- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100572 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES), VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD-580001. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD-01. 5. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE REPRESENTING DEPARTMENT OF POLICE DHARWAD-01. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA) AND: 1. MALLAVVA W/O RAMAPPA SHEELAVANTAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4 & 15. 2. SUSHEELAVVA W/O KALLAPPA SULLAD A/A. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O RAYANALA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. 3. KASTURAVVA W/O IRAPPA MADNUR A/A. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O RAMALINGESHAWAR ONI, DODVADA, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-591240. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 4. BASAVANNAVVA W/O SOMALINGAPPA INCHALA A/A. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O RAMALINGESHWAR ONI, DODVADA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591240. 5. RUDRAPPA S/O SANNASIDDAPPA HADLI SINCE DEAD BY LRS RESPONDENTS NO.6,8 & 10 6. MANJUNATH S/O SANNASIDDAPPA HADLI A/A. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 7. SHEKHAVVA W/O BASAPPA HADLI A/A. 92 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 8. RUDRAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ HADLI A/A. 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 9. MAILARALINGA S/O BASAPPA HADLI A/A. 22 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 10. PARASHURAMA S/O BASAVARAJ HADLI A/A. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 11. RENAVVA W/O REVANASIDDAPPA SHEELAVANTAR A/A. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 12. RAMU S/O REVANASIDDAPPA SHEELAVANTAR A/A. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 13. PRAKASH S/O REVANASIDDAPPA SHEELAVANTAR A/A. 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, 14. MAHANTESH S/O REVANASIDDAPPA SHEELAVANTAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS RESPONDENTS NO.11,12 &13 15. NINGAVVA W/O RUDRAPPA HAVERI A/A. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 15 ARE R/O RAYANALA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2-R4, R6-R13 & R15; RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4,15 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1; RESPONDENTS NO.6,8,10 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R5; RESPONDENTS NO.11,12,13 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R14) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.103235/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 15.11.2022 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 C.M. POONACHA) The State has preferred the present appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in WP No.103235/2021. 2. Respondents/writ petitioners filed WP No. 103235/2021 to quash the endorsement dated 9.3.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Dharwad. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas situated in Lakamanahalli village, Dharwad Taluk and District, was the subject matter of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 19761 and that the Competent Authority in exercise of power under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, declared that the original owner was holding excess land to 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 an extent of 14687.3839 square meters. The ULC Act having been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 19992 and the possession of the property not having been taken over by the State Government, the petitioners made representation to delete the name of the Government in the revenue records. The said representation having been rejected, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking for suitable relief. 3. The learned Single Judge considering the writ petition, vide order dated 15.11.2022 allowed the same and passed the following order: “ i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 9.3.2021 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed. iii) The impugned order dated 20.08.1999 vide Annexure-G and order dated 29.05.2020 vide Annexure-B both passed by 3rd respondent are hereby quashed. iv) The respondents No.1 to 3 to delete the name of the “Government” in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Repeal Act’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 4. Being aggrieved, the State Authorities have filed the present appeal. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for the appellants/State that the writ petition has been filed belatedly and the possession having been taken and the property having been handed over to the Police Department, which is forthcoming from mutation entry dated 6.8.1993 bearing Entry No.5842, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners contends that the State has not placed any document on record to demonstrate that the possession was taken under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the ULC Act. Hence, learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition and granting relief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 7. Submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The only question that is required to be considered is, whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with? 8. The relevant fact situation with regard to the land of the petitioners having been the subject matter of the proceedings under the ULC Act is undisputed. The Repeal Act having been enacted, since the petitioners contend that possession was not taken in accordance with the provisions of the ULC Act, they filed writ petition seeking appropriate relief. The learned Single Judge while considering the same has noticed at paragraph-21 of the impugned order that the State has not produced any document to substantiate its claim that lawful possession was taken under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the ULC Act. Hence, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the possession of the said land not having been taken, the State Government was obligated under Sections 3(2) & 4 of the Repeal Act to restore the subject land. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5906-DB WA No.100572 of 2023 9. Even in the present appeal, the appellants have not produced any material on record to demonstrate that the possession of the land has been taken in terms of Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the ULC Act. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and granting relief. 10. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6