SRI. RAMAKRISHNA ALVA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA ALVA S/O LATE SHEENAPPA ALVA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A POONNODY HOUSE JODUMARGA POST, MOODE VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, DK-574211. (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT- 575001.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALURU - 575001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT- 575001.

THE TAHSILDAR BANTWAL TALUK - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40987-DB W.A. No.965/2023 HC-KAR DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 145.

CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY BANTWALA TALUK DK DISTRICT - 574 265. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5 SRI. A.K. VASANTA, ADV., FOR R3 R6 IS SERVED) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 41 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT IN WP NO.21838/2022 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21838/2022.

2. Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, without - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40987-DB W.A. No.965/2023 HC-KAR considering the material on record has dismissed the writ petition by accepting the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the dispute is a contractual dispute. It is submitted that the land of the appellant was utilized and the appellant executed the sale deed. On the representation of the appellant submitted pursuant to the direction of this Court in an earlier round of litigation, compensation was enhanced which was received by the appellant. However, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 08.07.2019 is not as per the market value. It is submitted that the land of the appellant under the sale deed is to be treated as a converted land and the compensation amount is required to be enhanced appropriately. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the dispute is purely of contractual nature between the appellant and the State which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40987-DB W.A. No.965/2023 HC-KAR

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions on both sides.

5. The appellant executed a registered sale deed dated

07.03.2018 in respect of the subject matter of the property by receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.39,56,000/- to the entire extent referred in the schedule to the sale deed at Annexure-E. The sale deed indicates that the sale of the subject property is free from any encumbrance, lien, charge, attachment, etc. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation to the respondent-Authorities requesting to consider the grant of additional compensation treating the purchased land as a converted land. The said request of the appellant was considered by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.2019 and the sale consideration was enhanced to Rs.53,148/- per cent and was ordered to pay the difference amount of Rs.7,148/- per cent. The request of the appellant is already considered by the Authorities which has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40987-DB W.A. No.965/2023 HC-KAR recorded the earlier round of litigation W.P.No.22978/2021 and now again, challenging the same would not arise as the appellant voluntarily executed the registered sale deed in favour of the Authorities and received the entire sale consideration. We do not find any error in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this intra Court appeal.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19