Commissioner vs Smt. Byramma - Land Acquisition Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 10, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner vs Smt. Byramma on 17 March, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                    PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                      AND

   THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

    WRIT APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER
   KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD (KHB)
   KAVERI BHAVAN
   BENGALURU-560 009

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
   KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
   KAVERI BHAVAN
   BENGALURU-560 009
   ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT. BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE KARAGAPPA

2 . SMT. RUDHRAMBIKA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. KARAGAPPA

3 . SMT. GOWRI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. KARAGAPPA
2

4 . SRI. RUDRESH K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
SON OF LATE SRI. KARAGAPPA

  RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 4 ARE
  R/AT. KAKARAMANAHALLI
  BIDADI HOBLI
  RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109

5 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R5)

   THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a). CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO W.P. No. 3866/2021 (LA-KHB) (b). SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.11.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.3866/2021 (LA-KHB) AND
ETC.

   THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
3

                      CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

   This writ appeal is preferred against the Order dated

02.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.3866/2021 (LA-KHB).

1. We have heard Shri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned

counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. K.S. Uday,

learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and

Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondent No.5.

1. After considering the contentions of the parties

and relying on the judgments of this Court on the point, the

learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay

compensation in respect of 28 guntas of 'A' kharab land in

Sy.No.5, situated at Kakaramanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli,

Ramanagara Taluk.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submits that the land owner had accepted the compensation

under a consent award in respect of the acquired land,

without claiming any compensation for the kharab land. It 4 is further contended that there is a clear indication that

there was no grant of the kharab land in favour of the

respondents. Relying on the Government Circulars of 2018

and 2025, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants

seeks to contend that both 'A' and 'B' kharab lands are

government lands and that no compensation is payable in

respect of government lands to persons claiming to be in

occupation of such lands.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

placed reliance on the following decisions:-

• State of Karnataka and Another v Sangappa
Dyavappa Biradar and Others, reported in
(2005) 4 SCC 264;
• The Special Land Acquisition Officer and
Another v. Lakshmanbabu Gayakwad and
Others, reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4563;

      • [The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper
          Krishna Project Bagalkot v. Sharanabasappa
          and Another](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1807692/), reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1003;
          and

      •   A.K. Eramma w/o [A.K. Siddappa and Others
          v. The State of Karnataka and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/390691/), by 5 Order dated 02.09.2013 passed in Writ Appeal
       Nos.31085-86/2013 (LA-RES);

1. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, on the other hand, contends that the

respondents are admittedly the registered occupants in

respect of the kharab lands as well. It is contended that the

acquisition notified was in respect of 8 acres and 24 guntas

of land, out of which, 28 guntas were admittedly 'A' kharab

lands. It is submitted that all the RTCs would clearly show

that the respondents were in possession of 'A' kharab lands

as part of their larger holding.

1. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court

in the case The State of Karnataka, represented by the

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Another

v. Istak Ahmad Mohammadsaheb reported in ILR 2016

KAR 98 has clearly held that 'A' kharab lands which are part

of the larger holding of an Anubhavadar, would also be in his

possession and enjoyment and therefore, compensation on

acquisition is liable to be granted in respect of 'A' kharab 6 lands in the possession of the holder of a larger extent of

land.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

• State of Karnataka and Others v. V.
Varadaraja, by Order dated 29.07.2013 passed
in Writ Appeal No.1969 of 2010 (KLR-CON);

         •   The State of Karnataka, rep. by Principal
             Secretary, Revenue Department & Another v.
             Istak Ahmad Mohammadsaheb, reported in
             ILR 2016 KAR 98; and

         • [Kukreja Construction Company and Others v.
             State of Maharashtra and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47362314/), by Order
             dated   13.09.2024   passed    in   Civil   Appeal
             No.9702 of 2024.

1. We have considered the contentions advanced.

The specific contentions raised in this appeal have been

considered by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted

fact that the respondents were shown as the owner in

possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 8 acres

and 24 guntas in Sy.No.5, Kakaramanahalli Village, Bidadi

Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. The revenue records produced 7 would show that the name of Shri. Karagappa, the

predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents was

shown as 'khatedar' in respect of the entire extent of

property. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by

issuance of a Preliminary Notification on 21.06.2008. The

consent award was made in respect of only 7 acres, 16

guntas of land, ignoring both 'A' kharab and 'B' kharab lands

in possession of the writ petitioners.

1. The learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions

of this Court in the cases of Sadappa, s/o Yallappa

Hadapad and Another v. The General Manager and

Another, by Order dated 22.01.2020 passed in

W.P.No.201108/2018 (LA-RES) and Rajisa s/o Nabisa

Doddamani and Others v. The General Manager and

Another, by Order dated 01.02.2019 passed in

W.P.No.201101-105/2018 (LA-RES), directed the grant

of compensation at the same rates in respect of 28 guntas of

'A' kharab land in possession of the writ petitioners. This

Court in Sadashivaiah and Others v. State of Karnataka 8 and Others, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 5088 has clearly

held as follows:

"31. The words Phut Kharab, therefore, mean and
have reference to a land which is included in an
assessed survey number but which is unfit for
cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the word phut
Kharab has been defined under Rule 21 (2) as
under:- "during the process of classification, land
included as un-arable shall be treated as "Pot
Kharab". Pot Kharab land may be classified as
follows. (a) That which is classified as unfit for
agriculture at the time of survey including the farm
buildings or threshing flours of the holder; (b) That
which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or
assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a
road or recognized footpath or by a tank or stream
used by persons other than the holders for
irrigation, drinking or domestic purpose; (iii) used
as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned
for villager potteries.

1. Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. However, when the petitioners claim that the said land falls within 21(2)(a) and therefore they are entitled to the compensation LAO proceeds on the assumption that 9 it falls within Section 22(1)(b) and therefore they are not entitled to compensation as it belongs to the government and accordingly he has declined to pass any award. It is not in dispute that before arriving at such a conclusion the LAO has not given an opportunity to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act to substantiate their contention. Without any such enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners he proceeds on the assumption that the said Kharab land falls within 22(1)(b) and therefore petitioners have no claim, as such he has declined to pass the award. On that ground also, the impugned orders passed by the LAO cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."
2. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

notice that the contentions raised by the appellants have

been considered by the learned Single Judge. It was found

that the respondents were admittedly in possession of the

entire extent of the land including the kharab lands. Relying

on the decisions of this Court, the learned Single Judge

directed grant of compensation in respect of 'A' kharab

lands.

1. We are of the opinion that the circulars relied

upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 10 being much later in point of time, cannot have any

application in the instant case. We find no grounds to

interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge, which

is supported by the earlier judgments in this intra Court

appeal. The appeal is therefore fails and same is

accordingly, dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE

                                  Sd/-

(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE

PN