- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100318 OF 2021 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, BELAGAVI. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA) AND: 1. YALLUBAI RAMCHANDRA POWER, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 2. SHIVAJI S/O IRAPPA POWER, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE 3. NAGESH S/O RAMCHANDRA POWER, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. MARUTI S/O RAMCHANDRA POWER, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021 4A. MANISHA W/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 4B. NIKITA D/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 4C. ROHIT S/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4D. REKHA D/O MARUTHI PAWAR, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, ALL ARE R/O. KALMESHWAR GALLI, KANGRAL B.K., TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SHANKAR IRAPPA POWER, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. KALMESHWAR GALLI, KANGRAL B.K., TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4(A TO D); SRI VADIRAJ PADAKANDLA AND SMT. POOJA, ADVOCATES FOR R1, R3 AND R5; R4-DECEASED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED IN W.P. NO.103654/2017 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.103654/2017 (LA-UDA), the present writ appeal is filed by the State. The lands of the respondents herein have been taken possession by the State under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). On the ground that a possession was not taken by the competent officer as contemplated under the Act and that no third party rights have been so far created, the respondents herein preferred Writ Petition No.103654/2017. Accepting the contention of the respondents herein, the writ petition was allowed and the following order was passed: “ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. Taking of possession under Section 10(6) of the Act as per Annexure-B is quashed. c. Writ of mandamus is issued to the 3rd respondent to delete the name of Government in the revenue records - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021 pertaining to petition lands and accordingly restore the names of lawful owners. d. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. The learned Principal Government Advocate though contends that the impugned order is erroneous, he is unable to dispute the fact that the possession of the land of the respondents herein was not taken by a competent officer and the respondents have not been dispossessed in the manner known to law. It is also not in dispute that no third-party rights have been created so far and that the land continues to stand in the name of the Government. As taking possession of the land has not been done as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, the same has to be considered as illegal. Further, no third-party rights have been created in respect of the land's concern, and the allegation of delay on the part of respondents herein in approaching this Court to challenge the action of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:993-DB WA No. 100318 of 2021 Government is not of much consequence. Further, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 itself is repealed presently. 3. Under the circumstances, we are in concurrence with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE CKK, VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10