Karnataka High Court
Vannamala W/O Bhanavanth Chougle vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095
WP No. 108094 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108094 OF 2023 (ULC-)
BETWEEN:
1. VANNAMALA
W/O. BHANAVANTH CHOUGLE,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL HALAGA,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. BHAHUBALI
S/O. TAVANNAPPA CHIKKAPARAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL HALAGA,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. BHARAMAPPA
S/O. TAVANNAPPA CHIKKAPARAPPA
Digitally AGE: 40 YEARS,
signed by V OCC: AGRICULTURE,
N BADIGER
R/O: NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL HALAGA,
Location:
HIGH TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD 4. DHARANNEDRA
BENCH, S/O. TAVANNAPPA CHIKKAPARAPPA,
DHARWAD
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEAR KANNADA SCHOOL HALAGA,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095
WP No. 108094 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING
NO.ULC-D-SR/1211 DATED 26-12-1990 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO.RB.ULC.AP.85/90-91 DATED 02-12-1991 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16-03-2023 AND 17-04-2023
AND PASS APPROPRIATE AWARD VIDE ANNEXURES-E AND F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095
WP No. 108094 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 26.12.1990, passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-A, and consequently, to quash the order dated 02.12.1991, produced as per Annexure-B and to issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.03.2023 and 17.04.2023 produced as per Annexures - E and F.
2. Heard Sri.Manjunath A. Karigannavar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents. Perused the materials on record.
3. It is stated that, the father of the petitioners was the owner of the land in question. He filed Form No.1 under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('ULC Act', for short). The Deputy -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095 WP No. 108094 of 2023 Commissioner passed an order holding that the father of the petitioners had excess land measuring 2046.80 Square Meters and directed to take possession of the same. The father of the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Belagavi, challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, without considering the contentions taken by the appellant, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, on 15.03.1995, the Revenue Inspector is said to have visited the land along with other Revenue Officers, conducted panchanama and took over possession of the property. In fact, the Revenue Inspector had not visited the spot, nor taken possession of the land. He was also not authorized to take possession of the property. Learned counsel contended that, as per Section 10 of the ULC Act, the competent authority to take possession of the land, was only the Assistant Commissioner and not the Revenue -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095 WP No. 108094 of 2023 Inspector. Under these circumstances, the procedure adopted by the respondents to take over the possession of the land was illegal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.01.2024 in the case of Krishnaji Balaji Salunke, since deceased by his LRs Vs.The State of Karnataka and Others1, in support of his contention that the Revenue Inspector was not the competent authority specified under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, to take possession of the excess land. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.
6. Learned AGA has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-C- Panchanama drawn in the presence of the panchas, by the Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector, Land Surveyor, who have visited the spot on 15/3/1995 as per the directions of the competent authority that is the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, dated 1 W.P.No.107862/2023 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095 WP No. 108094 of 2023 28.02.1995 and has taken possession of the property in question. Annexure-C makes it clear that the land was measured in the presence of Panchas, as per P.T. sheet and thereby the possession of the land was taken. Annexure-D is the possession receipt issued by Panchas for having handed over the possession to the Revenue Inspector, ULC-II Belagavi. In this document, the Panchas have specifically stated that the owner, or any of his representatives were not present at the spot when the possession of the property was handed over to the Revenue Inspector.
7. Learned AGA places reliance on the decision of this Court in The Secretary to Government, Department of Urban Development and others V/s. Ningawa, since deceased by her LRs. and others2 wherein the Division Bench of this Court, considering similar question of law held that the competent authority refer to under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act is the person 2 2021 SCC on line Kar 14864 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095 WP No. 108094 of 2023 authorised by the State Government and in the said case, it is the Special Deputy Commissioner of the district. The Court has also held that the interpretation of the Section to mean that the competent authority should physically go and take the possession of the land would defeat the very purpose of the Act, but the possession needs to be taken under the supervision of the competent authority. It is made clear that, even if, a Revenue Inspector takes over possession pursuant to the authorization given by the competent authority, it is valid and legal. The decision of the Division Bench applies to the facts of the present case. The Panchnama refers to the authorization given by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi to take possession as referred to under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the vacant possession of the land was never taken over by the competent authority, and the petitioners are still in possession of the same. In view of Annexure-C- Panchnama and Annexure-D - the possession certificate -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5095 WP No. 108094 of 2023 which have the presumptive value. I do not find any substance in the contention taken by the petitioners. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab - upto para 5 VB - para 6 to end CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1