- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 100361 OF 2023 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PUNDALIK @ PUNDAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BHAGWATI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 9 NINGAPPA S/O. PUNDALIK @ PUNDAPPA BHAGAWATI AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HERKAL, TQ. BILAGI DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 2. SANGAPPA @ SANGAMESH S/O. PUNDALIK @ PUNDAPPA BHAGAWATI AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HERKAL, TQ. BILAGI DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 3. MALLIKARJUN S/O. PUNDALIK @ PUNDAPPA BHAGAWATI AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HERKAL, TQ. BILAGI DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.03 10:41:37 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 4. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O. SHIVANAND KOPPAD AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. WARD NO. 7, BAGALKOT TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 5. BHARATI W/O. GURUSIDDAPPA KONNUR AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. BENNUR, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 6. RENUKA W/O. SANGAMESH KARENDI AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. HUNGUND, TQ. HUNGUND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 7. RATNA @ NAGARATNA W/O. NEELAPPA HOOLAGERI AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. HUNGUND, TQ. HUNGUND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 8. MAHANTESH S/O. PUNDALIK @ PUNDAPPA BHAGAWATI AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HERKAL, TQ. BILAGI DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. 9. ARATI W/O. SHARANU MOKYAL AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HERKAL, TQ. BILAGI DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT-587201. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BAGALKOT-587201. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT-587201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 8-8-2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.105094/2016 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS 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 MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: (PER: HON'BLE MR.. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)) Heard Sri P.N. Hosamane, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 2. This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08/08/2016 in W.P.No.105094/2016 whereunder petitioner’s prayer for a writ of mandamus to pass supplementary award in respect of acquired land in Survey No. 95/2A measuring 6 acres 24 guntas of Yankanchi Village, Bilagi Taluk in Bagalkot District is rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the consent award in respect of the acquired land was passed on 01.09.1998 and it is submitted that the award was passed only in respect of the land excluding the fruit bearing trees grown in the acquired land. It is submitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 that it was promised that supplementary award would be passed in respect of the remaining trees standing in the acquired land. However, it is submitted that as the supplementary award was not passed, the present petition was filed seeking for a mandamus to the respondent to pass supplementary award. 4. Learned AGA would submit that no such promise was made and no mandamus would be maintainable for seeking a direction to pass supplementary award and he further submits that the petitioner had the statutory remedy of seeking reference which the petitioner-appellant has failed to exhaust. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge is justified in refusing to issue mandamus as prayed by the petitioner- appellant. It is an admitted fact that in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner-appellant, a consent award - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14234-DB WA No. 100361 of 2023 was passed on 01.09.1998. It is the contention of the petitioner-appellant that it was promised that in respect of the fruit bearing trees which is standing in the acquired land, a separate supplementary award would be passed. If the supplementary award was not passed in the time as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, it was open for the petitioner-appellant to seek reference. Having failed to seek reference, it is not open for the petitioner-appellant to seek mandamus to pass supplementary award. Admittedly, award is passed on 01.09.1998, whereas, the present petition is filed in the year 2016. As observed by the learned Single Judge, there is no explanation for the delay in approaching this Court as well. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VMB, CT-CMU