- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106085 OF 2023 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: THE KOPPAL OIL AND REFINERIES LIMITED, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT M.B. NO.8/790, KOPPAL, BEHIND RAILWAY STATION, KOPPAL-583231, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.G. AGADI. PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231. 4. THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI-DHARWAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580007. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R4; SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) R ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.31 12:41:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING BEARING NO./KHANDAYA/ BHUSWA/SA/2/2017-18 THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.06.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-P BY RESPONDENT NO.3; TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTIONS OF RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND NO.3 AND THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS NO.3 ARE NOT OF STATUTORY CHARACTER OR ISSUED UNDER OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR UNDER ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS; TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE MATERIALS BELONGING TO RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE RAILWAY TRACK IMMEDIATELY BY NOTICE DATED 01-09-2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q IN VIEW OF THE PETITIONER REVOKING THE PERMISSION/LICENSE GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. i. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing bearing No.Khandaya/Bhuswa/Sa/2/2017-18 the endorsement dated 26.06.2023 vide Annexure-P by respondent no.3; ii. To declare that the actions of Respondents no.2 and no.3 and the endorsement issued by Respondents No.3 are not of statutory character or issued under official capacity or under any statutory provisions; iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to remove the materials belonging to Respondents including the railway track immediately by notice dated 01-09-2023 vide Annexure-Q in view of the Petitioner revoking the Permission/license granted to Respondent No.3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 iv. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in MB No.8/8/788, MB No.8/8/789 and MB No.8/8/790 totally measuring 77,526 square yards situated at Koppal. The said land is stated to be comprising of industrial plants, buildings and open land. The petitioner also claims to have made payment of necessary property taxes from the time of purchase in the year 1945. 2.2. While things stood thus, on 29.10.2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal issued a notice by referring to the request made by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction South Western Railways, Hubli, for transfer of land to the Department of Railways for doubling of Railway track from Hosapete to Tinayighat. 2.3. A survey was conducted on 25.05.2016. The required lands identified and thereafter, respondent No.4-South Western Railways called - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 upon the petitioner to permit respondent No.4 to begin the work pending the acquisition to be completed. The petitioner it is claimed in the interest of the doubling of the Railway facility, agreed to the same and permitted the railways to carryout the work though the acquisition had not been commenced let alone completed. 2.4. Acquisition proceedings not having been commenced, a meeting was convened on 02.09.2016 for fixing the price of the land, with an option given to the landowners to sell the property at the price so fixed, this offer being made available to all other adjoining landowners also. 2.5. On 22.11.2016, the Additional Deputy Commissioner issued a notice referring to the report submitted by respondent No.3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, dated 02.11.2016, mentioning the extent of the land required and fixing a meeting on 29.11.2016 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 for the purpose of fixing the price of the land. Various actions having been taken, the Deputy Commissioner negotiated on behalf of the Indian Railways in the meeting held on 29.11.2016. 2.6. Though the petitioner called upon the respondents to make payment of ₹3,000/- per Sq.Feet, the agreed price was ₹2,500/- per Sq.Feet, and in respect of the petitioner’s land, the total consideration was agreed to be ₹6,32,71,718/-. 2.7. During that time, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, informed the petitioner that there is an objection which has been received as regards the title of the property and the same would be first considered and thereafter the payment would be made. 2.8. The petitioner, believing that the same would be favorably considered on account of the sale - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 deed of the year 1945 in its favour having been produced, did not object to the same. 2.9. While the petitioner was expecting payment, an endorsement came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 17.10.2018, that the title of the petitioner to the property was not established, and as such, the petitioner had to approach the competent authority by producing necessary title documents to establish its title. 2.10. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.108555/2019 and this Court quashed the endorsement dated 17.10.2018, reserving liberty for the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents by enclosing the title deeds. 2.11. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner once again submitted all the documents. However, respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, once again issued an endorsement on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 26.06.2023, contending that the title is not established and as such, the petitioner was required to obtain necessary declaration from the competent Civil Court. 2.12. Consequent thereto, on 01.09.2023, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, terminating the consent of the petitioner to the respondents agreeing to sell the land to the extent of 11,938.6 Sq. Meter at the rate of ₹2,500/- per Sq. Meter and revoking the permission to lay the railway line and calling upon the respondents to remove the material belonging to them, including the railway tracks, failing which the petitioner contended that suitable proceedings would be initiated. 2.13. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the above petition challenging the order dated 26.06.2023, produced at Annexure-P to the petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 3. When the matter was taken up before this Court, after the issuance of notice on 27.02.2024, it is seen that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed, while dictating the order partly holding that the petitioner is entitled to the relief by quashing Annexure-P, learned AGA sought for time to make his submission as regards the aforesaid notice issued under Section 80 of the CPC. 4. Thereafter, on 18.03.2024, the State sought 15 days’ time to consider the record of rights, registered sale deed as also the revenue records submitted by the petitioner. 5. On 16.04.2024, it was submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-P was withdrawn by the Assistant Commissioner, and a fresh order has been passed on 15.04.2024, stating that the petitioner, as the owner, is entitled to compensation, which would be paid along with the sale consideration which had been agreed, along with interest. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 6. Sri. M. B. Kanavi, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No.4 Railways, would submit that the Railways are ready to make payment of interest in terms of the order dated 16.12.2022 in W.P.No.102253/2022 (Mailawwa D/o. Basavva Harijan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others) along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of consent till the date of execution of the sale deed, as additional market value. It is in that background that the above matter is taken up for hearing today. 7. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that 7.1. the consent given by the petitioner was on the basis of the petitioner being the owner of the property, which consent was accepted by the Railways. It is in furtherance of the said consent that the Railways entered the land of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 the petitioner, took possession, and carried out the works of laying out a railway line. 7.2. Thus, he submits that, once the respondent- State and the Railways were to accept the consent of the petitioner for entering the land, the question of the respondents denying the title of the petitioner would not arise. His submission is that, there cannot be two consents, one for entering the land and another for payment of compensation. 7.3. The respondents would have to accept the petitioner as the owner of the land, when respondents have accepted the agreement of the petitioner to sell the land and permit the respondents to enter it. After entering the land, the respondents cannot deny the title of petitioner on the property on the basis of some objection filed by a third party, which has not been pursued by filing of any suit or - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 the like. His submission is that, the agreement of sale would only be valid so long as the petitioner is accepted to be the owner of the land. 7.4. The respondents, by denying ownership, cannot seek to enforce the agreement of sale. 7.5. In that background, he submits that, though Annexure-P has been withdrawn and is replaced by an order dated 15.04.2024, the petitioner would be entitled for the release or return of the land, as claimed in prayer (3) of the above petition, since the agreement of sale has been terminated. 8. Sri. M. B. Kanavi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 - Railways, in reply would submit that, it is in pursuance of the consent of the petitioner that the respondents have entered the land, laid the tracks, carried out electrification, and that the trains are now - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 running on the said tracks. Any intervention by this Court at this stage would cause untold harm and inconvenience not only to the Railways but also to the general public using the said tracks and trains operating on them. He submits that, since the Railways have deposited the sale consideration amount with the State, it is for the State to hand over the same to the petitioner. He also submits that he would comply with the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.102253/2022 (supra). 9. Sri.Gangadhar J. M., learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that, 9.1. Annexure-P has been withdrawn and that the State, having withdrawn the earlier stand, now agreeing to make payment of the sale consideration in terms of the agreement arrived at between the State by the Deputy - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 Commissioner and the petitioner for sale of the land at ₹2,500/- per Sq.Feet. 9.2. The State now being agreeable to make payment of the same, the petitioner is estopped from contending otherwise. The only option available for the petitioner is to receive the said sale consideration along with interest. 9.3. The Deputy Commissioner having brought to the notice of the petitioner about the dispute raised and the agreement being subject to the dispute, the petitioner cannot now contend otherwise. The respondents were well within their rights to call upon the petitioner to obtain a necessary declaration from the competent Civil Court by producing necessary title documents. As such, he submits that no fault can be found with the State. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 9.4. As the State has now come forward to make payment of the sale consideration amount, it is for the petitioner to receive the same as sale consideration, and there would be no need to return the land back to the petitioner. 10. Heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. B. Kanavi, learned CGSC for the respondent-Railways and Sri.Gangadhar J.M., learned Addl. Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Perused the papers. 11. The points that that would arise for consideration are; 11.1. Whether once the state has accepted a citizen to be the owner of the land and sought for consent to enter the land, can the state subsequently resile from the same on the ground of some objections being raised? - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 11.2. Having taken up a contention that a citizen was not the owner of the land, can the state continue to be in possession of the land with acquisition of the land in a manner known to law? 11.3. Whether the state can subsequently change its position and contend that the state is willing to make payment of agreed consideration along with interest by accepting the citizen to be the owner of the land? 11.4. What order? 12. All the points being related to each and are taken up together and answered as under: 13. This is rather a strange case where the State, without exercising its powers of eminent domain, wishing to obtain certain lands for implementation of the doubling of the railway tracks, and though earlier indicated that it was proposing to acquire the land, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 approached the petitioner, a landowner, with the intention of purchasing the same. It is thereafter that the prices were negotiated and it was agreed that the State would purchase the land of the petitioner at ₹2,500/- per Sq.Feet in the year 2017. 14. It would also be required to take note that the respondents were permitted to enter the land on the premise that the land would be acquired and it is only subsequently that the respondents approached the petitioner for the sale of the land. 15. When the State had approached the petitioner for sale of the land, it cannot be said that the State did not know or doubted the title of the petitioner. If at all that were to be the case, then the concerned officers, who have approached the petitioner for purchase of the land without even verifying the title of the property, have not acted diligently, and action would have to be taken against them. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 16. Be that as it may, the State, having approached the petitioner to purchase the petitioner’s land, it was but required for the State to comply with the agreement arrived at and make payment of the due amount, either before or at the time of execution of the sale deed by the petitioner in favor of the concerned authority. Since the concerned authority not having come forward to execute the sale deed, the agreement between the State and the petitioner has remained as an agreement of sale, no sale deed having been entered into between the parties, needless to say, the title continued to vest with the petitioner, and it did not get transferred to the State or the Railways in furtherance of an inchoate agreement of sale, which did not confer any right, title, or interest in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 17. Shockingly, the authorities of the State, namely the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 Commissioner, subsequent to the agreement being arrived at, doubted the title of the petitioner itself. In a transaction for the sale of property, if the purchaser were to doubt the title of the vendor, then the question of transaction going through itself would not arise. It is for the purchaser to either to have accepted the title of the vendor and/or to obtain a sale deed that confirms the right which the vendor had in the property, in favor of the purchaser. 18. The purchaser, as aforesaid, having doubted the title of the vendor, has taken the benefit of possession of the property and has chosen not to make payment of the sale consideration, which is a completely dishonest act on the part of the respondent State and its officers. If at all there was any doubt regarding the title of the petitioner, the only option that was available for the State was to initiate acquisition proceedings by exercising its powers of eminent domain and acquire the property free of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 encumbrances in terms of the relevant enactment of acquisition. The State, not having chosen to either make payment of sale consideration or to acquire the land, cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of possession of the said land. 19. This assumes more importance in view of the fact that, though initially the State doubted the title of the petitioner, subsequently, by order dated 15.04.2024, confirmed the title of the petitioner and agreed to make payment of the sale consideration with interest. Thus, from the year 2017 to 2024, the State, which could have verified those documents and made payment of the consideration, when the petitioner was then ready to receive it, chose to delay the matter and now, in the year 2024, the State wants to make payment of the consideration agreed upon in the year 2017, in terms of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.102253/2022, with interest at the rate of - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 12% p.a. The said decision would not apply to these facts since that was a decision rendered on the basis of the consent of the parties, in the present case the Petitioner having terminated the agreement has categorically stated that the petitioner is not willing to accept any payment even with interest. 20. The said action on the part of the State and the submission made on instructions by the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted by this Court. The State is expected to act as a model citizen and a model litigant. The State cannot, by taking up any contentions, compel a citizen to approach a court of law to obtain a declaration of title, when the State itself has taken the benefit of possession handed over by the citizen to the State under a so-called agreement of sale arrived at between the parties. 21. The Deputy Commissioner has agreed to purchase the property apparently on the urgency expressed by - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 the Railways, citing the immediate requirement of the land and chosen not to proceed with acquisition proceedings, which could have been time-consuming, but has chosen to purchase the property with a straightforward negotiation with the owner. Having done so, it was for the State and the Railways to have adhered to the agreement arrived at between them and the landowner. Not having done so for the last seven years, the question of the State in the year 2024 making a submission that they will make payment of compensation in terms of the agreement arrived at in the year 2017 is completely dishonest and unacceptable. 22. Even if this Court were dealing with specific performance of an agreement of sale, such a stand would not be accepted by this Court and the relief for specific performance, if sought for by the purchaser, would have been rejected and restitution would be granted to the landowner by directing handing over - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 of possession, which had been handed over under the agreement of sale, the specific performance of which has been rejected by the Court. The same principle would be equally applicable to the State, more so, for the State, as already observed, is required to act as a model citizen and a model litigant, the state is not above the law, law is equally applicable to the state and its authorities. 23. The State or the Railways cannot take unfair advantage of the matter. In that view of the matter, equity is also being required to be balanced, inasmuch as Railways have already laid the tracks and trains are plying on the said tracks, which have been laid. 24. I answer point no.1 above by holding that once the state has accepted a citizen to be the owner of the land and sought for consent to enter the land, the state cannot subsequently resile from the same on the ground of some objections being raised, without - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 such objections being accepted/upheld by a court of law by passing of necessary judgement. 25. I answer point No.2 by holding that having taken up a contention that a citizen was not the owner of the land, the state continue to be in possession of the land without acquisition of the land in a manner known to law, the state would have to return back the possession of the land to the person from whom possession was taken. 26. I answer point No.3 by holding that the state cannot subsequently change its position and contend that the state is willing to make payment of agreed consideration along with interest by accepting the citizen to be the owner of the land. 27. In view of the above findings, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The reliefs sought are molded accordingly. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. The submission of Sri. Jaykumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, if such acquisition proceedings are initiated and compensation is paid in terms of the Act of 2013, the petitioner will not object to the acquisition, is placed on record. v. In the event of the acquisition not being completed within a period of 90 days, the respondents shall be duty-bound to remove all material, including the tracks laid on the property of the petitioner, and hand over the said property to the petitioner without any - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1634 WP No. 106085 of 2023 encumbrance, as also without hindrance in the said property by invoking the principle of restitution, within a period of 30 days thereafter. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6