Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantavva Contractor vs The State Of Karantaka on 5 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6
WP No. 110460 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 110460 OF 2017 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA CONTRACTOR,
W/O. LATE SHIVAPPA @ AVVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHARADA S. CONTRACTOR,
W/O. BASAVARAJA,
D/O. LATE SHIVAPPA @ AVVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. SUBHASHCHANDRA
@ SUBAS S. CONTRACTOR,
S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA @ AVVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. SMT. REKHA S. CONTRACTOR,
D/O. LATE SHIVAPPA @ AVVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
5. SHIVABASAVA S. CONTRACTOR,
MANJANNA
E D/O. LATE SHIVAPPA @ AVVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT ALL ARE R/O: OPP. POLICE STATION,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.01.09 10:48:51
HAUNSBHAVI-581 109,
+0530
HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6
WP No. 110460 of 2017
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581 110.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581 110.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, HAVERI DISTRICT,
HAVERI-581 110.
5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HAVERI DIST.,
HAVERI-581 110.
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH, HAVERI DIST.,
HAVERI-581 110.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
HIREKERUR TALUK,
HIREKERUR, HAVERI DIST.,
HAVERI-581 110.
8. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER/SECRETARY,
HAUNSBHAVI VILLAGE,
HIREKERURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 AND R7;
SRI. A.A.PATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 AND R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 26.11.1974 VIDE ITS NO.RDO 2568 KLA 74
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B, ONLY IN RESPECT
OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.104A/1 TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 31
GUNTAS AND THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.104A/2 TO AN EXTENT OF
0-30 BOTH LANDS ARE SITUATED AT HAUNSBHAVI VILLAGE,
HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT AND DECLARE THE SAME AS
ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
ORDER WAS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6
WP No. 110460 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA) The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late Shivappa @ Avvappa, have approached this Court calling in question the notification dated 26.11.1974 issued by the respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Officer, whereby the lands bearing Sy. No.104A/1 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas and Sy. No.104A/2 measuring 30 guntas situated at Haunsbhavi Village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District, were required for the purpose of formation of Ashraya sites.
2. Brief facts of the case;
It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question are ancestral properties, in respect of which they and their predecessors have been in continuous peaceful and uninterrupted possession for more than seven decades, and that the old residential houses constructed by their ancestors continue to exist on the said lands. According to the petitioners, the lands were notified for acquisition on -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR 26.11.1974 for the specific purpose of allotment of house sites to houseless persons under the Ashraya scheme, despite the lapse of more than four decades from the date of acquisition, the purpose for which the lands were acquired has not been implemented. It is contended that no Ashraya layout has been formed. No lawful allotments of sites have been taken place in accordance with the scheme, and no award has been passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the official correspondence and records of the respondents, including letters dated 29.11.1984, 04.12.1986 and a sketch dated 10.09.1992 to contend that the possession of the petitioner to an extent of 1 acre 06 guntas is specifically acknowledged by the respondents. It is contended that no award has been passed and no lawful Ashraya layout has been formed, no sites have been allotted in accordance with the statutory scheme. Instead, the acquired land has been diverted for unauthorised purposes including construction of Government Urdu School -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR without any enabling order or authority under law. It is contended that the petitioners were sought to be forcibly dispossessed in the year 2017, by threatening the demolition of their ancestral houses without following due process of law.
4. Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contends that the lands were validly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['Act, 1894' for short] and that the possession has been taken under Section 16 of the said Act, 1894, as a consequence of which the land vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. It is submitted that once the possession is taken, the acquisition proceedings attain finality, the petitioner cannot seek for quashing of the notification on the ground that the land has not been utilized by the precise purpose mentioned in the acquisition notification. It is further contended that the Government School is presently functioning on the acquired land, which demonstrate utilisation of the land for a public purpose. The -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR respondents submit that the writ petition is not maintainable, suffers from delay and latches and the relief sought by the petitioner is contrary to the settled principles governing the land acquisition under the Act, 1894.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for consideration is;
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the acquisition proceedings initiated under the notification dated 26.11.1974 on the ground of alleged non-utilisation and continued possession ?
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and material on record.
7. The undisputed fact emerging from the record is that the lands in question were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 26.11.1974 for the purpose of allotment of house site under the Ashraya scheme. The acquisition was initiated under the Act, 1894. The grievance of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR petitioners primarily rests on the assertion that the acquired lands were not utilized for the specific purpose for which they were acquired and that the petitioners continue to remain in physical possession of substantial portions of the land.
8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that under the scheme of the Act, 1894, once possession of the land is taken under Section 16 of the Act, 1894, the land rests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. The Act, 1894, does not contemplate lapsing of acquisition proceedings on the ground that the land has not been utilized for the exact purpose stated in the notification. The Act does not contain provision for the automatic return of land to the original owner simply because it was not used for the specific purpose for which it was acquired. Once the possession is been taken, under Section 16 of the Act, 1894, the original owner loses all legal title.
9. The contention that the Ashraya scheme has not been implemented in the manner contemplated, or the land -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR has been put to use for another public purpose, including construction of a Government School, does not render the acquisition invalid. It is well settled that the change or deviation in the manner of utilisation of the acquired land does not ipso facto invalidate the acquisition, particularly after vesting.
10. The petitioners have placed reliance on the principle of lapse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ['Act, 2013' for short]. However, the lapse contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, arises only when possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. In the present case, the respondent asserts that the possession has been taken. Once the possession is taken, the remedy seeking declaration of lapse is not available.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others1 1 (2020) 8 SCC 129 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR (Indore Development Authority) have authoritatively held that once the possession is taken, the acquisition does not lapse and the land rests absolutely with the State. The appropriate remedy, if any grievance survives, lies in seeking compensation or other reliefs as are permissible under law but, not seeking quashing of the acquisition notification. New Act 2013, Section 101 does not apply to acquisition concluded under the old Act. An acquisition under the old Act only lapses if physical possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. The Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority at paragraph No.256 has held as under;
"256. This Court in V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer dealt with the concept of vesting under the 1894 Act. The facts of the said case indicated that the appellants and the officials of the State and Development Board connived with each other to enable the appellant to grab/encroach upon the public land, which was acquired and falsified the documents so as to construct flats thereon. Considering the gravamen of the fraud, the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR Chief Secretary of the State was directed to trace out such officials and to take suitable action against each of them. It was also held by this Court that alienation of land subsequent to notification under Section 4(1) is void and no title passes on the basis of such sale deed. This Court held that once land vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested. Once land has been acquired, it cannot be restored to tenure-holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is so acquired. Once possession of land has been taken, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Under Sections 16 and 17, the acquired property becomes the property of the Government without any limitation or condition either as to title or possession. Reliance has been placed on Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union: (AIR p. 353, para 19) "19. That the word "vest" is a word of variable import is shown by provisions of Indian statutes also. For example, Section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) empowers the court at the time of the making of the order of adjudication or thereafter to appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent and further provides that "such property shall thereupon vest in such receiver". The property vests in the receiver for the purpose of administering the estate of the insolvent for the payment of his debts after
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR realising his assets. The property of the insolvent vests in the receiver not for all purposes but only for the purpose of the Insolvency Act and the receiver has no interest of his own in the property. On the other hand, Sections 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), provide that the property so acquired, upon the happening of certain events, shall "vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances". In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17 the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration. It would thus appear that the word "vest"
has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or the authority in whom it vests. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation. The provisions of the Improvement Act, particularly Sections 45 to 49 and 54 and 54-A when they speak of a certain building or street or square or other land vesting in a municipality or other local body or in a trust, do not necessarily mean that ownership has passed to any of them.
(emphasis supplied)"
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6 WP No. 110460 of 2017 HC-KAR
12. Viewed from any angle, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to make out a legally sustainable ground for interference with the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1974. The relief sought is barred by settled principles of law governing the acquisition under the Act, 1894 and granting such relief would amount to Unsettling a concluded acquisition after an inordinate lapse of time.
13. Accordingly, this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of merits and does not warrant any interference.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/ Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1