- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2762 WP No. 106044 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106044 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MODINSAB BADRUDDIN GAADI URF DANDI, AGE ABOUT: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SECTOR NO.45, PLOT NO.180, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT -587102. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. GAYATRI S. R. & SRI T. M. NADAF, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT -587103. 2. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT -587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J BEARING PÀæ.¸ÀA.¥ÀÄC:¹§âA¢:¹:Dgï/2023-24 BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR WRITS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO ISSUE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO ALLOT “E” CATEGORY SITE TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER PER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 31-05-2016 AND 29-12-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND H IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2762 WP No. 106044 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 19.04.2023 by which the petitioner’s claim for allotment of “E” Category site has been declined. 2. Heard the learned counsels Smt. Gayatri S.R. appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri G.K. Hiregoudar appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: It would suffice to narrate the facts of the case, from the date the rules are promulgated, for the purpose of rehabilitation of persons who lost their property, namely Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1993. The petitioner is said to have lost his land for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project in the year 1995-96. The petitioner then submits a representation for allotment of “E” category site, at a particular area, in Bagalkot on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2762 WP No. 106044 of 2024 15.06.2016. Six years passed by, the respondents did not consider the representation. This leads the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.105653 of 2022 which comes to be disposed by an order dated 12.12.2022 directing consideration of the representation. The petitioner then represents to consider the same and pass necessary orders, what comes about is the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant or an encroacher, his lands have been taken away for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project and is entitled to a “E” Category Site, as submitted in the representation. 5. Learned counsel Sri.G.K.Hiregoundar submits that it was a mistaken notion that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant, but the land holding of the petitioner was valid and the land being taken away for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project is also correct. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2762 WP No. 106044 of 2024 6. If that be so, the petitioner becomes entitled to a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner for allotment of a site in terms of the Rules. Therefore, it would not be necessary to go into the nuances of such allotment in the light of the petitioner becoming entitled owing to the fact that he was holding the land validly and his land has been acquired for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 19.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-J stands quashed. iii. Mandamus issues to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 31.05.2016 and 29.12.2022 for the purpose for which it is submitted i.e. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2762 WP No. 106044 of 2024 allotment of a site in terms of the aforesaid Rules. iv. The order shall be complied within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP & KGK / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29