Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs Shri. Manikchand Devappa Veergoudar on 17 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB
WA No. 100302 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100302 OF 2021 (ULC)
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD , BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. MANIKCHAND DEVAPPA VEERGOUDAR
AGE. 89 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED JUDICIAL OFFICER,
R/O. H.NO 88, KARABI GALLI, BELAGAVI, DIST.
BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. DEVENDRA BABU VEERGOUDAR
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO 88, KARABI GALLI, BELAGAVI, DIST.
BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. NEMU BABU VEERGOUDAR
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA AGE. 51 YEARS, R/O. H.NO 88, KARABI GALLI,
MALAGALADINNI
KANABARGI, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY IT SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALORE.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.
6. THE TAHASILDAR
BELAGAVI TALUKA, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R4 TO R6)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB
WA No. 100302 of 2021
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.09.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.108986/2017 AND DISMISS THE
SAID WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
1. The above intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by respondent No.4, Karnataka Housing Board1, calling in question the order dated 16.09.2021 passed in WP No.108986/2017 by the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts in a nutshell leading to filing of the present appeal are that, respondents No.1 to 3/writ petitioners are the joint owners of the properties bearing R.S. No.34/2 of Kanabaragi village, Belagavi Taluk, filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 25.6.1985 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner declaring the said land, 1 Hereinafter referred to as 'KHB' -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB WA No. 100302 of 2021 totally measuring 22530.75 sq. mtrs., as excess land under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 19762.
3. The contention put-forth by the petitioners was that the possession of the properties in question was not taken over by the competent authority, as contemplated under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and the ULC Act having been repealed, the proceedings have been stood abated. The learned Single Judge noticing the said fact situation, recorded a finding that the possession of the land in question, has not been taken in accordance with Section 10(6) of the ULC Act. Further, placing reliance on decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mangalore Urban Development Authority, Mangalore Vs. Leelavathi & Others3, has held that the State has failed to establish that the possession of the properties in question was taken in accordance with provision of Section 10(6) of the ULC Act.
4. Learned counsel Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty appearing for the appellant/KHB assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, contends that the possession having been 2 Hereinafter referred to as 'ULC Act' 3 (2009) 2 KLJ 284 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB WA No. 100302 of 2021 taken by the Revenue Inspector is not disputed and the legal representatives after long lapse of time have filed the present writ petition. It is further contended that the view of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and having regard to the fact that the proceedings under the ULC Act have been abated, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.
5. It is relevant to note that, the appellants do not dispute the fact that the Revenue Inspector has taken possession of the land in question. Section 10(6) of the ULC Act contemplates the Competent Authority to take possession of the vacant land. Section 2(d) of the ULC Act defines "competent authority" as any person or authority authorized by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellants have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the Revenue Inspector is the competent authority as contemplated under Section 2(d) of the ULC Act.
6. Further, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mangalore Urban Development Authority3 has -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB WA No. 100302 of 2021 already taken a view that the Grade-I Revenue Inspector is not the competent authority, to take possession of the land.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. The Tahsildar & Others Etc4, wherein the Apex Court has held that procedure contained under sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 10 of the ULC Act must be scrupulously followed and where the possession of the land is not taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government or by the competent authority, the proceedings under the ULC Act would not survive and mere vesting of the vacant land with the State Government by operation of law, without actual possession, is not sufficient.
8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Surendra Pratap & Others5, is wholly inapplicable to the present case, as in the said case, the 4 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 260 5 (2016) 12 SCC 497 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4824-DB WA No. 100302 of 2021 Apex Court has held that the subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the possession of the land in question.
9. In view of dictum of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation4 and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
10. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3