- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB WA No. 100197 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100197 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVAPPA, S/O SANGAPPA TALIKOTI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRL., R/O. TAVARAGERA-583279 TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NORTH REGION, VIJAYAPURA-586101, DIST. VIJAYAPURA. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB WA No. 100197 of 2024 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KALBURGI CIRCLE-585101, KALBURGI. 4. THE ZONEL FOREST OFFICER REGIONAL ZONE, KUSTAGI-583277, DIST. KOPPAL. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, KOPPAL-583231, DIST. KOPPAL. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION AND UNDERGROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION, KUSTAGI-583277 DIST. KOPPAL. 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KUSTAGI-583277, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT DATED 19-03-2024 IN WP NO.101788/2024 (GM-RES) & ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB WA No. 100197 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by rejection of his petition in W.P. No.101788/2024 vide order dated 19.03.2024, wherein the petitioner had sought for the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to determine the damages, taking into cosndieration of the value of Shreegandha as well as Hebbevu plantation of its harvesting age as 15 years as per the correspondence Dtd: 29/09/2023 in No:s¸ÀPÁ¤.EA/¸À¤ÃCACE/G«PÀÄ/vÁ.±Á- 2/2023-24/17 vide Annexure-J. b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.4 and 7 for assessing the damages and also value of the plantation lilke Hebbevu and Shreeganda trees at the age of harvesting i.e., at the harvesting age of 15 years as per the correspondence Dtd: 29/09/2023 in No.¸ÀPÁ¤.EA/¸À¤ÃCACE/G«PÀÄ/vÁ.±Á-2/2023-24/272 vide Annexure-H.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB WA No. 100197 of 2024 2. Heard Sri. Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.S.Kalalsurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The learned Single Judge, on going through the writ petition papers and the material placed on record, at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order, has observed as follows: “6. However, perusal of Annexure-E, first response or representation of petitioner immediately after alleged incident would reveal that petitioner had complained only of erosion of topsoil and relief sought was for replenishment of top soil. There is no damage to plantation mentioned in representation. Though, there is subsequent correspondent and panchanama about steps for assessment of damages. Same are apparently at inconclusive stage. Photographs produced by petitioner at Annexures-D and D1, would not indicate substantial damage. 7. In any case, whether damage was caused only due to failure of respondent-authorities to maintain feeder canal, where it was due to water running from feeder canal into lands or vice-versa or whether extensive damage sustained as contended by petitioner, would be highly disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and writ petition for said purposes would not be appropriate.” 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the opinion - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4246-DB WA No. 100197 of 2024 that the prayer sought in the writ petition needs recording of evidence since the same involves questions of fact and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not normally go into the questions of fact. The prayer for damages needs recording of evidence and determination of damages based on the evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge observing that the writ petition involved highly disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, has rightly rejected the writ petition which would not require any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, it is open for the appellant to avail any other remedy available in law. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5