ'ೆ )#ೆ'ೆ vÀAzÀÄ DzÉò¹zÉ. ¸À»/- 7#ಾ6rಾ&ಗಳ_, 8ಾರ9ಾಡ 7#ೆ6, 8ಾರ9ಾಢ.” (Emphasis added) 22 The order is that the petitioners are neither entitled to compensation nor restoration of the land in their favour. 18. It now becomes germane to notice certain documents that are appended to the statement of objections. At Annexure-R1 the State has produced revenue entries of the land which discloses that in the year 1940-41 the said land was “Hullupada” and up to 1947-48 the revenue entries indicate that it is “forest hullupada”. From 1948-49 to 1949-50 it discloses that the land was granted to one N.D.Wati, Manager, Karnataka Govardhan Society for one year on ek saal lavani basis. Thereafter, for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 the depiction in the revenue records is ‘forest hullupada’. This is what is discernible from the documents produced by the State. From the year 1952 to 1958 the entry discloses that the land was granted to one Pandurang Vishwanath Athavale, the grandfather of the petitioners again on ek saal lavani basis. The mutation entry appended to the additional statement of objections would indicate that as on 1-02-1955 the land was ‘hullugavalu’, but was erroneously shown as reserve forest, which was subsequently 23 rectified and the rectification is also appended to the additional statement of objections. 19. A document is produced as Annexure-R5 which shows that as on 10-05-1959 the land is shown as ‘Gomal’ which is reserved for grazing cattles of Gokul and Unakal villages. From 1959 to 1965 the land is said to have been granted to the grandmother of the petitioners, but on what basis is required to be noticed. It is on ek saal lavani basis. The documents thereafter would indicate the name of the 6th respondent being in place. The petitioners in the year 2015, for the first time after 35 years submit, that the land belonged to the grandfather/grandmother and stake claim for compensation which is rejected by the respondents. I do not find any error in the rejection of the respondents, as the alleged grant in favour of the grandmother of the petitioners was on ek saal lavani basis. If it were to be a permanent grant, it could not have been granted in favour of the 6th respondent and if had granted, the grandmother of the petitioners ought to have challenged at the relevant point in time. The 6th respondent has fought the rejection to protect the grant. Today cancer hospital 24 may have been somewhere. The land in the heart of Hubballi city has been in occupation of the State for the last six decades. 20. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they were in occupation of the land as owners of the land and compensation has to be granted to them for an area of 15 acres and 38 guntas. The petition is presented by the petitioners on imaginary right. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there can be no qualm about the principles so laid down therein. If the land belonging to a particular citizen is taken away without following due process of law, delay in claiming compensation would not defeat the rights of a citizen, as it is the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. But, in those cases, the land of the owners was taken away. In the case at hand, the right of the petitioners itself to the land is still born. They have not projected any semblance of indefeasible right in the case at hand to claim that the land belonged to their grandmother and, therefore, the progeny is entitled to compensation or restoration of land, but alas they are entitled to either. 25 21. In the result, petition lacking in merit stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:ss