IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATALKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD % > ' V
DATED THIS 'mm Zlst DAY OF AU(;1}_sfi* ~:;003fj~ %
PRESEM?
H()N'BLE ms JUSTICE " ' ' ~ V' '
HOPPBLE MR JUS1ICE«K§'N;§;Z1£§H2§VANA1{AY$NA
mun A1>P13¢»s.,"ig§;_o.1zaés:2i)~e7' zimsg
BETWj$EN: ' . $1 V
1.
~§::é
S/0 Fakecrappa. '
Aged ab"0ut'48 y§:am_ V '
" é
- ___ 'i%'~Ja_f_1;.L 'viiiage,
Badami 4'1" Bagalkot District.
V S/o iiuciiappa Talwar,
-- abeéut 40 years,
Occzgkgriculturist,
T * Rfat Kainkatti village,
A A *}_3axiami Taiuk, Bagalkot District.
. Bheernappa,
Sfo Maliappa Kuduregere,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ:Agriculturist,R,»'at Kainkatti viilage,
Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District.
4. Sm': Gangawwa,
W/o Churuchappa Walikar,
RfaiKainkaf£ivi1iage, i- V "
Badanii Taiuk, Bagalkot District. .. A,P}?ELLAjNT'S-- 1 ~ .9
(By Sri S.N.Iiatti, Adv) '
AND :
1. The Staie ofKarnataka, _
Repby its Principal Secretary, * ~.
Revenue Department, M. S.B1:1ii-£¥i1f-l'g«'S, ' " -» ., _
Ba,ngalore.560 001. '
2* The Deputy CQmn1issi'Q_n_ei',V._
Bagaikot DistfiI3i
3. The Ass£;C§mriiiss7ienei--s;iié_Laa§it._... V
4. i
Mi11er,]iri'igation, Sub-bfiiyiisibn,
Baga1l<0t_V v ' ' « 5
V. 5," "i7he Ex.eeuti§e"Engi:zreer,
" _ Irrigation Division,
A BijapL'tra_;'-. .,RESPONDENTS
" . 1 (Sr: Govt.Adv.)
2 .. 'i'£iis 'Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court
Actjgraying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition
"f~€.o.39242f2004 dated 0iz'()6f2907.
This Writ Appeal coming on for HEARING this day,
MANJULA CIIELLUR . J, deiivered the foliowing:
JUDGEMENT
Heard” the learned Coun:;e1§ on either _ ”
2. The brief facts that leii -to the >
Coust under Articles 226 & 227 ofitjfindia, are as
The appeliants of notification at
Annexure Acquisition Act,
denotif3″/ingi of the appellants. The
entire:’1episo’dAe.Vite}:setee L:baek».to”the 5’/ear 1958 at which time a bandara
(water sa_i'(ix’t0: foflfled for the benefit of Kainkatti
viitétge and otI.’1ei*..Ve:1v_I__zf;tfo¥:t111di11g villages in Badami Taluk, now in
»A The appellants are the owners of Sy.No.3
Sy.No.5f3 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas,
S§,;’f~§o.2’f,i3 nieasurieg 17 games and Sy.No.4/2–s»3+4+5A measurirzg 8
.. xguntas Vfespectively. It is also not in dispute that about 20 acres of
was used for the fonnation of bandara by the Government £n the
V’ “year 1958.
3. The whole problem seems to have cropped up when
4E1 notification made by the Government in December 2f}0<'-)T was
issued.
4. According to the learned Counse_l.Vfo;’r’ K
though the proposal pertains to M3″*lei2l_1;.t4″};f33″i’A’$,
under 4/1 came to be issued _ot1lylllnrthe
issuance of 6/1 notification?’ _aequ’isitifo;iV’ to be
withdrawn by dehhtirgéhhg lu43(1) has Act. This
came to be challenged ‘ ..
5. reasoz£”‘for’idenoti:l3ring the lands of the
=t.he- llbeiengéng to several other villagers
is et the of Bandara in the year 1958, the
aneestozsof and so also the erstwhile owners of
rbespectivel’ lamisvoluntarily consented for the formation of
t the (bandara) which was not only beneficial to the
it ‘ the land but also to the villagers surrounding the said
‘i7his was purely by way of donation is the contention of the
_
6. As a matter of fact, not even a scrap of’
recording this fact is placed before ns. Howe.ver,.iif£’ne of
bandara in the year 1958 itself isanot the of i’
the land. We do not find any correspondence ;
of the land and the up the State
Government betwee1f:…_zI’}5’8*i_Vto ancestors of
the appellants or of tinte claimed
apart, the revenue
to ascertain these facts
before and they learnt horn the villagers
who asjsernhledi all the land which was used for the
pp ._§:fo3rnation ofniater was donated by the respective landlord
” , – indtnep 1958. The only mistake the revenue authorities have
it’d.—.Vudo’neiKe.as’ mutating the entries in the record of rights. The
the predecessor-in-title pertaining to certain lands still
i ” * aeontinue in the name of the respective owners. In all probability,
V i i was the ray of hope for the appellants and the other several
owners of the land to approach the concerned authorities much
later seeking compensation somewhere in 1999.