- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 108198 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMARAO @ AJIT, S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. SUJIT S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI, BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER BASANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. SATTIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF HON’BLE COURT DATED 3/11/2015) GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.21 16:17:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK, PORT & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OFFICE, KILLA, BELAGAVI. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.02.2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND PASS THE AWARD ACCORDINGLY; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AS DETERMINED ABOVE WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.02.2015, vide Annexure-G by determining the market value of the property and pass the award accordingly; b) Issue a writ of mandamus to make the payment of compensation as determined above without further loss of time, and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 c) Such other writ or order as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The facts in brief are; 2.1. 2. The facts in brief are; 2.1. The petitioners contend that the land in R.S.No.106A, 107, 187 and other lands were re-granted in favour of the petitioner's great- grandfather by an order dated 16-10-1953 under the provision of the Watan Abolition Act. It is contended that three survey numbers were assigned a single block number in Block No.225, totally measuring 51 acres 36 guntas. 2.2. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 25-06-1961, had indicated that the land had been acquired, and in that background, the petitioners represented by a Power of Attorney Holder, had submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 on 7-12-2023, requesting for a copy of the award. The endorsement had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 been issued on 17-01-2014 that no records were available. 2.3. The petitioners caused a legal notice on 10-02-2014 for payment of suitable compensation. The same not having been considered, a writ petition WP No.104965/2014 had been filed. When this Court rejected the contention that a legal notice cannot be considered to be a representation, subsequent thereto a representation having been filed and not considered, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The submission of Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, Learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the land having been utilized by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1961 without acquisition and without compensation, a mandamus is required to be issued - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for awarding of compensation. 4. Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA would submit that; 4.1. Once earlier another writ petition had been filed by the very same petitioners represented by the very same GPA holder in W.P.No.107954/2015, which came to be disposed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 03.11.2015. The said writ petition filed was as regards the very same survey numbers in R.S.No. 106A, 107 and 187, where again the petitioners had contended that the land had been re-granted on 16.10.1953 and the usage of the land without acquisition was not permissible. 4.2. This Court, taking into consideration the submission of the learned AGA and the endorsement issued therein rejecting the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 claim, held that the acquisition had occurred in the year 1859-60 and as such, the claim being hopelessly barred by delay and laches, could not be considered. 4.3. A writ appeal having been filed, the Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 14-07-2016, in Writ Appeal No.100002/2016, dismissed the appeal and held that the land having been utilized in the year 1859-60, there is an inordinate delay of more than 150 years in raising the dispute, and as such, he submits that the present petition has been filed again for the land covered under the very same survey numbers, this claim is also required to be rejected on account of delay and laches. 5. In reply, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the lands subject matter of that petition was different - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 from the present petition. The earlier round of litigation was in respect of Block No.225/4, whereas the present dispute is as regards Block No.225. 6. Heard Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the papers. 7. A perusal of para 2 of the petition indicates that the three survey numbers in R.S.No.106A, 107 and 187 were assigned a single block number in Block No.225. The details of when they were assigned such block number has not been furnished. The regrant is however stated to be made in in the year 1953. The earlier litigation was in relation to Block No.225/4, which had been filed seeking for compensation as regards the land utilized in the year 1859-60. In the present litigation, the claim is that the land has been acquired on 25-06-1961 as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 8. Thus, the earlier litigation was a 150 year old claim. The present litigation, even if accepted on face value, is more than 50 years old. Comparatively speaking, the delay in the present petition is lesser. The fact remains, there is delay of more than 50 years. The manner in which both the above petitions have been filed by a power of attorney holder also does not inspire any confidence. 9. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that both sets of litigations are completely speculative in nature and are an abuse of the process of court. The petitioners’ earlier claim having been rejected for the very same survey numbers, though Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that it is for a different portion, the fact remains that the present petition is also as regards the very same survey numbers in R.S.No.106A 107 and 187, which were consolidated and assigned Block No.225. Such speculative litigation cannot be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3356 WP No. 108198 of 2015 permitted before this Court, which in my considered opinion would also amount to an abuse of the process of court filed by a power of attorney, the validity of which has not been gone into. 10. In that view of the matter, the petition, of course being barred by delay and laches, is also an abuse of the process of court and speculative litigation, is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- favouring Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which can be collected by the Assistant Commissioner, which is directed to be paid within a period of 30 days from today, i.e. on or before 19.03.2025, failing which, respondent No.4 is permitted to initiate necessary proceedings for recovery of the cost by way of arears of land revenue and remitting the same to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab/CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22