- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54108 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B.S. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SHETTI RANGA BOVI, 2. ANKA BOVI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O BASAVA BOVI, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, B.S.MALLIKARJUNA, BOTH RESIDENTS OF BARAGENAHALLI LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 144 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALOORU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 144. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 144. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 4. TAHSILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 144 5. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., UPPER BHADRA PROJECT DIVISION, NO.2, BHADRA RESERVOIR PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577115, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.M5.LAQ 11/2009-10 DATED 11.03.2010 WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDS IN SY. NOS.75/1, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8 and 75/9 (STATED AS SY. NOS.75/1 TO 75/9 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) OF SHANTIPURA VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE - F) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.M5 LAQ 11/2009-10 dated 11.03.2010 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 issued by the respondent No.2 and the final notification bearing No.PÀA.E.03.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.f.2011 dated 19.02.2011 in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.75/1, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8 and 75/9 (stated as Sy. Nos.75/1 to 75/9 in the prayer portion of the petition) situate at Shantipura Village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikeri Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. 2. The petitioners contend that Sri Guruva Bovi had four sons, namely Sri Basava Bovi, Sri Bala Bovi, Sri Dasa Bovi and Sri Shetti Ranga Bovi. Sri Guruva Bovi owned 09 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy. No.75 of Baragenahalli village, Lakkavalli hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. The petitioner No.2 is the son of Sri Basava Bovi while Sri Bala Bovi had a son named Sri Yamuna Bovi. Sri Dasa Bovi had a son named Sri Guruva Bovi. The petitioner No.1 is the son of Sri Shetti Ranga Bovi. They claimed that all the children of Sri Guruva Bovi partitioned the properties in terms of which 02 acres each fell to the share of Sri Basava Bovi, Sri Bala Bovi and Sri Dasa Bovi while 03 acres 11 guntas of land was allotted to the share of Sri Shetti Ranga Bovi. Later, the land in Survey No.75 was bifurcated as Survey Nos.75/1, 75/2, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 75/7 and 75/8. Sri Guruva Bovi died on 05.05.1990 while Sri Yamuna Bovi predeceased him on 27.02.1985. Sri Shetti Ranga Bovi died on 06.01.2011. Petitioners contend that the petitioner No.1 was unauthorisedly cultivating 02 Acres 19 guntas of land in Sy. No.75/9 (As per Annexure ‘D’ to the petition regularization was sought in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.75/p) measuring 02 Acres 08 guntas and he filed Form No.53 for regularization of the said land. The petitioners further contend that the Committee constituted for regularization of unauthorised cultivation recommended for regularizing 02 Acres 19 guntas of land in Sy. No.75/9 (As per Annexure ‘E’ to the petition, the land measuring 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.75/p was regularized). Petitioners contend that they were served with a notice of acquisition of the suit property for Upper Bhadra Project Package-2. They secured information and found that their lands were acquired for the purpose of Upper Bhadra Project Package-2. They then applied and obtained the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning land bearing Sy Nos.75/1, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8 and 75/9. They contend that as per the final notification, second petitioner’s land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 measuring 31 guntas in Sy. No.75/8 and 01 acre 09 guntas in Sy. No.75/7, 18 guntas in Sy. No.75/6 and 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.75/5 belonged to deceased Sri Yamuna Bovi and an extent of 04 guntas in Sy. No.75/4 and 01 Acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.75/3 belonged to deceased Sri Guruva Bovi and an extent of 10 guntas in Sy. No.75/1 belonged to deceased Sri Shetti Ranga Bovi while an extent of 02 Acres 16 guntas in Sy. No.75/9, where the petitioner No.1 was in unauthorised cultivation, were acquired for the purpose of Upper Bhadra Project Package-2. Petitioners contend that the respondents had initiated proceedings for acquisition by issuing notification in the name of dead persons, namely, Sri Guruva Bovi and Sri Yamuna Bovi and no steps were taken to notify their legal heirs. Besides this, they contend that adjacent to their property is the property belonging to the Forest Department and that public interest litigation was filed in W.P. No.47599/2011 connected with W.P. No.25255/2012 before this Court, where an interim order was granted by the Division Bench of this Court not to disturb the forest land and later, on 08.07.2013, the Division Bench of this Court ordered that the petitions along with pending interlocutory applications made therein and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 interim orders, be transferred to National Green Tribunal having its Bench at Chennai, with liberty to the parties to make appropriate representations and prayers before that Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the cases. The Division Bench further observed “As far as this court is concerned, the petitions stand disposed without any further orders, upon being transferred to National Green Tribunal”. Petitioners, therefore, have challenged both the preliminary notification as well as the final notification in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.75/1, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8 and 75/9 (stated as Sy. Nos.75/1 to 75/9 in the prayer portion of the petition). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notifications are issued in the names of dead persons, namely, Sri Guruva Bovi and Sri Yamuna Bovi and an award is also passed in the names of dead persons. He thus contends that the impugned notifications are liable to be set at nought and a direction is to be issued to the respondents to issue a fresh notification, notifying the names of the petitioners. He fairly submitted that after the final notification was issued, the acquired land is already utilized for the purpose - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 of laying the water canal. He also submits that an award is already passed, though in the names of dead persons. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the preliminary notification was issued on 11.03.2010 while the properties were divided amongst the petitioners somewhere during the year 2010-11. She contends that the revenue records furnished by the petitioners established the above fact. She, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot be held liable for not notifying the names of the petitioners as the name of Sri Guruva Bovi was found in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.75/3 measuring 01 acre 26 guntas and land bearing Sy. No.75/4 measuring 16 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab of Lakkavalli village in the revenue records pursuant to M.R. No.3/1989-90. She thus contends that the first ground of attack against the impugned notifications is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected. As regards the award passed in the names of dead persons, she contends that notice of the proceedings of the award was taken out and if the petitioners were aggrieved, they ought to have taken steps immediately and if they had done so, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Tarikere Taluk would have passed an award in the names of the appropriate persons. She contends that since the land in question is already used for the Upper Bhadra Project Package-2, the writ petition has now become academic and it has spent in itself. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 reiterated the above contentions. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. 7. The only ground urged by the petitioners in this writ petition is that though their names were entered in the revenue records, they were not notified in the gazette notifications acquiring the lands for the proposed project. However, the petitioners have not mentioned as to when they had partitioned the properties in question and when the properties were transferred from the name of their father, Sri Guruva bovi, to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 their names. All that the petitioners have done is that they have enclosed the revenue records of Sy. Nos.75/1, 75/2, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7 and 75/8. They have not even placed on record the mutation proceedings which brought about a bifurcation of the land in Sy. No.75 into Sy. Nos.75/1, 75/2, 75/3, 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7 and 75/8. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not be expected to conduct a roving enquiry to find out as to who was the owner of the property when the revenue records clearly indicated that Sri Guruva Bovi was the owner of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification. Under these circumstances, the contentions urged by the petitioners do not merit consideration. Even otherwise, since the final notification was issued in the year 2011 and the land is now being used up for the purpose of Upper Bhadra Project Package-2, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. 8. It is open for the petitioners to claim the compensation determined by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law. If the petitioners are entitled to in law, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26171 WP No. 54108 of 2014 they may also seek for a reference to the jurisdictional Court for enhanced compensation. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66