- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 101980 OF 2015 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 101981 OF 2015 (LA-RES) IN WP No. 101980/2015: BETWEEN: SURENDRA S/O. VENKAPPA MACHAKNUR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL AND SRI. ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIPPARAGI BARRAGE PROJECT, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ATHANI, HIPPARAGI BARRAGE PROJECT, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.04 10:29:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM, RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILATION, HIPPARAGI DIVISION NO.2, HIPPARAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN AWARD AND PAY THE COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF PVC PIPES, UNDERGROUND PIPELINE AND ITS ACCESSORIES, I.P. SETS WHICH WAS DRAWN FOR GETTING WATER TO THE PETITIONERS LAND FROM KRISHNA RIVER BY CONSIDERING THEIR REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 20.10.2014 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 101981/2015: BETWEEN: HANAMANT S/O. VENKAPPA MACHAKNUR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL AND SRI. ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIPPARAGI BARRAGE PROJECT, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ATHANI, HIPPARAGI BARRAGE PROJECT, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM, RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILATION, HIPPARAGI DIVISION NO.2, HIPPARAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS AND TO PASS AN AWARD AND PAY THE COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF PVC PIPES, UNDERGROUND PIPELINE AND ITS ACCESSORIES, I.P. SETS WHICH WAS DRAWN FOR GETTING WATER TO THE PETITIONERS LAND FROM KRISHNA RIVER BY CONSIDERING THEIR REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 ORAL ORDER 1. Both these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings relating to lands at Satti Village, Athani Taluk, acquired for the Hipparagi Barrage rehabilitation project, involve identical facts, raise common questions of law, and seek similar reliefs claiming compensation for loss of underground PVC pipelines. 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The petitioners are agriculturists claiming ownership of agricultural lands situated at Satti Village. It is their case that, for the purpose of irrigation, they had drawn water from the Krishna River by laying underground PVC pipelines, installing IPC sets, motors, and other accessories by investing substantial amounts. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 2.2. The State initiated acquisition proceedings for a public purpose, namely, the establishment of rehabilitation centre for villages submerged under the Hipparagi Barrage Project. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and a final notification under Section 6(1) were issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’, for short), culminating in the passing of awards and payment of compensation to landowners. 2.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though compensation was paid to landowners whose lands were acquired, no separate compensation was paid to them for the alleged loss of underground PVC pipelines and accessories, which, according to them, were passing through the acquired lands. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 2.4. Representations were submitted seeking compensation, which not having been considered, the present petitions are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had laid underground PVC pipelines much prior to the acquisition after investing large sums of money. Due to the acquisition of lands through which the pipelines were passing, the pipelines were damaged and rendered unusable. Though the pipelines are independent properties belonging to the petitioners, no compensation was awarded for the same. Non-consideration of the representations seeking compensation is arbitrary and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the claims involve disputed questions of fact. The petitioners have failed to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 establish that the underground pipelines were laid prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification. It is contended that the TMC/JMC report and the acquisition records do not disclose the existence of any underground pipelines or PVC lines at the relevant point of time. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the acquisition proceedings covered all existing structures and assets on the acquired land. In the absence of proof, the petitioners are not entitled to any separate or additional compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is; “Whether the petitioners have established that underground PVC pipelines were laid prior to the acquisition notification so as to entitle them to separate compensation? 6. On careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the entire claim of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 petitioners hinges on the assertion that underground PVC pipelines were laid prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification. 7. However, on perusal of the TMC/JMC report, which forms the basis for determination of compensation during acquisition, it does not indicate the existence of any underground pipelines or PVC lines at the relevant time. The report does not record any such structures, nor is there any contemporaneous documentary material placed by the petitioners to substantiate that the pipelines were in existence prior to the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 8. In the absence of such proof, the claim made by the petitioners remains a bare assertion which cannot be adjudicated in writ petitions. The question as to when the pipelines were laid and whether they existed prior to acquisition is a pure question of fact - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1038 WP No. 101980 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101981 of 2015 requiring evidence and cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the statutory acquisition records themselves do not support the claim of the petitioners. No mandamus can be issued directing payment of compensation. The petitioners have failed to establish any legally enforceable right. 9. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40